Wellingborough Borough Council (18 005 640)
- The complaint
- The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- How I considered this complaint
- What I found
- Final decision
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Miss X complains the Council withdrew a housing offer without giving her a reasonable amount of time to provide further medical evidence. The Council is at fault for requesting medical evidence after Miss X matched with a property and for only allowing her 24 hours to provide it. Miss X has now accepted a property. The remaining injustice can be remedied by a payment and apology from the Council.
The complaint
- Miss X complains the Council withdrew a housing offer without giving a reasonable amount of time for her to provide further medical information.
- Miss X says this meant the property was offered to someone else and she has remained in unsuitable accommodation for much longer than she should have.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
- If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- As part of the investigation, I have:
- considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
- made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
- discussed the issues with the complainant;
- sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments before making my final decision.
What I found
- Miss X has a permanent disability that affects her mobility. She wanted to move into a ground floor property and so applied to join the Council’s housing list.
- Miss X provided some medical evidence as part of her application. The information provided indicates she was placed in Band B. The Council’s housing allocation policy states Band B medical priority is given to applicants:
“with a permanent medical condition which is seriously adversely affected by their current accommodation but the applicant is not housebound and their life is not at risk but the housing conditions directly contribute to causing serious ill health”.
- Miss X says she was allowed to place bids on bungalows and level access flats.
- The Council advertised a one bedroom bungalow with a shower over the bath on 31 May 2018. Miss X placed a bid and was matched with the property when bidding closed on 6 May.
- The housing officer rejected the match. The officer is currently on long term sick leave and so the Council cannot provide a full explanation of its actions. The Council says the officer rejected the match because she did not believe there was enough medical evidence to support a Band B listing or ground floor need.
- Miss X says that she had not heard anything from the Council about her matching with the property and so contacted it on Thursday 7 June . She was told she needed to provide more medical evidence. Miss X was told she needed to provide the evidence the same day, the Council says she was given 24 hours.
- Miss X works in a school and she can make personal calls within the working day. She did contact her GP but was not able to get the extra medical evidence until Monday. The Council had offered the property to the applicant who matched in position two on Friday 8 June.
- Miss X complained about the Council’s actions. She felt it was wrong to request additional medical evidence and not to give her a reasonable timescale to provide this. The Council responded saying it was now satisfied she had a medical requirement for a ground floor property. It said it wanted to remedy her complaint by making a direct offer of the next available one bedroom ground floor property.
- Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in February 2019 and no offer had been made. In response to my enquiries the Council said it made an offer to Miss X on 16 April in the same area as the previous property. The property requires extensive repairs but Miss X has accepted it knowing she will have to wait to move in. The Council also accepted Miss X had suffered an injustice as a result of its actions and so offered a payment of £500.
Analysis
- Miss X correctly applied for housing based on her medical needs. The Council’s allocation policy requires applicants to submit information in support of their application and says it can seek independent medical advice for further information to assess what band to place the applicant in.
- There is nothing to suggest the Council sought independent medical advice before placing Miss X in Band B. I can therefore only assume it was satisfied of Miss X’s need when verifying her application and allowing her to place bids. The policy requires enquiries to be conducted before the application is verified and applicants are allowed to place bids.
- The Council is unable to provide an explanation of why the housing officer questioned Miss X’s eligibility after she matched with a property. While the Council must have the discretion to query the validity of an application, there is nothing to suggest any misrepresentation or lack of co-operation by Miss X. The housing officer questioning the validity of Miss X’s application without recording her reasons for doing this is fault. The Council then gave Miss X an unrealistic timescale to provide medical evidence which is also fault. It is clear this information could have and should have been sought before the Council allowed Miss X to place bids. Miss X managed to provide the information requested within two working days but still lost the property. Asking Miss X to provide information within 24 hours is fault.
- As a result of the Council’s fault, Miss X has lived in her current property longer than she should have. She was offered a property on 16 April, ten months after she matched with the first property. I am pleased to note the Council accepts its fault and has offered a remedy. However, taking account of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies which recommends a payment of £150 to £350 per month for living in unsuitable accommodation, I consider a higher payment to remedy Miss X’s injustice is required.
- Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
- Apologise to Miss X;
- Pay her £2000 to recognise the injustice she suffered as a result of being in unsuitable accommodation for ten months longer than she have; and
- Ensure its procedures for seeking medical evidence are fit for purpose and being properly applied by housing officers.
Final decision
- I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the action I have recommended. These appropriately remedy the injustice caused by fault.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman