London Borough of Camden (19 008 244)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 24 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed her daughter’s medical needs assessment in relation to her housing allocation priority. The Council was at fault. The impact of the delays resulted in Miss X and her family missing out on suitable properties. The Council has agreed to backdate Miss X’s priority to remedy her injustice.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complained the Council delayed the process of assessing her daughter’s medical needs in relation to her housing allocation priority. She said there were delays with the Council:
    • sending out the relevant form;
    • carrying out the medical assessment; and
    • reviewing its decision.
  2. She said, the delays have meant that her family has been waiting longer than they should to move to suitable accommodation. She also said, the delays and the Council’s attitude has caused her unnecessary distress and worry about her daughter’s safety in her current accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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

  1. I have considered Miss X’s complaint and supporting information.
  2. I have also considered the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme, and its response to Miss X’s complaint review requests.
  3. I have used the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies which is available on our website.
  4. I have written to Miss X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocation policy

  1. The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme sits within legal framework which includes the Housing Act 1996, the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and the regulations issued by government relating to allocations.
  2. Council has a points-based allocation scheme which gives applicants points according to their housing needs and additional needs they or other members of their household have.
  3. There are reasonable preference categories which includes housing and health related needs. There are two levels of priority within this group; Category 1 where an applicant is in urgent need of rehousing and Category 2 where rehousing would be necessary.

Medical assessment

  1. The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme lists the conditions where an applicant would be considered eligible for points due to housing and health related needs which mean that it would be desirable for them to move. The list includes ‘have an Autistic Spectrum disorder with behavioural problems, global development delay or moderate to severe learning difficulties’.
  2. The policy says a medical assessment officer will determine whether the applicant is eligible for health and housing related points. To be eligible, an applicant must demonstrate that:
    • their medical condition is being caused or made worse by their housing conditions, and
    • their current property cannot be improved or adapted to meet their needs at a reasonable cost, and
    • rehousing is likely to significantly improve their condition.
  3. The policy says the Council will aim to assess a medical application within 21 working days.

Right to review

  1. The policy sets out the two-stage review procedure for applicants who disagree with an officer’s decision:
    • Stage 1 – An applicant can request a review within 21 days of the decision being issued. Within 14 days of receiving an applicant’s request and reasons for review, the officer will advise the applicant of any change to their decision.
    • Stage 2 - An applicant can request a review of the stage 1 decision within 21 days of it being issued. A reviewing officer will review the decision within 56 days of their request.
  2. The policy says the timescales above may be extended in exceptional circumstances.

What happened

  1. Miss X joined the Council’s housing register in March 2016. She lives with her son and daughter (Y).

Housing and health form (‘medical form’)

  1. In August 2018, Miss X updated her application online to reflect Y’s medical issues. She said she was told the Council would send a medical form for her to complete. She said, over the following months, she repeatedly contacted the Council and reported she had not received the form.
  2. In response to Miss X’s complaint about the delay, the Council said based on the online information received from Miss X, Y would not be eligible for medical points; therefore, it would not have sent out a form.
  3. Miss X said she updated her online form on 17 September to inform the Council her daughter had Autistic Spectrum Disorder with behavioural problems.
  4. The Council said on 10 October 2018 Miss X updated her online application to say Y had global developmental delay. At this stage, the Council said it provisionally awarded Y Category 2 medical priority and should have sent Miss X the Housing and Health Form.
  5. The Council said on 9 November, it removed Y’s provisional medical priority as it had not received the completed medical form from Miss X. Miss X said she continued to tell the Council she had not received the form.
  6. Miss X said she eventually received the form by email in December 2018. Records show, she completed and returned it the next day.

Medical assessment

  1. Miss X said she contacted the Council in early January 2019 to check the progress of Y’s medical assessment. She said she was told the medical assessor had the form but was very busy. Miss X said, she repeatedly chased the Council and submitted a formal complaint about the delay on 13 February.
  2. The Council completed Y’s health and housing assessment on 19 February. This was 41 working days after Miss X had returned the form.
  3. The assessment concluded that Y was eligible to be awarded Category 2 medical priority (150 points).
  4. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council apologised for the delays in sending the form and in completing the medical assessment. It explained there was a backlog of work and assessments were taking longer than they should. It offered Miss X £50 to compensate her for the inconvenience.

Stage 1 review of the health and housing (medical priority) decision

  1. On 20 March, Miss X requested a review of the Council’s decision. The Council sent Miss X another medical form. She completed and returned this on 10 April, within 21 working days of the decision.
  2. Miss X argued Y’s medical condition meant it was unsafe for her to continue living in her current accommodation. She said she could not manage the stairs as Y’s behaviour made it dangerous. She also raised concerns about Y’s safety in an upstairs flat as she was at risk of climbing out of the window.
  3. On 19 May, the Council reviewed Y’s health and housing assessment. The review decision listed all the medical information the assessor had considered. The review concluded there was insufficient evidence Miss X’s current housing detrimentally affected Y’s mental health. It acknowledged Y’s behaviour challenges, as identified in the medical information provided.
  4. The Council decided to award Y with Category 2 medical priority. It made further recommendations that Miss X should be rehoused no higher than second floor, if the property has a lift, and first floor if the property has no lift.

Stage 2 review

  1. On 20 May, Miss X requested a stage 2 review. She requested the highest medical award for Y (Category 1 medical priority). She included a letter from Y’s occupational therapist which said Y was unsafe in her current accommodation as she could climb out of the window.
  2. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s current housing was having a serious impact on Y’s health and well-being. However, it was not satisfied that Miss X had demonstrated there was an urgent need to move. It clarified there needed to be compelling evidence of an urgent need to move to be eligible for Category 1 medical priority.
  3. The Council said it was not clear why window restrictors were not working to prevent Y climbing out of the window.
  4. The Council issued its stage 2 review decision on 23 August 2019. It did not award Category 1 medical priority but prioritised Miss X for ground floor properties.

My findings

  1. The Council has acknowledged and apologised for the delays encountered by Miss X during the medical assessment process. It offered her £50 compensation.
  2. The Council explained it was experiencing high numbers of applications and the backlog caused the delays. I do not accept these as ‘exceptional circumstances’. The Council should have dealt with the application within the timescales set out in its Housing Allocation Scheme.
  3. There were delays at each stage of the process from when Miss X should have received the medical form in September 2018 to the stage 2 review decision in August 2019. Based on my calculations, comparing the published timescales in the Allocation Scheme to the actual timescales, this equates to 110 working days, or 22 weeks of delay.
  4. The Council provisionally awarded Y a Category 2 medical priority in October 2018. This priority was not changed through the review process. Therefore, I do not consider the delays caused Miss X an injustice in relation to the housing need points she received.
  5. However, if it had not been for the fault, Y would have been prioritised for ground floor properties at the end of March 2019. This caused Miss X and her family the injustice of potentially missing the opportunity to be prioritised for suitable ground floor accommodation. The Council has agreed to backdate Miss X’s ground floor priority to March 2019.

Agreed action

  1. Within 4 weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
    • backdate Miss X’s priority for ground floor properties to 29 March 2019; and
    • pay Miss X £200 for the avoidable distress experienced by her whilst pursuing her daughter’s medical assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have upheld Miss X’s complaint. The impact of the delayed form, medical assessment and review resulted in Miss X and her family missing out on having a priority to bid on suitable ground floor properties for longer than necessary.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings