Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. I have found no fault in the way the Council considered welfare points or step free recommendations.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She said the Council:
• Has not included welfare points in her housing allocation assessment after her key worker sent a category A welfare points request; and
• Is not honouring its decision to remove the stair recommendations from her housing application.
2. She says the Council are discriminating against, and victimising, her and her family. This has left them vulnerable.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated how the Council considered Ms X’s housing application.
4. I have not investigated whether the Council’s actions amounted to discrimination or victimisation because Ms X has a legal remedy for this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaints made by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Council’s housing allocations scheme.
• The Housing Act 1996 (Section 166A).
9. I wrote to Ms X and the Council with my draft decision. I considered comments from Ms X before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

10. The Equality Act enables someone to make a claim to the County Court if they believe a public sector body has breached its public sector equality duties. The County Court may award damages.
11. Councils must have a scheme for deciding how it will prioritise housing applications. The scheme should be designed to ensure reasonable preference is given to applicants who are, for example, homeless, living in unsatisfactory conditions, or need to move for medical or welfare reasons.
12. The Council awards points to a person’s housing application based on their current circumstances. The Council will let the person know how many points they have and why they have been awarded. Applicants awarded more than 120 points can bid for Council properties.
13. Points are awarded if a person has urgent welfare needs, such as a child at risk of being taken into care or if a person is experiencing domestic violence.
14. Points are also awarded for serious medical conditions that are made worse by a person’s housing situation. Medical conditions will be assessed by the Council’s housing medical officer.
15. The Council has three categories of points awarded for each need. Category A needs receive 150 points, category B needs receive 80 points, and category C needs receive 40 points.
16. The Council tries to ensure available properties go to those most in need of them. Applicants may be selected for properties based on their assessed need for that property type, not the applicant’s preference.
17. The applicant with the highest number of points from the area will win, subject to matching the size and characteristics of the property.

What happened

18. The Council wrote to Ms X on 4 January 2019 to say it had awarded her 80 points for medical issues. The letter states Ms X was living in a first floor flat, considered suitable due to mobility issues and her inability to manage stairs. The Council recognised Ms X’s request to remove the floor level recommendations from her application. Considering this request, the Council reduced Ms X’s medical points and agreed to remove the current step free, minimal steps, single level recommendation from her housing application. However, the Council said an occupational therapist (OT) will visit any further properties to assess suitability.
19. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman on 18 January 2019 because the Council had not awarded any welfare points in her most recent assessment, despite Ms X being a victim of domestic abuse.
20. The complaint was premature, and Ms X was referred back to the Council so it could investigate.
21. The Council wrote to Ms X on 15 April 2019. It awarded 150 welfare points due to domestic violence. The Council told Ms X she was eligible to bid for three-bedroom properties.
22. The Council contacted Ms X on 20 May 2019. It said the property she had bid for had 35 steps and this was not suitable based on Ms X’s medical assessment. The Council accepted it had removed the step free, minimal steps, single level recommendations from her application but it could not consider her for properties with more than one flight of stairs.
23. Ms X challenged this decision. The Council responded on 18 June 2019. It accepted it should have given Ms X more information about the number of recommended stairs in her case. It said its Housing Options Team always consider the needs of applicants and families and would not offer a property if there was a risk of harm. The Council referred to its letter dated 4 January 2019, telling Ms X an OT will assess the suitability of future properties. It said the Housing Options Team will seek advice on any properties with more than one flight of stairs before the Council offers the property. The Council asked Ms X to email the Housing Options Team if she placed a bid on a property with several stairs.
24. Ms X bid on a two-bedroom property, which she accepted on 1 July 2019. The Council told Ms X this was subject to the OT agreeing it was suitable. The OT considered the property unsuitable and the Council withdrew the offer.
25. Ms X emailed the Council on 11 July 2019. She had found a suitable property with 32 internal stairs, which Ms X said she could navigate, and she asked the Council to shortlist her.
26. The Council replied on 15 July 2019. It said it should not consider Ms X for properties with a high number of stairs. Ms X offered to provide a letter from her GP confirming she could manage two flights of stairs. She said the Council was not honouring its agreement to remove the step free, minimal steps, single level recommendation from her housing application. The Council agreed to consider a letter from Ms X’s GP.
27. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman again on 18 July 2019 because the Council was not honouring its decision to remove the step free, minimal steps, single level recommendation from her housing application.
28. The Council reviewed Ms X’s housing complaint on 29 July 2019. It agreed to shortlist Ms X for the property she had bid for, despite concerns from the OT, because her GP said she can manage 32 steps. The Council said it was acting in Ms X’s best interests to ensure she was housed in a suitable three-bedroom property. It said there was no discrimination because Ms X could access its services.

Response to my enquiries

29. The Council told me it did not award Ms X welfare points as part of the review dated 4 January 2019 because it referred the case to Ms X’s area housing officer. The area housing officer decided Ms X should move on welfare grounds. The Council then awarded Ms X 150 welfare points.
30. The Council said Ms X successfully secured new accommodation through the Council’s bidding system, which she moved into in August 2019.

Analysis

31. When Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2019 the Council was still considering her request for welfare points. The Council did not include welfare points in Ms X’s assessment dated 4 January 2019, but it has explained it referred the issue to a suitable officer to consider. The Council then determined Ms X should move and awarded her 150 welfare points. That was not fault.
32. Ms X brought her complaint back to the Ombudsman in July 2019. She felt the Council was not honouring its agreement to remove the step free, minimal steps, single level recommendation from her housing application. The Council told Ms X any property she applied for still had to be approved by an OT.
33. Ms X is unhappy the Council still said the properties she applied for had too many steps. The Council explained it was relying on Ms X’s medical file and did not want to place her at risk. This is in line with its policy which says applicant’s will be matched to properties based on their need, not their preference. The Council agreed to shortlist Ms X for a property with 32 steps after receiving further evidence from Ms X’s GP. The Council considered the applications Ms X made and took account of her medical file and the views of an OT. The Council involved Ms X in the process and considered further evidence she provided. There was no fault.
34. Ms X told me she was only awarded her current property after her local MP wrote the Council. The Council said it agreed to shortlist Ms X based on the evidence from her GP.
35. Ms X does not think the Council has suitable housing stock available and said it placed barriers in front of her. I consider the Council tried to work with Ms X. It removed the step free requirement from her application at her request, but explained property offers must be subject to approval by an OT. The Council asked Ms X to make contact to discuss future bids and agreed to consider evidence from Ms X’s GP. I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation. I have found no fault in the way the Council considered welfare points or step free recommendations relating to Ms X’s housing application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman