Date of decision: 02 Jun 2025
Summary
Ms X, a disabled direct secure tenant of Lambeth Council, complained that the Council replaced her adapted shower with one that lacked vital variable pressure controls, despite her medical needs; failed to attend repair appointments, wrongly accusing her of refusing access; and mishandled her formal complaint with extensive delays. The (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman Service conducted parallel investigations and upheld her complaint. Both found fault in decision-making, communication, record-keeping and complaint handling.
What happened
In October 2023, Ms X reported her existing variable pressure shower was broken. The Council replaced it with a new model, saying that the original sort was no longer available, lacking variable pressure control. She immediately explained this did not meet her disability needs. She also showed the old and suitable model was still commercially available online. The Council failed to check medical or OT evidence before installing the new unit.
In November 2023, Ms X complained formally. She reported leaks with the new unit which were met with missed repair call-backs, and a cancelled appointment and conflicting information about her alleged refusal of access.
In January 2024, the Council surveyor inspected and claimed that no replacement was needed, misrepresenting Ms X as having declined repairs.
In February 2024, the Council spoke to Ms X’s OT. The OT confirmed Ms X had previously declined a wet room adaptation but could not advise on variable pressure needs, since that was outside the assessment scope. Despite this, the Council misrepresented the OT’s position in complaint responses, telling Ms X it was “against OT advice” to fit a variable pressure shower.
Ms X then provided a medical letter confirming she would “greatly benefit” from a variable pressure shower. The Council failed to consider this evidence. The Council delayed addressing her formal complaint, with stage one, issued on 29 February 2024, taking 70 working days, and stage two, issued on 12 April 2024, exceeding published timeframes, being 28 working days late.
What was found
The Ombudsman found the Council failed in its duty to consider and evidence the tenant’s disability requirements when installing the new shower, disregarded medical evidence supporting her needs, and misrepresented professional advice in its complaint responses which caused avoidable distress.
On the balance of evidence, Ms X required a variable pressure shower and had been deprived of this equipment for months.
Repairs were not carried out as promised; the Council records wrongly alleged Ms X had refused access outright, despite her evidence she had merely been unavailable on the proposed date, ignoring her willingness to facilitate repairs at an alternative time.
This stance remained uncorrected in complaints responses, escalating her distress and undermining trust.
The Council’s record keeping and communication were deficient, leading to distress and preventable hardship, breaching statutory duties to meet needs and handle complaints promptly. The Housing Ombudsman found maladministration, too. The Council failed to explain its position on the missed calls and appointment or provide reasonable evidence to support its assertion that Ms X refused access. This pointed to both record keeping failings and complaint handling failings, which resulted in distress and inconvenience for Ms X.
The Council was ordered to apologise to Ms X, install a suitable shower meeting her disability needs, pay £200 for distress caused by lack of suitable equipment, plus £300 compensation for missed appointments, access allegations, and complaint delays.
The Ombudsman also ordered guidance for staff on when and how to check tenants’ social care and equipment needs when responding to repairs, to be implemented within three months.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
The report seems to be about steps taken (or not) by Lambeth as landlord, hence the involvement of the Housing Ombudsman service. This report does not mention the Care Act or duties owed by adult social care staff. The LGSCO does not identify how it was a matter within its jurisdiction, but it seems to be simply because of what used to be called ‘turpitude’.
The HOS considers circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner or failed to comply with its obligations. If anything is offered by any landlord, by way of repair or replacement of the services to the property, then it is bound by the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments and actually address the disability involved.
They are required to take account of medical and professional evidence, ensuring that need is appropriately assessed and equipped solutions are provided which genuinely and defensibly meet those assessed needs.
If this matter had been progressed as an adult social care matter, then one could have said that public law principles explained the dismay of the overall LGSCO ad HSO investigation team, as it worked in parallel, at how Lambeth had behaved. Public bodies providing services under the Care Act 2014 must consider each individual’s specific needs and the impact of disability when making decisions about adaptations or equipment in the home.
Under complaints handling duties, both adult social care providers and housing departments should respond in line with published timeframes, keep complainants properly informed about the process and any delays, and actively investigate rather than reject concerns where conflicting evidence arises. When professional advice is inconclusive, any reasonable supporting medical evidence provided by tenants or service users must be weighed and factored into the authority’s decision making.
The Ombudsmen correctly identified maladministration and fault, but the reasoning could have gone further as to why the LGSCO was involved at all.
For a local authority landlord, complaints may straddle both social housing policy (dealt with by the Housing Ombudsman) and general council conduct (seemingly, here, dealt with by the LGSCO). In this particular scenario:
- The Housing Ombudsman found maladministration specifically in the landlord’s (housing department’s) handling of the complaints process relating to repairs and adaptations.
- The LGSCO found fault in the way the wider council responded to the person’s needs and correspondence—including issues like record-keeping, misrepresentation of professional advice, and delays which did not fall squarely within the landlord’s purely housing management responsibility.
This overlap between the two Ombudsman’s services is managed through the Memorandum of Understanding between the two Ombudsman schemes, which recognises that for some complaints—like this one—both schemes need to reach findings because the complaint concerns how the council acts in different capacities (as housing provider and as public body more broadly).
In summary, both ombudsmen had authority over distinct but related aspects of complaints handling, due to the interconnectedness of the Council’s duties in managing housing and treating residents fairly as a public body. This joint approach ensures no aspect of injustice or maladministration is overlooked.
No specific mention of it was made but housing authorities must respect the equalities duties as set out under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, actively eliminating discrimination and advancing equality of opportunity; failure to provide reasonable adjustments for a known disability can constitute unlawful discrimination and therefore blanket equipment replacement policies are unlawful when they disregard disability-related needs.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s London Borough of Lambeth (24 012 786) report.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service?
Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £50 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!