Summary: Mrs C complains the Council has not given her daughter’s mental health issues sufficient weight when deciding on her priority for rehousing and that information about the occupation of the property was misleading. There was some fault but that has not altered the outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains on behalf of her daughter Mrs C. Mrs C lives in a one bedroom council flat with her two children and husband. Mrs C understood she could only register for a transfer to a larger property once her second child was born. Mrs C has depression and says the size of the property makes her mental health worse. She considers the Council has not properly considered her medical needs when assessing her priority for rehousing.
2. She says that continuing to live in the overcrowded property is worsening her mental health.

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. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mrs B and spoke to her. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mrs B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of the key issues

6. Mrs C applied to join the housing register in March 2018 when her second child was born. The Council accepted the application and awarded band B priority. A year later Mrs C complained to the Council that she did not know she could have applied sooner and therefore wanted her effective date backdating to when her first child was born. She also said that living in overcrowded conditions was affecting her mental health.
7. The Council considered the letter as a request for a review of her housing priority. The Council replied saying it had considered her claim for medical priority and had referred the matter to its medical advisers. They commented that the main issue was overcrowding and that was awarded priority independently. They said there was no evidence that Mrs B had been to the home treatment team or secondary mental health services. They concluded that band C would be appropriate.

Analysis

Backdating

8. Mrs B did not realise she could apply for a transfer until her second child was born. This was because her property is shown as being suitable for 1-3 people. She therefore waited until her daughter was born, meaning there were four of them in the one-bedroom property, before applying for a two-bedroom property.
9. I understand why Mrs B acted as she did but I cannot say this was because of some fault by the Council. The Council’s published policy shows that a family of two adults and one child qualify for a two-bedroom property. I cannot, therefore, say that there was some misleading information published by the Council that would have wrongly informed Mrs B about whether she could apply for a transfer. In saying that I understand that Mrs B’s current property is listed as suitable for up to three people but the policy was clear that she qualified for a two-bedroom property.

Priority

10. It is for the Council to decide on the level of priority that should be awarded. Its policy on award of priority on medical grounds says that “urgent priority will not be given based upon the medical evidence itself, it will be based upon the impact it has upon the home seeker’s housing requirements and whether the home seeker’s current accommodation is directly contributing to the deterioration of the home seeker’s health. It will be considered based on the extent that the health of a home seeker, or an immediate member of their family, will significantly improve by a move to alternative accommodation.”
11. The Council first considered whether any extra priority should be awarded because of Mrs C’s medical needs in July 2019. It had referred the information supplied by Mrs C to its medical advisers. The Council’s decision taking into account the medical advisers comments was that it did not meet the requirements of the policy for an award of extra priority.
12. Mrs C was unhappy with the decision and complained to the Council and submitted more information. The Council said it would undertake a reassessment and asked if Mrs C wanted to submit any further information. It would then take a couple of weeks for the Council to consider and it would then let her know the outcome.
13. The Council referred it to its medical advisers with a request for an assessment by a psychiatric advisor. The advisor commented that overcrowding attracted its own priority under the Council’s housing policy and was not strictly a medical matter. They commented there was no evidence of referral to the home treatment team or secondary mental health services or to the perinatal team for postnatal depression. They concluded that the main matter was overcrowding rather than any specific unsuitability due to floor level, size, amenity or other matter relating to the medical condition. They recommended an award of band C, lower than the band Mrs B was already in.
14. The Council did not write to Mrs C to tell her of the outcome of the reassessment. But the Council did refer to it in further email correspondence on 21 October where it said there was no increased priority.
15. Mrs C had given the Council a copy of a letter from a mental health charity that was working with her daughter. When the Council wrote to Mrs C on 21 October it referred to that letter but said that it was almost a year old so not relevant to the current situation. Mrs C provided a letter from the charity explaining the letter was incorrectly dated and saying that Mrs B’s current living situation was having an adverse impact on her mental wellbeing. Mrs C also sent a copy of the letter direct to the Council’s medical advisers. They replied to the Council saying the charity did not meet their definition of the sort of specialist input they had referred to when they responded so the report provided was not “necessarily incorrect”.
16. I have no detail of any further contact from the Council to Mrs C.
17. I do not consider the Council properly informed Mrs C of the outcome of the reassessment as it said it would do, nor did it respond to the further information from the charity. But I do not consider that this has altered the position for Mrs B. The Council has accepted that Mrs B has moderate medical priority. The information from the charity is not providing any significantly new information or perspective on the situation. I do not consider therefore that this would have altered the Council’s position.
18. I recognise how concerned Mrs C is about her daughter’s situation but I do not consider there has been any fault by the Council that has affected its decision on the priority it should award to Mrs B’s application.

Back to top

Final decision

19. There was fault but that has not altered the outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman