Summary: the complainant says the Council did not properly consider her application for increased priority under its housing allocations scheme. The Council says it considered both the evidence provided and advice given by its medical adviser. The Council recognises it did not consider fully all the information presented. In a later review the Council referred the complainant’s application to its decision panel which increased the complainant’s priority to Band B. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in not reaching that view earlier and recommends a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X complains the Council has failed to:
• Properly consider her application for housing;
• Properly consider the impact of her current home on her medical and mental health conditions;
• Show in response to her complaint how it has considered those conditions and explained why they have not attracted priority for her application.
2. Miss X says due to vertigo, depression and experiencing schizophrenia triggered by her neighbour’s behaviour her present home affects her conditions. Miss X wants the Council to properly consider her need for priority to help her move to a home which does not negatively affect her conditions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. If 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. In considering this complaint I have:
• Spoken with Miss X and read the information presented in her complaint;
• Put enquiries to the Council and reviewed its response;
• Researched the relevant law, guidance and policy;
• Shared with Miss X and the Council my draft decision and reflected on comments received.

Back to top

What I found

The law and policy

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

8. Councils must tell applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
9. The Council must also tell the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
11. Statutory guidance on allocating accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline.
12. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
13. The Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
14. The Council’s housing allocations scheme awards priority to applicants in need of housing with Band A being the highest priority. Applicants with an urgent need to move because of critical medical conditions or where the applicant’s current housing impacts on such conditions the Council places in Priority Band A and B. The policy contains examples of a critical medical housing need. For example, an applicant with a life-threatening condition and whose existing home is a major contributor to worsening that condition.
15. The policy says the Council will consider applications for medical priority where the applicant's housing conditions affects their health and they may expect a benefit from suitable alternative housing. The Council may seek information from landlords, housing officers, doctors, occupational therapists, health visitors and other parties who may have relevant information or expertise.
16. The Council uses an independent medical adviser from which its officers take medical advice when necessary to help officers decide an applicant’s priority.
17. The Allocations policy gives the Council’s Decisions Panel discretionary power to award extra priority and approve housing offers in exceptional circumstances.

What happened

18. Miss X complained to the Council in 2016 and 2017 about noise from her neighbours. The Council looked into the complaint. The Council found in part the lack of current standard noise insulation in Miss X’s home meant Miss X heard more than she might otherwise. Miss X says the noise and trouble experienced has triggered her medical and mental health conditions.
19. In November 2016 Miss X sought priority for a move supported by her care co-ordinator who reported Miss X and her baby lived in cramped conditions.
20. Miss X lives in a first-floor home without the benefit of a lift. Miss X has paranoid schizophrenia and at her care review in November 2018 her clinical consultant recorded Miss X had struggled for a year with her neighbours. This triggered her condition resulting in depression and hearing voices.
21. The Council assessed Miss X as Priority Band C with no medical priority. In February 2019 Miss X asked the Council to reconsider her priority banding and to award her medical priority. Miss X completed a health assessment form where she recorded her diagnoses of vertigo, schizophrenia and depression. Miss X said on the form she had difficulty climbing the stairs to her flat having had several falls in the communal area caused by her conditions.
22. The Council considered the application by reviewing the health assessment form, medical records and the advice of its independent medical adviser. The adviser sent an email in April 2019 saying:

“I can't find any confirmed medical condition to preclude use of some stairs in this case…Medical priority doesn't apply.”

23. In May 2019 after considering the information and medical adviser’s comments, the Council decided Miss X did not have medical priority. The Council issued a letter confirming her housing needs remained in Priority Band C. The letter told Miss X if she wanted the Council to review this decision, she must ask for that review within 21 days.
24. In response to my enquiries the Council says it does not ask applicants for medical information. The Council expects applicants to present the Council with information to support their application for medical priority. Miss X’s representatives wrote to the Council in May 2019 asking it to explain what consideration it had given to the four- page report from Miss X’s consultant. They asked the Council to review the decision and said Miss X met the criteria for medical priority Band B.
25. On 13 June 2019 the Council sent Miss X its decision on the review of her priority banding. The letter explains that under the Council’s housing policy it will assess whether an applicant’s current housing is harmful to their health. It will then consider whether a move to more suitable accommodation would have a positive effect on their health. The letter stressed where an applicant has a medical condition which their current housing does not significantly worsen the Council will not offer medical priority. The letter confirmed the Council only awards Band A to those who’s housing so severely affects their health it is like to become life threatening: or where the applicant has a life--threatening condition. The letter says Miss X’s household lacks one bedroom and therefore the Council classed it as overcrowded.
26. The Council says it accepts its response to Miss X’s review application did not explain clearly her housing needs attracted Band C priority due to overcrowding.
27. The Council’s letter of 13 June 2019 marked the end of the review procedure. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman saying the Council failed to properly consider her mental health conditions and the impact on them of her current home.
28. Miss X also complained to the Council under its complaints’ procedure. The Council responded on 30 July 2019. Miss X visited the Council’s offices in August 2019 to explain her home no longer met her housing or medical needs. The Council says officers told Miss X they could consider a management transfer on welfare grounds but only if Miss X could provide supporting documents from her doctor. The Council says it tried contacting Miss X’s care co-ordinator without success.
29. In October 2019 Miss X complained again to the Council and it responded on 12 November 2019. The Council did not uphold the complaint, but recommended Miss X seek further medical evidence to help the Council consider her for a management transfer on welfare grounds.
30. Miss X presented a medical report to the Council in November 2019 confirming her diagnosis of vertigo. The report noted Miss X had experienced vertigo for at least eighteen months causing her dizziness, loss of balance and difficulty in walking. In commenting on the draft decision Ms X says the Council has deviated from looking at the impact on her health to welfare concerns resulting in a lower priority.
31. The Council put Miss X’s application for increased priority to its Decisions Panel for consideration in December 2019. The Panel decided Miss X has serious welfare need, due to her mental health condition, risk of falling and overcrowding. It awarded Miss X Priority Band B. The Panel noted Miss X’s mental health conditions made her more sensitive to noise and therefore her current housing adversely affected her condition.
32. In responding to my enquiries, the Council says:

“…senior managers reviewed the stage two response… and were not satisfied that the housing officers had considered all facts to the degree we would have expected regarding how welfare/medical priority is assessed. As a result, the whole case was reviewed…This led to the increase in priority”.

Analysis – was there fault leading to injustice?

33. My role is to examine how the Council decided on Miss X’s priority banding it is not to decide into which priority band it should place her application or consider the merits of that application.
34. The Council’s medical provider responded with a short email which does not explain the weight given by the adviser to the professional views in the information presented to him. It does not show how the medical adviser considered what impact on Miss X’s diagnosed conditions her current housing may have. The Council has not shown that it asked for any further explanations of the medical adviser’s view. The Council says it considered all the information when deciding not to increase Miss X’s priority. It is for the housing officers to decide the application. However, when considering advice from the medical adviser officers need to have evidence of what the medical adviser considered and the reasons for the advice given. Officers can then decide what weight to give to that advice. I find the Council at fault for failing to seek clarification from the medical adviser.
35. The Council referred the application to the Decision Panel in November 2019, and it decided in December 2019 Miss X’s priority should increase to Priority Band B.
36. Officers reviewed the application following receipt of my enquiries. That review resulted in an increase in Miss X’s priority from Band C to Band B. It recognised the Council had not properly considered all the information presented. Therefore, in not properly considering the application earlier the Council delayed Miss X’s ability to bid for properties with the benefit of increased priority. The Council’s delay prevented Miss X from bidding on properties that fell vacant between July and November 2019.
37. Miss X will never know whether but for the faults she may have successfully bid on a property earlier.

Recommended and agreed action

38. To address the injustice arising from the fault identified I recommend, and the Council agrees to within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X;
• Share with staff the lessons learned from this complaint about fully reviewing the information and challenging any lack of detail in the response from the medical adviser;
• Pay Miss X £200 in recognition of the impact of the delay and never knowing if she may have successfully bid on a property earlier.

Back to top

Final decision

39. In completing the investigation, I find the Council at fault for the delay in fully considering all the facts and increasing Miss X’s priority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman