Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202326191)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326191

Royal Borough of Greenwich

15 August 2024


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for rehousing and adaptations.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

 

  1. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events 

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house with his wife. Their secure tenancy started in January 2016. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. In September 2022, the resident informed the landlord that his wife had a stroke and was in hospital. A medical assessment of the home was required.
  3. Within the landlord’s final complaint response dated 21 December 2023, it said:
    1. The residents had been on the occupational therapy list for direct offers of accessible housing since 13 September 2022.
    2. The length of time the residents had been waiting was because of the lack of availability of the type of property required, and the additional preferences they had.
    3. It identified delays in the Disability and Home Improvement Team (DHIT) responding to the resident regarding adaptations and apologised for this.
    4. It had difficulty surveying the resident’s property due to the level of furniture and belongings, and more recently to understand the structural implication of some of the proposed adaptations.
    5. At the time of the final complaint response, the residents did not want to go ahead with adaptation works.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  2. While the residents were on the list for a direct offer from occupational therapy, this process forms part of the housing allocations scheme of the local authority.
  3. The local authority explained that occupational therapists and surveyors consider all wheelchair accessible empty properties, and properties that can be adapted to be accessible. These are then allocated, in priority order, by direct offer to the applicants who have an identified need for them. By doing this, the local authority ensures that the limited supply of accessible housing is prioritised to those who need it.
  4. Complaints about housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6, including applications for housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, are a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
  5. Furthermore, the LGSCO also deal with complaints about Adult Social Care services, including its occupational therapy provision and how it handles requests for housing adaptations to meet the needs of people with disabilities.
  6. Accordingly, the Housing Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for rehousing and adaptations because, under paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, these are matters for the LGSCO.