Sandwell Council criticised over medical grounds for housing transfer

Archived press release

Date Published: 18/08/09

Failure to properly consider the medical circumstances when a couple applied for a housing transfer.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council failed to properly consider the medical circumstances when a couple applied for a housing transfer, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Jerry White. In his report, issued today (18 August 2009) he says: “The consequent distress and anxiety [the complainants] have been caused by the Council's maladministration amounts to a significant injustice.”

‘Mrs Rouse’ (not her real name for legal reasons) complained for herself and her husband that the Council failed to take into account Mr Rouse's medical circumstances when deciding what priority to give to their application for a housing transfer. Mr Rouse suffers mental health problems, including, principally, depression.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Council’s system for allocating medical priority to housing applications did not involve seeking advice from suitably qualified professionals, and the implementation of its medical and review panels did not comply with the Council’s own procedures, casting serious doubt on the fairness and quality of decisions being made. The Council had begun to take steps to review and improve its procedures following a 2008 Audit Commission report, but by June 2009 these had not been finalised or implemented.

In the Rouses’ case, the Council held two review panels, but neither was properly constituted. The decisions could not be measured by any objective criteria in the Council’s policies and procedures, and are therefore unsound.

As a result, the Rouses cannot know with any certainty that the correct decisions have been made on the medical assessment, and they have suffered significant uncertainty about their housing priority and whether their situation might have been improved sooner than it was.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration, and is pleased that the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by:

• apologising to Mr and Mrs Rouse for its failings and pay them £500 in recognition of the distress caused by the uncertainty of their situation and of their time and trouble in pursuing their complaint;
• completing its review of procedures and implement them as quickly as possible; and
• ensuring its procedures make provision either for medical and review panels to include a suitably trained member of staff, or for referral to suitable medical experts in all cases where the medical issues are outside the training and qualifications of panel members, preferably in advance of the panel in order to avoid unnecessary delay.

The Ombudsman says it would be helpful if the Council would consider a fresh housing application from the Rouses if they wish to make one, with the benefit of up-to-date medical information in respect of both of them, and deal with it according to its revised procedures, giving them access to the choice-based lettings scheme it operates.

Report ref no 08 007 395