Summary: Ms C complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for rehousing on medical grounds. Ms C says she is not suitably housed which has exacerbated her health problems and she cannot leave the house. We have found some delay and poor communication by the Council but consider the action it has already taken of providing a full explanation and apology is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C, complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for rehousing on medical grounds. In particular, Ms C says the Council:

• lost her documents;
• took too long to consider evidence;
• failed to properly consider the medical evidence she provided; and
• failed to deal with her complaint.

2. Ms C says because of the Council's fault she is not suitably housed which has exacerbated her health problems and she cannot leave the house.

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. 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)
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 read the papers provided by Ms C. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Ms C. I have explained my draft decision to Ms C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislation

7. 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)).
8. Council’s must award “reasonable preference” to certain categories of people. These are set out in section 166A of the 1996 Housing Act.

Key events

9. Ms C originally applied to the Council at the end of April 2017 to be included on its housing register with her daughter. The application included health and support information about her daughter. The Council assessed Ms C needed a two bedroom home and noted she already lived in a three bedroom home and was placed in Band 3 as being adequately housed. This band has no housing priority.
10. The Council’s Allocations Policy says it will award priority on health or disability grounds after an assessment if someone in the household has a “severe long-term limiting illness, or a permanent and substantial disability and their health or quality of life is severely affected by the home they live in”.
11. Ms C completed an application form for rehousing on medical grounds at the end of March 2018. Ms C provided information about her own health problems which included mobility issues and stated she needed ground floor accommodation with a garden.
12. The Council wrote to Ms C on 15 August 2018 to say it had completed the assessment of her application for housing priority on health grounds. The Council’s decision was not to award any additional priority to Ms C’s application. The letter set out that the assessment had considered Ms C’s application but did not consider she had a permanent substantial disability or a severe long-term limiting illness which her current accommodation was severely affecting as set out in its policy. The Council’s letter set out Ms C’s right to request a review. Ms C did not seek a review of this decision.
13. There was an apparent delay between Ms C’s application at the end of March 2018 and the Council’s decision in August. However, given the outcome was not to award any priority and Ms C did not appeal this decision at the time I do not consider any delay caused her an injustice requiring a remedy.
14. Ms C made a new application for rehousing on medical grounds to the Council in July 2019. The Council wrote to Ms C on 4 September 2019 to seek further information. Ms C made attempts to provide this additional information.
15. 
    Ms C’s social worker contacted the Council on 7 October to say there was additional information that should be considered by the Council. The Council explained if there was additional evidence to support the application this needed to be provided. The social worker subsequently provided the additional information.
16. Ms C complained to the Council on 15 October 2019 about being given conflicting information about how to provide her supporting medical information and the Council’s failure to act on the information she had provided. The Council replied on 7 November. The Council confirmed it had received Ms C’s supporting medical evidence and passed this to its Health Adviser.
17. The Council wrote to Ms C on 26 November 2019 to say it had completed the assessment of her application for housing priority on health grounds. The Council’s decision was not to award any additional priority to Ms C’s application. The medical adviser noted there was no evidence of a confirmed medical condition that prevented the use of some stairs. The Council’s letter set out Ms C’s right to request a review.
18. Ms C sought a review of the above decision in December 2019. The Council wrote to Ms C on 17 February 2020 to confirm it had completed the reassessment of her application for housing priority on health grounds following her request for a review. The Council confirmed the original decision not to award any additional priority and Ms C remained in Band 3.
19. Ms C complained to the Council in March 2020 about the way it had dealt with her housing application. The Council responded on 15 April. The Council provided a detailed response about the history of Ms C’s applications above and how it had considered her supporting medical evidence. The Council accepted its response of 7 November 2019 to her earlier October complaint did not provide a satisfactory response to the specific issues she had raised. The Council provided a clear explanation. The Council also apologised for its communication and the incorrect information about how to provide supporting documents.
20. Given the outcome of Ms C’s application and review request, I consider the Council’s explanation and apology above are enough to provide a suitable remedy and the Ombudsman would not seek more. I have seen no other evidence of fault in how the Council considered Ms C’s application that would allow me to question the decision it has reached.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation as I have found some fault by the Council but consider the action it has already taken is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman