Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to award him any medical priority for his housing application. He also complains about the Council’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to consider all relevant information before it made its decision. We also find fault with the Council’s complaint handling. We have recommended the Council apologise and remake its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to award him any medical priority for his housing application. Mr X says his son has multiple health needs and his current property is not suitable for his son. Mr X says he provided the Council with letters of support from medical professionals and children social services, but the Council has ignored these. Mr X says the Council has not provided its final decision to him in writing. Mr X also complains about the Council’s complaint handling. He says it took the Council over a year to deal with his complaint.

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. 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)
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 spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocations Policy

8. Section 2 of the policy outlines the Council’s transfer list. It notes that existing social housing tenants are not eligible for the housing waiting list unless they have a priority. The transfer list is for tenants who have no housing needs but who still wish to move to alternative accommodation.
9. There are two levels of medical priority. The Council awards medical priority 1 (band 2) when an applicant’s quality of life is compromised because of their current housing. The Council will only award the priority where the medical condition is severe or chronic and that condition is being affected by the applicant’s current accommodation.
10. Medical priority 2 (band 3) is awarded where an applicant’s quality of life is compromised but the applicant does not meet the criteria for the higher level 1 priority. Again, the Council will only award this priority where the medical condition is severe or chronic and that condition is being affected by the applicant’s current accommodation.

What happened

11. Mr X has a son, M, who has multiple medical needs. Mr X lives in a property on the 11th floor with M. In April 2019, Mr X applied to join the Council’s Housing Register Transfer list.
12. Mr X said he wanted to move out of his current property because it was unsuitable for A’s medical needs. Mr X said there was a strong smell of illegal drugs and smoke around his flat. Mr X said A had respiratory issues and this was bad for his health. Mr X provided the Council with supporting medical information which confirmed his son’s health needs.
13. In May 2019, the Council wrote to Mr X and confirmed the concerns he raised were related to anti-social behaviour and therefore it would not award a priority on medical grounds.
14. Mr X contacted the Council to confirm he would send new medical evidence for the Council to consider. Mr X provided the Council with a further supporting letter from M’s doctor which noted that Mr X’s property was unsuitable for the following reasons:

• M suffered from Autistic Spectrum Disorder and is hyperactive and hard to control. It highlighted M tries to climb out of the windows and this was not safe.
• M suffered from recurrent respiratory tract infections and he should not have any form of passive smoking. The doctor noted there had been smoke and smell of illegal drugs from the flats above and below Mr X’s. The doctor also noted the damp and wetness in the flat was not good for this condition.
• M suffered from a condition which caused him to react to noise by throwing himself onto the floor. The doctor noted this was not safe as there was a risk of head injury.
• M suffered from recurrent choking and if paramedics had to be called, it would be difficult for them to reach M quickly as the property was on the 11th floor. The doctor said this was not safe.

15. At the end of May 2019, the Council took Mr X’s case to a management move panel. The panel decided not to offer any medical priority because the property was suitable for Mr X’s son in terms of design and layout. The panel noted the concerns were external issues that could be present in any block or property.
16. Between June and July 2019, the Council did meet with the housing team to discuss Mr X’s case.
17. In September 2019, the Council sent Mr X’s medical evidence to an independent medical professional to review, and advise on, the suitability of Mr X’s property for M. The Council received the medical report from the independent medical professional two weeks later.
18. The medical report noted the list of evidence considered, which included all the medical evidence submitted by Mr X. The report noted the following:

• M’s medical needs were acknowledged.
• That Mr X had said the property was unsuitable because M kept trying to climb out of the window. The report said ensuring the safety of a child was normal parenting responsibility and recommended appropriate door and window locks were fitted
• The report acknowledged M had a slight susceptibility to respiratory tract infections and that Mr X said the property was unsuitable as people in the surrounding flats smoked. The report said this was not primarily a medical matter and the medical professional felt it was not enough to warrant medical priority.
• The report noted that damp and mould were not medical issues and needed to be dealt with by the landlord.

The report concluded that no medical priority applied.

19. The Council wrote to Mr X and confirmed no medical priority had been awarded. The Council noted it considered the medical professional’s advisory report when it made its decision.

Complaint handling

20. Mr X moved into his property in April 2018. He made a complaint to the Council about the condition of his property when he moved in. The Council responded to his complaint in May 2018. Mr X was unhappy with the response and asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage 3.
21. In August 2018, the Council received an email from Mr X stating he had contacted the Housing Ombudsman as the Council had not responded to his stage 3 complaint and the deadline had passed. The Council said Mr X told the Council he did not want to have a stage 3 response as he had gone to the Housing Ombudsman. The Council therefore decided Mr X had withdrawn his complaint.
22. Following the panel decision in May 2019, Mr X raised a complaint about the decision through his MP. The MP contacted the Council about the complaint. In June 2019, Mr X referred his complaint to us.
23. In June 2019, we asked the Council to let us know whether Mr X’s complaint had completed the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council did not respond to our enquiries.
24. At the end of June 2019, the Council offered Mr X a meeting to discuss the issues. It is unclear from the evidence whether this offer was accepted.
25. Between July and August 2019, there is evidence the Council’s complaints team continued to liaise with the allocations team to reach a resolution.

Analysis

Medical priority decision

26. The Ombudsman is not an appeal panel. Therefore, we cannot make decisions to replace the Council’s. Our role is to review the Council’s decision-making process and ensure this was done properly.
27. In this case, the evidence shows the Council sent Mr X’s medical information to an independent medical professional to review. The evidence also shows the independent medical professional considered all the medical information provided by Mr X, including the supporting letter from M’s doctor.
28. It is noted the independent medical professional considered Mr X’s contention the property was unsuitable because of the smoke, the damp and mould, and the fact M kept trying to climb out the windows. It was appropriate for these points to be considered as they were put forward by Mr X as reasons why the property was unsuitable for M’s health needs.
29. However, the independent medical professional did not consider the fact the property was on the 11th floor. Therefore, if paramedics were needed, they cannot get to M quickly and this was not safe. This was relevant information and it should have been considered.
30. The Council confirmed it considered the advisory report by the independent medical professional when it made its decision to award no medical priority. It did not offer any further rationale for its decision. Therefore, I am not satisfied the Council has properly considered all relevant information when it made its decision. This is fault.
31. I find the fault has caused Mr X an injustice because there is uncertainty as to whether the Council has made its decision properly.
32. The Council provided some comments to my draft decision. The Council said the medical officer did consider the medical information available. The Council also said if the ambulance service has difficulty in accessing a patient and it is a cause for concern, they would generally contact the council and provide a report detailing the concerns. The Council said it had not received a report. The Council said this demonstrates the Council properly considered the matter.
33. However, this consideration was not evidenced within the documents I reviewed. Just because the Council had the information available does not mean it properly considered the matter. The evidence shows the Council had considered all the issues raised apart from the property being situated on the 11th floor. This is because it referred to each matter and set out why it did not warrant a medical priority being applied.
34. Therefore, the Council’s comments have not changed my decision as I am still of the view the Council did not properly consider all relevant information at the time it made its decision.

Complaint handling

35. Mr X said the Council has taken over a year to deal with his complaint.
36. It is clear from the evidence Mr X had two separate complaints with the Council. The first complaint was made in April 2018. This complaint was to do with the condition of the property and not about the Council’s decision not to award him medical priority.
37. Mr X’s second complaint was made in June 2019. This was done through his MP who sent the Council details about his complaint. In my view, Mr X’s complaint was premature as it had not completed the Council’s complaints procedure. However, the Council did not respond to any of our enquiries when we sought to confirm this. At this stage, this is fault.
38. I find the fault identified has caused Mr X an injustice. This is because there has been some confusion over the status of his complaint and uncertainty as to whether the Council was investigating his complaint.

Recommended action

39. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault identified, I recommend the Council complete the following:

• Issue a written apology to Mr X and acknowledge the confusion and uncertainty caused by the faults identified.
• Remake its decision on whether to award Mr X medical priority. The Council will consider the issue of paramedics getting to M quickly on the 11th floor and decide whether this warrants any medical priority. The Council should ensure its decision is made in line with its housing allocations policy. The Council should write to Mr X to confirm its decision.

40. The Council should complete the above remedy within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I find fault with the Council for failing to consider all relevant information before it made its decision. I also find fault with the Council’s complaint handling. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman