Summary: Mrs B complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for additional priority for housing. The Ombudsman finds that while the Council followed statutory guidance and its own policy in dealing with Mrs B’s applications, there was some delay, which was fault. The Council acknowledged this before Mrs B complained to the Ombudsman and offered an appropriate remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs B, complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for additional priority for housing on social and medical grounds, and about delays in that process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information submitted by Mrs B about her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of the information it provided in response. I provided Mrs B and the Council with a draft of this decision and considered all comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mrs B has a young son with autism, with significant cognitive delay and sensory processing difficulties. He has an Education Health and Care plan and received one to one support at school. Mrs B herself suffers from anxiety. The family lives in a privately rented home, next to a railway line. Mrs B has concerns about the current property due to the proximity to the railway line. Due to her son’s sensory difficulties he finds the noise of the trains disturbing, and the closeness of the line also presents a physical risk for him. Mrs B is also worried about security of tenure. The landlord of the property allows for contracts of only one year at a time, and his own accommodation is tied to his job which concerns Mrs B because she fears he could ask for his property back at short notice. Mrs B reports that all these circumstances exacerbate her anxiety.

The Council’s housing allocations system

7. The Council has a points-based allocations system. Medical needs and welfare or social needs can attract additional points.
8. In respect of medical points, the policy says:
   “Points in this category not awarded simply because an applicant has a medical condition. The assessment will consider:
   • The degree to which the health condition of the applicant, or a member of their household, affects their ability to cope with normal daily living activities in relation to his/her housing circumstances
   • The degree to which a change in housing circumstances would enable the applicant, or a member of their household living with mental distress, to maximise their recovery potential and achieve enhanced social inclusion.
9. The Council’s policy sets out that medical needs points will be assessed by a housing advisor or housing options officer and countersigned and awarded by the housing register supervisor or another housing manager. An application for medical points may be submitted for each member of a household who has a health condition that would be alleviated by a move to alternative accommodation.
10. In respect of welfare or social points, the policy says:
    “The Council is required to give reasonable preference, and in some cases would wish to give additional preference, to people who need to move on welfare grounds, for example, to allow someone to give or receive care or support, to address child or adult protection concerns, to move-on from supported housing where support is no longer required, or to address urgent multiple issues that can only be resolved by a move. Applicants who consider that they may fall into the category of welfare and social needs should discuss this with their housing options officer or other professional with whom they are working. A separate welfare and social needs form must be completed by the housing options officer or other appropriate professional…and should have evidence attached where appropriate”.
11. The Council’s policy sets out that where medical needs points may be appropriate, welfare and social needs will only be considered after the medical needs assessment has been completed. Welfare and social needs applications are assessed by a panel of two housing managers, and points are awarded on a scale from 0 points to 50 points. Internal guidance to officers takes the form of a matrix which sets out levels of need against several categories which may merit the award of points.
12. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation sets no timescale for the assessment of applications, but states that where a review of a decision is requested it should be completed wherever practicable within a set deadline, with eight weeks being a reasonable timescale. The Council’s own policy follows this guidance, with no timescale set for initial assessment and an eight-week timescale for reviews.

Mrs B’s housing application

13. Mrs B is on the housing register with a registration date of 18 April 2016. At the beginning of September 2017, Mrs B applied for medical needs points. Between September and November, she submitted supporting information from her son’s doctor and his nursery, and she provided evidence of the proximity of the rear garden of her home to the railway line. She also submitted information in respect of her own anxiety from her doctor and submitted an online change of circumstances form setting out all the family’s medical needs.
14. In early February 2018, the first officer considered the application and recommended no points be awarded. Notes from that consideration refer to the family’s circumstances and say that while it was noted Mrs B’s anxiety had worsened, she had now been referred to talking therapies. The family were in privately rented accommodation and no notice to quit had been served.
15. In mid-March 2018. the second officer considered the application. This officer also recommended no points should be awarded. Notes from that consideration reiterated what the first officer had said.
16. In mid-April 2018. the housing register supervisor agreed with the officers’ recommendations for a nil award of medical points.
17. On 20 April 2018, the Council’s officer completed a social needs assessment application form, recommending 10 points on the grounds that “conditions in current accommodation exacerbate risk”. It noted that the property was close to the railway line and the possible impacts of this on Mrs B’s son.
18. On 24 April 2018, the Council wrote to advise Mrs B that no medical points had been awarded. She had the right to request a review and did so the same day, following this in May and June with more information to support her request.
19. In June 2018 Mrs B’s application for social needs points was considered. Both officers dealing with her request considered an award of 10 points appropriate. This was based on the location of Mrs B’s home near the railway line, which was having an impact on her son. The Council wrote to advise Mrs B of its decision to award these points on 14 June 2018.
20. On 26 June 2018, the Council wrote to Mrs B with its decision on her request for a review of the nil award of medical points. The reviewing officer did not consider points should be awarded for Mrs B’s anxiety but felt that the train track causing sensory distress to her son was such that a move to alternative accommodation would have a positive impact on him. The Council therefore awarded 10 medical points.
21. In January 2019 the Council received correspondence submitted on Mrs B’s behalf by her MP. It treated this as a stage one complaint and responded to Mrs B on 15 February 2019. It there had been delay in dealing with her request for medical points. It apologised and offered her £250. It said that although she was out of time to challenge the decision given in June 2018 not to award her medical points, she could submit a fresh application if she wished. The Council said it was reviewing how time taken to assess applications might be reduced while keeping them thorough and fair. It said its policy did not detail a time frame for such assessment and that it would review the policy in light of the complaint.
22. On 13 March 2019, Mrs B made a fresh request for a medical needs assessment, with supporting evidence from her doctor. This was passed to an independent medical advisor, because at this point the Council was outsourcing this work in order to address the backlog of cases. The advisor recommended no medical points should be awarded for Mrs B while 10 points remained appropriate for her son. The Council notified Mrs B of its decision based on this recommendation, on 3 April 2019.
23. Mrs B requested a review of that decision on 10 April 2019 and the Council responded to it on 17 April. It said Mrs B had not included any additional medical evidence or other information or justification for feeling the medical assessment was incorrect or flawed.

Analysis

24. As set out in paragraph two above, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong if there has been no fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case, the Council’s decisions on Mrs B’s applications for housing priority points on health and welfare grounds were made in accordance with the statutory guidance and its own allocations policy, except for a one-week delay in the processing of the review requested in April 2018.
25. The Council conducted its own investigation of Mrs B’s complaint before she came to the Ombudsman. It refers to having completed a full, honest and open investigation. It recognised that while its policy does not set a timescale for determination of applications for medical and welfare points, it took too long to decide on the application Mrs B made in September 2017 as it did not do so until April 2018.
26. Having considered the Council’s actions in this matter I find no further fault.
27. In terms of service improvements, the Council engaged eternal medical advisors for a period to clear the backlog of work, and in responding to Mrs B’s complaint it said it would review its policy to decide if it should be amended in light of that complaint.
28. In terms of personal remedy for Mrs B, the Council offered her £250. Mrs B declined this offer when the Council proposed it, exercising her right to have her complaint considered by the Ombudsman. I am satisfied that the delay in processing Mrs B’s application did not disadvantage her in terms of her bids for property but did cause her some frustration and time and trouble pursuing the matter. As the sum of £250 the Council offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedy in such circumstances I made no further recommendation.

Back to top

Final decision

29. The Council has agreed to now provide the remedy it offered, as set out above. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman