Summary: Mrs X complains the Council awarded the wrong priority banding meaning she was unable to bid on houses and has delayed a move. Mrs X’s priority banding is correct based on her current, assessed needs and it has amended the mobility code. The mobility code does not affect priority and so has not prevented a move. The Council has used its professional judgement to make the decision only ground floor accommodation is suitable for Mrs X but there is no evidence of fault in how it reached that decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council awarded the wrong priority banding meaning she was unable to bid on houses which has delayed her getting a move.
2. Mrs X says her living conditions are very stressful as she does not have adequate facilities and is a virtual prisoner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X lives with her husband and two sons. Her current property is a flat on the ninth floor of a high rise block. Mrs X is disabled and has limited mobility. She requires a level access shower which cannot be provided in her current accommodation. She is unable to manage the stairs and says the lift is often out of service meaning she is a virtual prisoner in her home.
7. Mrs X applied for a transfer on medical grounds in July 2018. The Council’s Medical Officer (CMO) considered her application but did not award any medical priority based on the information provided.
8. In October 2018, the CMO considered Mrs X’s case again when after she provided an occupational therapy report. The CMO awarded one medical point based on this further information. The CMO recommended Mrs X should transfer to a ground floor property. The Council says this restriction was because medical reports indicated Mrs X was at risk of falls. The CMO decided Mrs X was not a suitable candidate for properties with stairs or a stairlift.
9. Mrs X was placed in Band 3 with two needs points. It wrote to her in October 2018 saying she can place bids on two bedroom ground floor properties. The letter said that any bids she places which do not meet this criteria will not be considered.
10. To assist people with disability needs to identify suitable properties, the Council also awards mobility categories. These are applied to both applicants and properties and are designed to give information on the facilities required by application and offered by the properties.
11. These mobility bands fall into five different categories as described below:
• MOB 1- fully adapted throughout for wheelchair use
• MOB 2 – some rooms have wheelchair access
• MOB 3 – there is wheelchair access into the property and there are no internal steps
• MOB 4 – there is step-free access into the property and no internal steps, or there may be a stairlift
• MOB 5 – there a minimal steps outside and inside the property (up to four steps) and there may be stairlift.
12. Mrs X was given a MOB 3 categorisation. The Council says Mrs X does not require a property that is completely step free but she is not considered to be a candidate for a stairlift due to her risk of falls.
13. All properties with a MOB categorisations will be considered first for applicants with a MOB code. Those applicants are placed at the top of list after bids are made and are shortlisted in order of their housing priority. The applicants are not shortlisted according to their MOB code.
14. Mrs X felt the MOB 3 code was limiting her choice of properties. Mrs X wants to be able to bid on houses as she says there are many more of those available each week. In September 2019, the CMO reviewed Mrs X’s housing application after receiving a request from Mrs X to review her MOB code.
15. The CMO recommended the MOB code be changed to MOB 5 but that all other recommendations stay the same. This meant Mrs X still had two needs points and she could only be considered for ground floor properties. The change in MOB code was made so that Mrs X would not feel unduly restricted in respect of the properties she could bid on. However, she will still only be considered for ground floor properties.

The Council wrote to Mrs X on 24 October in response to her complaint. It explained Mrs X was considered suitable for only ground floor properties because of frequent falls/collapses and so could not be considered for a stairlift. It confirmed the MOB code had been changed to MOB 5 on the basis that she requires a ground floor property that either has, or can be fitted with, a wet room.

Analysis

16. Mrs X’s current property is not suitable for her needs. In September 2018, after providing supporting evidence, the Council awarded Mrs X medical priority. The Council notified Mrs X of its decision. The letter the Council sent to Mrs X clearly explained that she could only bid on ground floor properties.
17. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision on Mrs X’s medical priority. It accepts her current accommodation does not meet her needs and has awarded the appropriate level of medical priority.
18. The Council considered the medical evidence provided by Mrs X in support of her application. That medical information states “Frequent falls; recently collapsed 2-3 times in a short period of time which resulted in hospital admission; under investigations.” The Council decided this meant Mrs X could not safely manage stairs or use a stairlift.
19. The Ombudsman is concerned with administrative process and not the merits of decisions properly taken. In this case the Council’s professional judgement is that Mrs X ‘s medical condition means she should only be housed in ground floor accommodation. I appreciate Mrs X may not agree with this assessment but I am satisfied the decision is based on medical evidence and therefore it is a decision it is entitled to take.
20. Mrs X has complained about her MOB code. She believes that she has missed out on a move because she was given a MOB 3 code initially. I have not seen any evidence to show Mrs X missed a property because of this. The MOB codes do not affect priority. They are used to help people bid on suitable properties but priority is based on bands and waiting time.
21. The Council has changed Mrs X’s Mob code from MOB 3 to MOB 5. However, it says Mrs X can only be accommodated in ground floor properties. The evidence provided states Mrs X has placed bids on 163 two bedroom properties including six bids for ground floor properties with a MOB 5 categorisation. Although Mrs X’s priority for all 163 bids did not place her high enough to be awarded the property, the Council would only award a tenancy on a successful bid for a ground floor property.
22. I find no fault in how the Council has assessed and processed Mrs X’s application for a housing transfer. I am aware that she is anxious to move and that she believes the MOB codes are restricting her choices. I have not found evidence to support this view. However, it is accepted that there are more available properties without MOB codes than there are two bedroom ground floor properties. Based on the medical evidence previously provided to the Council, Mrs X is only being considered for ground floor properties. There is no fault in that decision. If Mrs X’s medical condition changes then she should provide new evidence to the Council so it can reconsider its decision regarding suitable accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman