Summary: Mr F complains the Council incorrectly assessed his housing need. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr F) says the Council incorrectly assessed his housing need from August 2018 onwards. In particular, he complains:
• The Council did not award sufficient medical priority;
• Only moved him to Band One because he complained;
• Restricted properties he could bid on for one month;
• Made him wait longer than the average timeframe to get a new property;
• Did not have his new property ready to move into.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I am looking at how the Council handled medical priority and the move to Band One. I am not looking at the rest of the complaint for the reasons set out below.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. 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

6. I have considered the information provided by Mr F. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response.
7. I have written to Mr F and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

8. In 2016 the Council placed Mr F’s household into Band B for severe overcrowding because the family needed an additional two bedrooms.

Events I have investigated

9. In February 2019 the Council received a Member’s enquiry on behalf of Mr F regarding his banding. The Council replied on 28 February explaining Mr F was in Band Two. If he wanted a medical assessment he needed to send in evidence. The Council explained that it did not award medical priority to anyone with a health condition, rather to those where their health was affected by their current accommodation. In July Mr F submitted evidence from a medical professional about one of his children. That month the Council assessed the information and concluded there was a Band Two medical need because the child required its own room due to a health condition. It notified Mr F about its decision. Mr F wrote to the Council in August disputing its decision and stating he should be in Band One.
10. On 21 August the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy changed. This meant that statutorily overcrowded applicants were automatically moved from Band Two to Band One. That included Mr F’s household. The Council wrote to him that day explaining the change. Mr F subsequently complained, initially to the Ombudsman with a premature complaint, and to a Councillor. In September the Council responded to Mr F and reiterated his banding and how this was calculated. It also said that even if additional medical priority was awarded it did not alter his banding because he was already in the highest band.
11. In January 2020 Mr F accepted a Council offer of new accommodation. I understand works were needed before the property was ready to live in.

What should have happened

12. The Council assess a housing applicant’s housing need and places them in a Band to reflect their priority, Band One being the highest priority. It takes account of various factors including overcrowding or a household member’s health.
13. Prior to 21 August 2019 applicants who needed an additional two bedrooms were placed in Band Two. Once a new Housing Allocations Policy came into effect those same applicants were moved up to Band One if they were statutorily overcrowded.
14. The Council will assess medical evidence from professionals to ascertain if an applicant needs medical priority. It does not award priority based on the severity of a person’s condition but rather whether their accommodation is adversely impacting on a health condition.
15. Where a household is placed in the highest Band (Band 1) that priority cannot increase further even if members of the household are awarded additional priority.

Was there fault by the Council

16. Mr F says the Council did not correctly assess medical priority for his family. He disagrees with the Council’s decision, but disagreement is not the same as evidence of fault. The Council followed the correct procedures when it received medical evidence from a health professional in 2019 and this was assessed in line with the Housing Allocations Policy. Furthermore, as the Council told Mr F, additional medical priority for his other child would not have increased his housing priority in any event. The Ombudsman will not question the merits of decisions where there is no fault. That applies to this part of Mr F’s complaint.
17. Mr F also says the Council only moved him to Band One because he complained. That is not correct. The Council has explained to Mr F that its allocations policy changed in 2019 and as a result his housing priority increased. There is no fault by the Council, it acted in line with its policies.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

19. I am looking at events from August 2018 onwards. I am not looking at what happened before then because Mr F could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
20. I am not looking Mr F’s complaints about restricted bidding for one month and the Council not awarding him a property as quick as its average timeframes. That is because I am unlikely to find fault and there is insufficient injustice. In respect of his complaint about the current accommodation he has accepted this is premature, Mr F would need to complain to the Council in the first place before the Ombudsman can investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman