Summary: Miss X complained the Council has not properly considered her housing priority. There is no fault in how the Council made its decision concerning Miss X’s housing priority or in how it has dealt with her bids for properties.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has not properly considered her disabilities and circumstances in its housing priority assessment, allocation or bidding process. It is not properly giving her reasonable preference because of her need to move on medical and disability grounds. This means she has been unable to move and is living in a totally unsuitable flat.

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. 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

4. I spoke to Miss X’s representative, Ms Y and considered evidence she provided.
5. I considered evidence from the Council.
6. I gave the Council, Miss X and Ms Y the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

7. Every local housing authority must publish a housing allocation scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants and allocates housing. It must use the scheme to allocate.
8. The scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in various categories including people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
9. A council must write to applicants to tell them what housing priority it has given them. Applicants can ask the council to review the decision. Reviews should normally happen within eight weeks and be by an officer more senior than the decision maker, or by a panel.
10. This Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised by housing associations. Although we cannot investigate housing associations, responsibility for allocations remains with the Council even when housing associations carry out assessments.
11. This Council’s housing allocation scheme has three bands. Band 1 is “emergency priority”. It is given to applicants in the highest need, for example where their life is in serious danger or they will suffer from severe physical or mental illness. Band 2 is “high priority” which includes anyone with a “high medical priority” as recommended by the Council’s medical advisors. This covers people who “suffer from a serious physical or mental illness as a result of their present housing circumstances”. Band 3 is “priority” and covers those with other, less pressing housing needs.
12. Under the Council’s policy, applicants can bid on one property per week. The Council considers all bids on properties together. If more than one eligible person with the same rehousing need applies for the same property, the person who has been in need longest will have preference. It starts by looking at applicants in the highest band. If no one in that band is suitable it goes to the next highest band.

Background

13. Miss X has a range of mobility, sight and mental health issues. She uses a walking frame to get about. She lives in a first-floor Council flat accessed using steps without a lift. All those involved in the case recognise this is unsuitable for her.
14. In January 2018 Ms Y started helping Miss X with her housing problems. She told the Council her housing was seriously affecting Miss X’s wellbeing. In June 2018 the Council confirmed Miss X was still in priority Band 2 “High Priority”. The assessment said she needed a property with lift or ground floor access. This remains her housing status. Housing officers visited Miss X in August 2018 to advise her on the how to bid. She started bidding for properties.
15. In August 2018 Ms Y and Miss X met with various council and housing association officers to discuss the situation. I listened to a recording of the meeting. The officers agreed Miss X needed to move from her current property and that the options were to continue to bid on properties in the Council area or look at a move to another area. They were also waiting on a response from a neighbouring Council Miss X wanted to move into. The Council advised Miss X to apply for all the options. Ms Y emphasised the critical nature of the situation and that Miss X needed help. Officers understood this.
16. In October 2018, Miss X’s housing association investigated a complaint she made about the situation. It said the average waiting time for a property was over 30 weeks. In the nine weeks since Miss X started bidding she had not yet come in as top priority for a property. Also, in October 2018 the Council’s medical assessor reconsidered Miss X’s case. It found she was in the correct band. Ms Y asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage 2. She said it should consider Miss X’s circumstances as exceptional and therefore she should be priority 1.
17. In November 2018 a Council housing officer and its safeguarding lead visited Miss X at home. As a result of their visit they checked with the medical advisor about the situation. The advisor confirmed they had considered detailed evidence from health professionals about Miss X’s health and housing needs.
18. The Council replied to the stage 2 complaint in December 2018. It confirmed Miss X had been correctly identified as Band 2 housing priority. It noted Miss X had been placing bids and that it was doing what it could to support her. It advised about how Miss X could appeal the decision. Miss X asked for an appeal.
19. In February 2019 a different, more senior officer reviewed Miss X’s case. They found:
• The Council was working appropriately with health professionals responsible for Miss X.
• It had contacted another London Council where Miss X wanted to move. It advised she did not meet its criteria for housing.
• It had assessed her application using available evidence, including medical evidence. It had awarded her Band 2 – the highest priority on medical grounds. It had reviewed this in November 2018, and found there had been no change.
20. Ms Y and the Council continued their correspondence about bidding. Ms Y drew attention to some of the properties offered being unsuitable because of their location and layout.
21. Council and housing association officers visited Miss X in March 2019 with other health and housing professionals. Ms Y was on speaker phone for the meeting. Officers explained it would take time to find a house in the area she requested. They explained they had taken account of Miss X’s preferences, but that suitable accommodation was in short supply.
22. Meanwhile Miss X complained to the Ombudsman, via Ms Y. She emphasised the very serious impact the situation was having on Miss X’s wellbeing. She was increasingly isolated in her flat. Ms Y told me she did not understand why Miss X was never at the top of the priority list.
23. Council and housing association officers visited Miss X again in May 2019. The meeting also included mental health professionals and a health-related voluntary sector organisation representative. The meeting heard Miss X’s son had now moved into the property to help look after her. She wanted two-bedroom properties. Officers explained she would qualify for a change of circumstance after 12 months of this arrangement. She continued to bid for one-bedroom properties.
24. Ms Y and the Council continued to correspond about why Miss X was unsuccessful bidding for housing. The Council explained the three bands and why Miss X was in band 2. In July 2019 it explained Band 1 was for only the most acute cases of need.
25. In September 2019 the Council updated me on Miss X’s bidding history since August 2018. She has made bids on 11 properties. One was rejected (meaning the landlord withdrew the property), six were offered to others at higher priority, two bids were withdrawn by Miss X and one did not meet her priority medical need.
26. The Council says it has also bid on 12 properties on Miss X’s behalf, ten of which were offered to others at higher priority, one was given to person identified by an occupational therapist as a priority and one was refused by Miss X.
27. Ms Y has provided me an email sent by an occupational therapist (working for the NHS) to the Council that says Miss X refused the property concerned because it did not meet her medical needs.
28. It confirms that, having reviewed her situation she remains band 2 medical high priority for a one bedroom property.
29. Ms Y has also provided emails and correspondence from third sector organisations supporting Miss X asking the Council to consider reprioritising Miss X as band 1 priority for rehousing.

My findings

30. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It has to look at whether the Council has followed the correct administrative process to decide what housing priority Miss X should be placed in. Providing it has followed the correct process, having properly considered relevant evidence to make that decision, we cannot question the Council’s professional judgement.
31. The Council has assessed Miss X’s housing priority, including by considering medical evidence she, the NHS and third sector organisations have provided. It has explained that band 1 priority is only awarded to clients in the most acute need for rehousing. Miss X and Ms Y are certain Miss X should fall into this category. They have provided evidence from other health professionals and third sector organisations supporting this. The Council has considered this evidence, having regard to its assessment of Miss X’s needs and circumstances and come to the decision she should remain in Priority 2.
32. It has also visited Miss X twice to witness her situation and the problems her current housing causes her. It has confirmed, based on these assessments, that she should remain in Band 2. Miss X and Ms Y strongly disagree with this decision and consider Miss X has an emergency need for housing because of her medical problems.
33. The Council has assessed Miss X’s application in line with its published allocations scheme. It has considered the evidence provided that challenges its decision. It has decided, having regard to that evidence, that the priority banding should stand. There is therefore no fault in how the Council has reached its decision about Miss X’s housing priority. It has properly considered the evidence and considered several times, whether to review the priority, concluding it should not.
34. Miss X has been bidding for housing since August 2018. Her bidding history since then shows she has bid for several properties but has not been at the top of the priority list. Some of the properties bid for have been found to not be suitable to meet her medical needs. There has been correspondence about the accuracy of recording of the Council’s decision reasons
35. Demand for social housing outstrips the supply of properties in this Council’s area. The Council has prioritised Miss X and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy. It has offered to place bids on her behalf to maximise her chances of being rehoused. There is no fault in how the Council has administered the housing register in respect of Miss X’s applications. Whilst the time it has taken to find Miss X suitable alternative accommodation is very considerable, this is not as a result of administrative fault by the Council.
36. The Council has appropriately offered Miss X advice, including in connection with her request to be considered for housing in a different London Borough. It has considered additional evidence provided by her representative and by mental health professionals. There is no fault in how the Council has advised Miss X about her housing.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation as there is no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman