Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Miss X’s complaint about how the Council assessed her priority for housing. The Council delayed offering her a review and did not explain how it considered the supporting information she provided. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council will carry out a fresh review, apologise and make a payment to Miss X. It will also remind officers to explain how they have considered supporting information when making a decision about housing priority and include a timescale for reviews in its published allocations scheme.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly assess her housing application. She says it has not considered the condition of the property and has ignored evidence of her medical needs and learning disabilities. Miss X says the unsuitable housing is affecting her mental and physical well-being. She would like the Council to offer her and her children a three-bedroom property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint made by Miss X and the documents she provided.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the documents it provided in response to my enquiries.
7. I gave Miss X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their responses.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s focus report ‘Full House: Councils’ role in allocating social housing’ published in 2016 and previous decisions made about housing allocations for this Council.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Allocations

9. 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. 
10. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.
11. Under the Council’s scheme, points are given for housing need factors including residence, waiting time, overcrowding, medical needs and welfare.
12. The Council may give points if it considers the applicant’s accommodation is ‘unsuitable because of a medical condition’. Medical priority is awarded according to the extent to which the health of the applicant is affected by their housing conditions and the expected benefits of providing alternative housing.
13. There are three categories of medical points which includes:

• Category A: a maximum of 150 points given in exceptional circumstances where the applicant has an immediately life-threatening or progressive condition which is seriously affected by their current accommodation;
• Category B: an award of 80 points given where the current housing conditions are having a major adverse effect on their medical condition. It does not apply where the effect is moderate, slight, or variable; and
• Category C: an award of 40 points where the current housing conditions are having a moderate or variable effect on their medical condition. It does not apply where the effect is slight.

14. The Council may also give points if it considers housing or other circumstances affect the welfare needs of the applicant or a member of their household. There are three categories of welfare points which include points for applicants living in such insanitary conditions that their welfare is prejudiced and there are no remedies to improve the conditions.
15. The Council’s scheme says a single person with two children will be offered a two- or three-bedroom property depending on the age and sex of the children. Children of the opposite sex under the age of 10 can share a bedroom.
16. Applicants with over 120 points can bid on available properties. Applicants cannot bid for properties larger than their assessed need. The Council published information about housing allocations in the last financial year which said the average number of points needed for a two-bedroom property was 242.

Reviews

17. Housing applicants can ask the Council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
18. Review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage. Government guidance suggests eight weeks is a reasonable timescale for carrying out a review. Reviews should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker.
19. The Council’s scheme says applicants can ask for a review of their assessment if they are unhappy about the number of points the Council has awarded. The scheme says the review decision is made by a manager in the housing options service.
20. The Council’s scheme does not include timescales for responding to a review. In response to my enquiries it said medical reviews can take at least four weeks.

What happened

21. Miss X has been on the Council’s housing register for several years. She has lived in a one-bedroom property since 2014. She lives in the property under a caretaker agreement for a relative who is currently unable to live there. The caretaker agreement was initially for one year and has now expired. She has two children under three.
22. In July 2018, Miss X contacted the Council asking it to reconsider her priority for housing. It replied to say all applications are assessed in line with the Council’s scheme. Miss X was not informed of her right to seek a review. She emailed the Council again in August 2018 setting out her concerns and asking for a review. The Council reiterated that she had the correct number of points but did not explain how it reached that decision. It did not refer the matter to a manager for review in line with its allocation scheme.
23. Miss X contacted local councillors and her MP for help. In response to their enquiries, the Council suggested Miss X complete a medical assessment form for its medical adviser to assess her health conditions.
24. Miss X submitted a medical assessment form in November 2018. She said:
• she was worried about her children’s safety due to the lack of space;
• an unresolved pest problem was causing distress and waking her daughter up in the night;
• she has dyslexia and dyspraxia which affects her mobility and coordination, and this is exacerbated by the limited space in the property;
• she can spend hours looking for items due to the cluttered environment; and
• the situation was causing her stress and she was experiencing suicidal feelings.
25. She submitted supporting letters from her children’s health visitor, a local family support service, her clinical psychologist and her GP. She also provided a workplace needs assessment completed in 2015. She gave permission for the Council to contact her GP and the health visitor if necessary.
26. An officer from the housing options team wrote to Miss X in January 2019. The letter said the Council had considered the medical details Miss X provided and decided she did not quality for added points for medical reasons. The letter did not explain how the Council had considered the documents she had provided or respond to the specific concerns Miss X had raised.
27. Miss X wrote to the Council to seek a review of the decision. She said she had been unfairly assessed without careful consideration of her and her family’s needs. She said the Council had not considered her circumstances or the medical information she had provided.
28. Miss X’s file was reviewed by the Council’s medical adviser. I have seen the medical adviser’s decision record as part of this investigation. There is no reference to the supporting information provided by Miss X from other health professionals. The medical adviser noted that overcrowding attracted its own priority, and recommended action be taken to repair the damage from the pest problem as soon as possible.
29. The Council responded to Miss X at the end of February. It said it had considered her original assessment form and outlined her medical needs. It described the impact Miss X said her home was having on her. It said the medical adviser had reviewed the file and not awarded any medical points. It did not say how the medical adviser had arrived at his decision. It said it had reviewed the criteria for awarding medical points and did not accept that Miss X satisfied any of them.
30. The Council set out Miss X’s points award. She had 144 points for the time she had been on the waiting list, overcrowding, the time she had been living in the borough, and due to the insecurity of her caretaker arrangement. It said she could bid for two-bedroom properties.
31. The Council said it had considered whether Miss X was eligible for points under its welfare criteria. It said it could not award any points. It did not say what information it had considered in reaching its decision. It advised Miss X to speak to the housing management company about the housing conditions, and to seek legal advice about her tenure of the property. It directed her to other housing schemes

Analysis

32. The Council did not act on Miss X’s request for a review in August 2018. This was fault and caused Miss X frustration and inconvenience in having to involve councillors and her MP to resolve the situation.
33. The Ombudsman has previously found fault with the Council for the lack of detail in its medical decisions. In that case, we criticised the fact the medical adviser’s notes made no reference to the supporting information provided by the applicant. Disappointingly, I find the same fault in this case. Indeed, none of the letters to Miss X, either at the decision stage or at the review stage, explain how the supporting evidence she provided was considered when reaching a decision.
34. It is not possible for me to say that Miss X should be given additional points as this is a matter for the Council. But she is entitled to have her request properly considered. The Council has not shown that it did so, and this was fault. Consequently, Miss X has been put to the trouble of having to complain to the Ombudsman to seek a resolution.
35. There is however no fault in the Council’s decision that Miss X can bid for two-bedroom properties, based on the size and composition of her family.

Agreed action

36. To remedy the fault identified in this case the Council will carry out a fresh review of its decision about Miss X’s priority within one month of this decision. The review should be carried out by a manager who has not previously been involved in decisions about Miss X’s case. Miss X should be given an opportunity to send any further supporting information before the review. Following the review, the Council should write to Miss X explaining its decision in detail including how it has taken account of the supporting information provided.
37. If the Council decides to award Miss X further points, it will backdate these to 1 October 2018 which is eight weeks from the date she asked for a review. The Council will examine Miss X’s bids since then and consider if she would have been successful in bidding for any of the properties based on her revised point score. If so, the Council will consider offering further remedy for the missed opportunity to secure alternative housing.
38. Within one month of this decision, the Council will also apologise to Miss X and pay her £250. This is to remedy its delay in advising her of her right to a review and the frustration caused by its poor handling of that review.
39. The Council will issue a reminder to officers and medical advisers that decision letters must set out how the supporting information provided by the applicant has been considered. The Council will also amend its housing allocation scheme to include timescales for it to respond to a review, in line with the guidance. It will provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done this within one month of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I uphold Miss X’s complaint. Miss X has been caused an injustice by the action of the Council and it has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

41. I cannot investigate how the Council has dealt with the pest control issue in Miss X’s home. This is because the Council provides the service on behalf of the management company which oversees the property for the Council. Complaints about housing management functions are not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman