COLCHESTER Council paid an autistic man £500 after “failing to understand” the condition while it was allocating him and his family housing.

The man, referred to by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman as “Mr X”, complained he had been provided with housing by Colchester City Council which had damp and dust and was therefore unsuitable for his asthmatic wife and child.

According to an Ombudsman report, the council appropriately followed its policies, but was at fault for “inconsistencies” in how it classified autism, causing upset and distress to Mr X.

A spokesperson for Colchester Borough Homes, the council's arm's-length housing company, said: “We have accepted recommendations made by the Ombudsman, which increases our awareness and understanding of autism and neurodiversity.

“We are committed to continuing improvement of our communication with our customers and learning from any issues and complaints that are raised.”

According to the report, the council accepted a homelessness duty for Mr and Mrs X and his wife in 2018, but he made a new application to the housing register in 2020, saying his flat had damp and dust which aggravated his wife and child’s asthma.

He said there was not enough space in the flat, as he needed a separate room to work from home and a space to calm down when needed to help with his autism.

The council decided not to make a further award.

The report said the council had followed its procedures and told Mr X of its decision in and responded to his requests for a review.

As a result, it did not find fault with the council for this.

However, the council used medical matrices in order to process information Mr X had given it about his situation and come to a decision.

According to the report, one classified autism as a “learning or behavioural difficulty” and in another as a “recognised mental health problem.”

Finding fault, the Ombudsman said the council failed to understand autism and categorise it correctly.

The report also says in 2018 Mr X was only to be offered properties with a garden, but this requirement changed in October that year.

The Ombudsman said the council should have discussed the needs for a garden with Mr X at the time and made a record to explain how and why it made the decision.

Since the complaint, the council has agreed to reconsider Mr X’s medical application and support him to find alternative accommodation.

Keep up to date with all the latest news on our website, or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

For news updates straight to your inbox, sign up to our newsletter here. You can also sign up to our court and crime newsletter here.

Have you got a story for us? Contact our newsdesk on gazette.newsdesk@newsquest.com.