Council to pay £11k to terminally ill woman over handling of housing application

An investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found that the London Borough of Bromley left a disabled and terminally ill woman in an unsuitable property for 20 months.

The Ombudsman has recommended that the council pay £11,000 and a further £500 per month until she is rehoused, to remedy the injustice caused.

The LCSCO's report said that the woman, Miss X, has lived in her two-bedroomed housing association property for several years. The property is a flat on an upper floor that is accessed by flights of stairs. It is not wheelchair accessible.

Miss X was diagnosed with a terminal illness in the summer of 2021. She requires chemotherapy and dialysis to treat her medical conditions and prolong her life.

The Ombudsman said: “Miss X’s medical condition meant that she needed to be always lying or sitting in a tilted back position. She could walk only a few steps with assistance from another person.”

Following a number of unsuitable property offers and unsuccessful bids, Miss X complained to the council in April 2022. She said it should have treated her case “outside the bidding process” because she became suddenly disabled and was terminally ill. She said it had not offered her a property she was top priority for due to a council mistake.

The council responded to Miss X’s complaint at the end of April 2022. It said:

• human error resulted in it bypassing her bid on a property;
• it only considered extreme cases outside of the allocations scheme and followed the correct procedure in this case in following the allocation scheme;
• it would now deal with her case outside of the allocation scheme;
• if she remained dissatisfied Miss X could complain to the Ombudsman, but it asked her to contact the Council first; and
• it would directly offer property I within the week and would arrange and pay for her to move.

Bromley wrote to Miss X at the end of June 2022 and told her it had allocated her property I and had “ended its homelessness duty to her”.

The Ombudsman said: “Miss X contacted the Council and asked why she was being treated under the homelessness duty. She said property I was too small and would not take the specialist equipment and medical equipment she needed, and did not have a bath.”

The council offered Miss X another property, however the offer was withdrawn after Miss X noted it was too far away from the hospital, where she had dialysis three times a week.

The Ombudsman investigated and concluded there was fault in how the council considered Miss X’s housing needs and handled her application.

The report found that Miss X had to stay in a property the council decided was not reasonable for her to occupy for 20 months longer than necessary because:

• the council did not consider if it should offer Miss X temporary or interim accommodation;
• due to the council failing to properly consider her medical needs Miss X missed out on properties B, C, D and E; and
• due to a council error Miss X missed out on properties F, G or H.

The Ombudsman concluded that the council’s faults caused Miss X “significant distress, harm, risk of harm and affected her quality of life.”

The investigation also found fault with Bromley's complaint handling. The report notes: “Miss X complained in April 2022. The Council responded and identified its fault and suggested a direct offer within the week to remedy that fault.

“The Council did not make the direct offer for two months and failed to keep Miss X updated on the matter. That was fault.”

The Ombudsman has recommended Bromley:

• apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused to her by the faults identified;
• pay a ‘symbolic amount’ of £11,000 and a further £500 per month until she is rehoused, and;
• complete a full OT assessment to understand Miss X’s housing needs, including whether a bath or wet room is appropriate and what specialist equipment would be required.

The Ombudsman further recommended the council offer Miss X the “next suitable available property, having given proper consideration for adaptations where appropriate”.

The London Borough of Bromley has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson