Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not consider properly the medical needs of his son, C, when assessing their banding for the housing register. There was fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr B’s request for medical priority but there was no fault in the way the review was conducted which upheld the original decision.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council did not consider properly the medical needs of his son, C, when assessing their banding for the housing register. He considers that as a result they spent longer living in unsuitable conditions than they would otherwise have done.

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 the complaint and spoke to Mr B. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of events

6. Mr B, his wife and two young children were living in a housing association bungalow with a wet room. Mr B’s youngest child has severe eczema. As he was getting older Mr and Mrs B were struggling to bathe him as the property did not have a bath, only a shower. The medical professionals involved with his case said bathing would help treat and control his eczema. In October 2018 Mr B asked for increased priority on his application to the housing register because of his son’s medical needs.
7. The Council refused to increase the priority. Mr B asked for a review but the Council maintained its position. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman. In about July 2019 Mr B moved to another property through a mutual exchange.

Analysis

8. The issue here is whether the Council should have awarded a higher priority for rehousing because of Mr B’s son’s needs arising from his eczema. The Council’s policy says that a gold band priority will be awarded where there is severe medical need. That is defined as high medical needs directly relating to the applicant’s accommodation. A silver priority is awarded where there are significant medical needs directly relating to the applicant’s accommodation. The example given is where there is evidenced, enduring and significant medical or disability problem which seriously affects their ability to manage in their current accommodation, where a move would resolve the issue and no other remedy is available.
9. Mr B considers the Council has not provided a proper demonstration that it considered how his son’s medical needs were affected by the property.

November 2018 decision

10. The first decision on whether to award medical priority was made by a panel in November 2018. The notes of the meeting refer to:
• A disabled facilities grant (DFG) the Council had awarded to create a new backdoor at the property. The grant had been approved in September 2017 and the works completed in March 2018;
• That the property had a wet room so the application appeared to be for a 2 bedroom property with a bath and a wet-room;
• Mrs B’s long-standing mental health issues;
• Comments that the door which had been installed by the DFG was now a risk for the children. This is referring to comments made in support of a transfer by a health visitor.

It concludes that “nothing here would justify medical priority”.

11. The letter to Mr B telling him of the decision said the panel had considered the information and it acknowledged the household’s medical issues it did not feel the effect of the accommodation was sufficient to determine an award of medical priority.
12. I do not consider the Council has demonstrated proper consideration of the key issue. The notes of the panel refer to the DFG. I understand why this has been mentioned; part of a condition of a DFG is that the applicant should confirm the property will be suitable for them for the next five years. But the DFG application was based around Mrs B’s mental health needs and at that point C had not been born. It is also surprising the health visitor expressed concerns about the door which had been installed at the express request of Mr and Mrs B. The panel also made an incorrect assumption that the family wanted a bath and a wet-room. In fact Mrs B’s conditions that had necessitated the wet-room when they moved in had improved. The key issue for the panel was C’s health needs and there is no reasoning or analysis in either the notes or the decision letter about why the panel did not consider that the lack of a bath and the consequences of that for C was sufficiently serious to warrant an award of priority. The notes and the decision letter should show the panel specifically addressed themselves to that key point.

The review

13. Mr B requested a review. That was considered by a panel in March 2019. The decision given in a letter to a housing advice charity supporting Mr B said the panel acknowledged the skin conditions experienced by Mr B’s children, but did not feel that the criteria set out in the policy was met. The panel did not consider that the skin conditions experienced by Mr B's children seriously affected the household's ability to manage in their current accommodation to an extent which determined the award of a priority banding. It went on to say it did not consider the other medical conditions set out in the supporting information, on a composite basis, were of a severity which would determine a priority banding under the Council’s policy.
14. I consider this demonstrates a proper assessment of the information Mr B provided. I recognise Mr B disagreed with the view reached but the Council made a decision on the basis of the information before it and there is no fault in how it has done that.
15. So I consider there was fault in the Council’s initial consideration but the review was conducted without fault. I do not, therefore, consider that the initial fault has caused any significant injustice to Mr B.

Back to top

Final decision

16. There was fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr B’s request for medical priority but there was no fault in the way the review was conducted which upheld the original decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman