Summary: Ms X complains that the Council wrongly assessed that she is not eligible for help to move to more suitable accommodation, and it ignored the medical evidence she provided. She says her poor health means she struggles to access her home. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms X, complains the Council wrongly assessed that she is not eligible for help to move to more suitable accommodation. She says the Council has ignored the medical evidence she provided, which she says proves she meets the eligibility criteria.
2. Ms X says her health condition means she struggles using the bath and the stairs, and often cannot leave the house at all. She says she has had falls, some of which have been serious. She says the house is cold and damp.

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. 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

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments before I reached a final decision.
6. I have considered the Council’s housing allocation policy.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. Councils must have an allocation scheme to determine priorities and set out the procedure it will follow when allocating housing. Each council’s allocations scheme will be different but in general most will award 'reasonable preference' to allocations by awarding points or placing an applicant in a certain priority band. Applicants have a right to request a review of a council’s decision about the number of points or band they have been awarded.
8. This Council’s housing allocation policy sets out the four bands: A to D, with A being the highest priority.
9. The policy says if an applicant says they consider their health or disability is adversely affected by their current housing conditions, they will be asked to complete a Welfare and Medical Assessment form. Additional information, for example from a medical professional, may also be submitted.
10. The policy says medical priority is awarded where a person’s current housing is adversely affecting their health or wellbeing and a move would positively improve their health or wellbeing.
11. The policy gives examples of where medical priority would be awarded. For example, band A would be appropriate if a person is housebound or requires specific adaptations to their property. Band C, for example, would be appropriate for elderly people with moderate to severe arthritis which significantly affects mobility and who live upstairs, or for people whose conditions cause reduced mobility when combined with stairs.
12. The policy says a person must provide evidence if asked to do so. It says it is for the Council to determine the appropriate level of priority in accordance with its allocation policy.
13. The policy says there are only enough properties becoming available to be able to house those most in need. It says applicants may wish to consider other options for re-housing such as renting accommodation in the private sector.

What happened

14. Ms X is aged over 70 and has health conditions which affect her mobility. She lives in privately rented accommodation on the first floor and struggles to access her flat because of the stairs.
15. In February 2019, Ms X submitted a housing application form to the Council. She said she has a medical need/disability which is made worse by her current housing. She said she wanted to be placed in sheltered or enhanced sheltered housing. Ms X included on her application form details of her diagnosed conditions and the impact of these given her current accommodation.
16. In April, the Council asked Ms X to provide medical evidence to do with her difficulties with the stairs. Ms X told the Council she had not spoken to a doctor about her problems with the stairs. The Council told her that without medical evidence, it could not assess that she had a housing need. It advised Ms X to look at alternatives, including privately rented accommodation.
17. Ms X complained to the Council. She explained how her health conditions affected her, specifically relating to the stairs. She said the Council officer she spoke to said she could manage the stairs, which she disputed. She also said she was waiting to receive Attendance Allowance.
18. The Council replied to Ms X’s complaint. It said it was still waiting for documents to show that Ms X met the eligibility criteria. It sent Ms X a Medical and Welfare form to complete. It said it would need to see a copy of a letter confirming an award of Attendance Allowance.
19. At the end of April, Ms X asked that her complaint was dealt with at stage two of the complaints process. She said she was unhappy with the way the Council officer spoke to her on the phone. She said she had written to her GP to get supporting information.
20. In May, the Council sent Ms X a letter saying it had removed her application because it had not received any medical evidence to show she had a housing need.
21. Later in May, the Council sent its stage two response to Ms X’s complaint. It apologised that the phone call had caused her distress. It said it still needed to confirm whether Ms X had a medical need to move and sent her another Medical and Welfare form to complete. It signposted Ms X to the Ombudsman.
22. In June, Ms X sent the Council her completed Medical and Welfare form, a letter from a medical clinic she attends, and a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions saying she had been awarded Attendance Allowance.
23. Later in June, the Council completed a fresh assessment of Ms X’s housing application. It decided that Ms X was eligible to join the housing register in band C because of her medical need. The Council’s decision noted that Ms X needed a ground floor property or a property with lift access.
24. The Council sent Ms X a letter with the outcome of this decision. It said it awarded her band C status and had backdated this award to February, the date Ms X first made her application.
25. At the end of June, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

26. Ms X complains that the Council has wrongly assessed that she is not eligible for help to move to more suitable accommodation.
27. The Council asked Ms X to provide medical information when she first submitted her application. It says Ms X did not provide any medical information at this stage.
28. Ms X says she does not remember when or how she sent medical information to the Council.
29. On a balance of probabilities, I find it is more likely than not that Ms X did not provide medical information to the Council when she was first asked to do so. For this reason, I do not find fault with the Council for not assessing Ms X as meeting the criteria for housing need at that stage.
30. Ms X provided the Council with medical evidence in June. In just over a week, the Council completed a fresh assessment and decided that Ms X was eligible for band C status. Further to this, the Council backdated the award to February 2019 when Ms X first applied.
31. Ms X has effectively been in band C on the housing register since February. She has been able to bid for suitable properties since June. For this reason, I do not agree with Ms X that the Council has wrongly assessed her and that she is not eligible for help.
32. I find that the Council assessed Ms X correctly at each stage and did so in line with its policy. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.
33. Ms X complains that the Council ignored medical evidence she provided.
34. As I have said above, on the balance of probabilities, I find that Ms X provided the Council with medical evidence in June. There is no evidence that Ms X provided this information any earlier than this. For this reason, I do not find that the Council ignored Ms X’s medical evidence. So, I do not find fault with the Council.
35. Ms X complains that the Council officer that spoke to her on the phone was not kind and did not explain the situation or decision properly.
36. I have not been able to hear a copy of the recording. However, I have seen the Council’s record of this phone call. This outlines what the officer said to Ms X. It says that the officer explained to Ms X that without medical evidence, she does not have a housing need and therefore would need to explore alternative accommodation.
37. The Council’s stage two response says the purpose of the phone call was to understand the reasons for Ms X’s application, to confirm if she was eligible, and to determine whether she had a need to move. The Council apologised that the call caused Ms X distress.
38. I am unable to comment on the officer’s tone and manner during that phone call. However, I do not find fault for the content of the phone call. I find it was appropriate for the Council to have called Ms X to discuss her application with her.
39. As I have said in paragraph 13, the Council’s policy says there are only enough properties available to house those most in need. It says applicants may wish to consider other options for re-housing such as renting accommodation in the private sector.
40. I do not find the Council at fault for informing Ms X about this. Given the limited availability of social housing, I find it was appropriate for the Council to tell Ms X this.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman