Summary: Miss B complains the Council did not deal properly with her housing needs. The Council is at fault because it has not considered all Miss B’s medical evidence and did not deal with her complaints properly. Miss B remains uncertain whether her housing priority is correct and has not had her complaints dealt with. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B, pay Miss B £300 for her time and trouble, to reassess Miss B’s medical needs with reference to all evidence available, ensure all evidence is taken into account when completing medical assessments and issue guidance to staff about complaints.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss B, complains the Council has not properly dealt with her housing needs because it:
• offered her accommodation which was not suitable and said she would be evicted and homeless if she did not accept it.
• failed to deal with concerns about issues of disrepair.
• failed to take proper account of medical information.
• failed to provide necessary adaptations to her accommodation.
• has not determined her housing priority correctly.
• Has not dealt properly with her complaints.

Miss B says she cannot live in her accommodation and her physical and mental health is being affected.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated that part of Miss B’s complaint about her accommodation offer, medical information, adaptations, her housing priority and complaints handling. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have spoken to Miss B about her complaint. I have also considered information from Miss B’s representative. I have also considered the Council’s response to his complaint and its response to my enquiries.
8. Miss B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
9. I have exercised discretion to investigate Miss B’s complaint because she says her complaints have been ignored and there is evidence to support this.

Back to top

What I found

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
11. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
12. The Council’s allocations policy has four priority bands
• Band A - Emergencies and Strategic Priorities, including life threatening medical emergencies. Cases will be placed in Band A if, in the opinion of the Council’s Medical Adviser, the household has one or more members with a currently life-threatening illness or disability which is severely adversely affected by their current housing circumstances.
• Band B - High Priority, including those with an urgent medical need to move.
• Band C - Medium Priority, including those with a less urgent medical need
• Band D - Low Priority
13. When assessing a need to move on medical or welfare grounds, the Council’s Medical Adviser will take into account all relevant circumstances, including:
• The effect of housing conditions on health.
• Chronic or progressive medical conditions.
• The need to receive or give care.
• Need for adapted housing and/or extra facilities, bedroom or bathroom.
• Need for ground floor or level access accommodation on medical grounds.
• Need to be near friends/relatives or medical facility on medical grounds.
14. Applicants’ mobility needs are assessed by the Medical Adviser into three categories:
• CAT 1 –Wheelchair property required. Wheelchair housing is housing specially designed for people confined to wheelchairs and includes space for a wheelchair to manoeuvre.
• CAT 2 – Mobility or adapted property required. Mobility or adapted housing is general purpose housing with no extra space, but built to be more convenient for people with mobility problems, or with aids and adaptations to help someone with a disability live there.
• CAT 3 – Level access Ground Floor accommodation required
15. The Council has discretion in exceptional circumstances to place an applicant in a higher or lower priority band, or level within a band.
16. The Council may make a direct offer of a property at any time to an applicant in exceptional circumstances, or where it considers this would be advantageous to the Council.

What happened

17. Miss B moved to her current accommodation in July 2016 after suffered problems with anti-social behaviour at her previous home. Miss B was assessed as being in Band C. Miss B completed a medical assessment form in October 2016.
18. The Council completed medical assessments for Miss B in November 2016, February 2017 and April 2017, June 2017, November 2018 and September 2019. Miss B has provided evidence about her medical situation at various points in time.
19. The Council’s Occupational Therapist completed a Part 3 housing assessment in April 2017 which was updated in February 2018 and November 2018.
20. In June 2017 Miss B’s advocate asked the Council to review the outcomes of medical assessments for Miss B. Following this review the Council changed Miss B’s housing priority from Band C to Band B, with CAT3 level access ground floor property required.
21. Miss B complained to the Council in October 2017 about being pressured to accept her current property and also about repairs. The Council did not uphold Miss B’s complaint.
22. Miss B contacted the Council in January through an advocate to complain and made another formal complaint electronically in March 2019.
23. Miss B’s daughter made a further complaint in March 2019 about her Miss B’s housing priority and that she was being overlooked when placing bids for properties. The Council has responded to this complaint at stage one and two of its complaint process. The Council did not uphold Miss B’s daughters’ complaint.

Analysis

Offer of her current property

24. Miss B says that when she took her current property in 2016 she advised the Council about the state of the property. She says it put significant pressure on her to accept moving into the property using the threat of eviction from her previous address and homelessness without assistance.
25. The Council says Miss B was a secure Council tenant at the time and could not have been evicted. It says she had been medically assessed in January 2016 as being in Band C, with no restrictions.
26. The Council officer who showed Miss B the property has left the Council. There is no documentary evidence to show Miss B was advised she would be evicted. There is insufficient information for me to be able to make a decision as to what was said between Miss B and the Council when she viewed the property in 2016. I will therefore not investigate this part of Miss B’s complaint further.

Medical Information and housing priority

27. Supporting medical evidence was provided to the Council by Miss B.
• October 2016 – Miss B completed a medical assessment form.
• October 2016 – Letter from an NHS specialist occupational therapist.
• October 2016 – Letter from Miss B’s doctor.
• April 2017 – A part 3 assessment by an occupational therapist.
• October 2017 – Letter from Miss B’s doctor.
• February 2018 – An updated part 3 assessment by an occupational therapist.
• November 2018 – An updated part 3 assessment by an occupational therapist.
• December 2018 – An email from a mental health care worker.
• May 2019 – Letter from Miss B’s doctor.
• May 2019 – Email from Miss B’s mum’s housing manager about the impact on Miss B being able to help her mum with care needs.
28. Decision letters show medical assessments were completed on:
• 16 November 2016 – The Council considered all the supporting evidence provided by Miss B and determined her housing priority to be Band C, with CAT3 level access ground floor required.
• 22 November 2016 – The Council considered her medical form and a letter from her doctor dated 10/11/65. It determined Miss B’s housing priority to be Band C, with no adaptations required.
• February 2017 – The Council considered a letter from Miss B’s doctor dated 18/01/17 and that the applicant has problems with heavy windows. It determined Miss B’s housing priority to be Band C, with no adaptations required.
• June 2017 – The Council considered the previous assessment review and an OT assessment. It determined Miss B’s housing priority to be Band B, with CAT3 level access ground floor required.
• November 2018 – The Council considered the application form, the applicant is in a level access property and an occupational therapist assessed applicant for adaptations but current property is not suitable. It determined Miss B’s housing priority to be Band B, with CAT3 level access required.
• September 2019 – The Council considered ‘reports on file’. The Council say this included the occupational therapist “Part 3 housing reports and the previous medical assessments. It determined Miss B’s housing priority to be Band B, with CAT3 level access required.
29. Miss B has been able to bid for properties according to the housing priority she has been awarded. She has been able to bid for properties while in Band B since June 2017. Miss B has also been able to bid for CAT3 level access properties since the same time.
30. The Council changed its assessment of Miss B’s housing priority in October 2016. The second assessment did not show all documents had been considered and referred to an incorrect date.
31. The Council’s medical assessment in June 2017 took account of the occupational therapist’s assessment that was available.
32. The medical assessment in November 2018 considered the updated part 3 housing report from February 2018 but did not consider the letter from Miss B’s doctor from October 2017.
33. Because it was based on the previous assessments and the part 3 housing reports only, the medical assessment in September 2019 could not have taken into account the letter from Miss B’s doctor from October 2017, the email from the mental health care worker, the letter from Miss B’s doctor in May 2019 or the letter from the housing manager from May 2019.
34. The evidence not considered shows Miss B’s current accommodation is affecting her physical and mental health, that she suffers from chronic medical conditions, her housing may be affecting her ability to care for her mother and that she requires adaptations that cannot be provided there.
35. The Council did not follow its allocations policy because it changed its assessment without taking account of all medical evidence available when it considered Miss B’s housing priority in October 2016. This is fault by the Council. Miss B did not suffer significant injustice in October 2016 because her housing priority band was not affected and it was later improved from medium to high priority when the Council completed a review in June 2017.
36. The Council did not follow its allocations policy because it did not take account of all medical evidence available when it considered Miss B’s housing priority in November 2018 and September 2019. The Council has provided email evidence it says shows it considered documents that were missed in 2017 and July 2019. On the balance of probabilities, the Council did review evidence in relation to Miss B’s housing priority. The medical assessment in September 2019 remains flawed as outlined in paragraph 33. This is fault by the Council. Miss B remains uncertain whether the Council has considered her circumstances properly.
37. Email evidence and her bidding history shows Miss B has placed bids for properties on a regular basis. She has been successful on two occasions and did not accept either offer. The Council has accepted Miss B had legitimate reasons to not accept the two properties. This is not fault by the Council.
38. Internal emails show the Council has considered whether to make a direct offer of accommodation to Miss B. Housing officers sought evidence to show Miss B’s home was unsuitable for her and made a request to a manager to reconsider a direct offer. The manager decided a direct offer would not be made. This is not fault by the Council.
39. I note the housing manager decided it was not appropriate to make a direct offer because Miss B, “…has the necessary priority. She has quite specific wishes regarding a new home and would almost certainly refuse a direct offer unless it was of something she had selected herself and that’s not how direct offers work. Given that we have no grounds on which to enforce a direct offer, this is not a solution to this particular problem.” Miss B has stated to the Ombudsman that she, “would be satisfied with an emergency transfer or direct offer of another property which is suitable given her health problems/disability and meets the occupational therapist’s recommendations.”

Adaptations

40. The Council’s occupational therapist has completed assessments that show Miss B’s home is not suitable for adaptations. The Council have accepted and considered these reports when it has completed medical assessments for Miss B. This is not fault by the Council.

Complaints Handling

41. Miss B complained to the Leader of the Council through an advocate in early October 2017. The Council’s Housing department provided a letter to the Leader of the Council about Miss B’s complaint. This referred to Miss B’s complaints about being pressured to accept her current property and repairs that were necessary.
42. The Council responded directly to Miss B at the end of October 2017. There is no evidence the Council treated her contact as a formal complaint and the response letter did not indicate how Miss B could escalate her complaint. The Council’s response did not refer to her complaint about pressure to accept her property. It acknowledged that Miss B had begun disrepair proceedings against the Council and offered to carry out all necessary repairs.
43. The Council did not follow its complaints procedure or respond fully to Miss B’s complaint. This is fault by the Council. Miss B was denied the opportunity of asking for her complaint to be considered properly.
44. Miss B says she received no response to a complaint email that was sent to a Council housing manager in January. The Council says it has no record of receiving an email from Miss B. I have seen email evidence that shows a mental health carer forwarded concerns from Miss B to the manager. The manager responded asking an officer to take the necessary actions. Shortly afterwards, the Council considered whether it should make a direct off to Miss B, as outlined in paragraph 36. I have seen no evidence that the Council provided a response to either Miss B or her advocate about the actions it was taking or considering.
45. The Council did not follow its complaints procedure or respond to Miss B’s complaint made in January 2019. This is fault by the Council. The Council did not respond to Miss B’s complaint and she has had to complain to the Ombudsman.
46. Miss B complained to the Council in March 2019. The Council electronically acknowledged receipt of her complaint. The Council accepts that it has been unable to locate any record of Miss B’s complaint and has therefore not responded to it. This is fault by the Council. The Council did not respond to Miss B’s complaint and she has had to complain to the Ombudsman.
47. The Council’s response to Miss B’s daughters’ complaint was significantly outside the timescales set out in its complaints procedure.
48. The Council says it will remind the medical assessment officers to ensure that they provide as much detail as possible in the decision letter regarding which documents they have considered.  The medical assessment officer will consider any documents that have been brought to their attention, normally by the applicant when they submit a medical form.  The documents considered are listed in the decision letter, so an applicant can request a review if they feel that relevant documents have been overlooked. The decision letter states that there is a right of review, and this provides a remedy if someone feels that relevant information has not been taken into account.

Agreed action

49. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault I have identified the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss B.
• Pay Miss B £300 for her time and trouble in making her complaints.
• Complete a further medical assessment taking into account all available evidence.
• If Miss B‘s priority changes as a result of the re-assessment, the Council should determine if she has missed out on any properties since November 2018. If she has, the Council should pay Miss B £500 for the unnecessary time she has been in her current accommodation.
• Ensure that medical assessments take account of all evidence provided and consider whether outcome letters should be amended to include explicit reference to all supporting evidence considered.
• Issue guidance to all staff to ensure that complaints are properly identified and dealt with through the Council’s complaints procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have found fault by the Council because it did not consider evidence about Miss B’s medical circumstances and it did not deal with her complaints properly. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

51. I have not investigated Miss B’s complaint about how the Council dealt with issues of disrepair. Miss B took legal proceedings against the Council and her 2019 complaint did not include disrepair issues. Miss B can complain to the Council about this separately. I have seen no good reason to accept it for investigation now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman