Gloucester City Council (19 012 543)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 30 Oct 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The complainant, Miss Y, says the Council delayed in re-housing her despite having an urgent medical and welfare need. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council because it took too long to review Miss Y’s application when she submitted notice of a change of circumstance. However, we are satisfied based on the information seen, Miss Y did not lose the opportunity to be re-housed during the period of delay. The fault did cause some injustice, in the form of time and trouble, which the Council will apologise for and make a payment of £200 to Miss Y.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I will call Miss Y, complains the Council has failed to rehouse her despite having an urgent medical and welfare need. She says the Council has not reviewed her application since 2018, despite submitting relevant information in support of her application, and has restricted her from bidding on suitable properties as she does not meet the correct age criteria.
  2. Miss Y says she has suffered injustice as a result of the Council’s actions because she lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  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. Before making this decision I took the following action:
    • Discussed the complaint with Miss Y and considered any information she submitted;
    • Made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
    • Consulted any relevant law, guidance and policies. These are cited where necessary in this statement;
    • Considered the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on Jurisdiction’. I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from 2018 because Miss Y was prevented from complaining about these sooner due to delay by the Council; and
    • Issued a draft decision and invited comments from Miss Y and the Council. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

  1. All Local Housing Authorities must have a published allocation scheme which sets out how they assess and prioritise applications for housing.  Local housing authorities are required to give ‘reasonable preference’ to certain categories of people. These are set out in Section 166A of the Housing Act (1996), and include:
    • homeless applicants (for example because it is no longer reasonable for the tenant to continue to reside at the property)
    • applicants occupying unsanitary/overcrowded housing, or living in unsatisfactory housing conditions
    • applicants needing to move on medical, welfare grounds or due to disability or needs to move to a particular area to avoid hardship
  2. The Council’s ‘Homeseeker Plus Policy Documents’ sets out the criteria used by the Council to allocate housing. I will refer to this as ‘the policy’. The policy explains how priority is determined by ‘bands’, and the circumstances in which those bands are applied to applicants.
  3. For medical or welfare needs, the policy says the following:
    • Emergency band: those with an immediate need for re-housing on medical grounds. For example, following a major incident or when the applicant is in hospital and unable to return home due to a changed medical condition. This band also covers ‘exceptional circumstances’, where there is a proven ‘threat to life or limb’ or if the property has a ‘critical detrimental effect on their welfare’
    • Gold band: those with an urgent medical or welfare need, or with a long-term disability that would be alleviated by moving. It would not be reasonable to expect the applicant to continue living in their current property for any length of time.
    • Silver band: those with a significant, but not urgent, medical or welfare need that could be alleviated by moving.
  4. When applying for re-housing on medical grounds, the applicant must provide details and evidence of any medical condition and an explanation of why the current property affects that condition. The Council may seek a detailed medical report from an independent medical advisor, and/or an OT assessment. The reports will be used by the Council to decide housing need.
  5. If an applicant’s circumstances change, the policy says it is the responsibility of the applicant to update their information. The Council will confirm within 28 days whether the change of circumstances impacts the applicant’s banding.
  6. If an applicant seeks a review of any banding decision, the policy says the Council will deal with the request within 14 days or contact the applicant if they need additional time.

What happened

  1. Miss Y contracted bacterial meningitis in 2014. She now experiences chronic pain, reduced mobility and processing delay. Until recently, Miss Y lived in private rented accommodation. She applied to the Council in 2016 for assistance with re-housing because she said her current property was unsuitable. Miss Y felt some of her medical needs would be improved by moving to a new property. In line with its policy, the Council arranged for an OT to assess Miss Y in March 2016. Their report concluded:
    • Miss Y has ‘major’ problems with access to both the front and back of her property
    • The property cannot be adapted
    • The property has no central heating and this impacts on both Miss Y’s physical and mental health
    • The kitchen and bathroom are small and difficult for Miss Y to use
    • Miss Y needs a one-bedroomed ground-floor property with designated or nearby parking, located close to Miss Y’s place of work
    • The property needs adequate heating so that Miss Y can maintain her physical condition to reduce pain and immobility
    • Bathroom and kitchen need to be adequately sized for seating
  2. After considering the OT’s assessment, as well as the information provided by Miss Y, the Council placed her application in the ‘silver band’.
  3. In late 2017 Miss Y saw her hospital consultant, who confirmed that Miss Y’s pain levels had increased, and an examination showed a decrease of power in her left leg. In early 2018 Miss Y was awarded the standard level of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Miss Y send a copy of her PIP letter to the Council in March 2018.
  4. Miss Y also submitted a ‘Change of Circumstance’ form on 20 March 2018 outlining her continued difficulties with her current property. In summary, she said the following:
    • There are multiple steps leading up to the entrance of the property and the landlord cannot instal a rail due to the age and instability of the brickwork
    • There is no central heating and she relies on others to get gas bottles for her
    • The shower cubicle is raised and ‘awkward’ to get in and out of
    • She has to dry washing inside because there are steep steps to the rear of the property and so she cannot get into the garden
    • A ground floor property would be a “massive improvement on my quality of life as I would not have to navigate stairs”
  5. Miss Y provided supporting medical evidence to the Council throughout April to July. She then called the Council in August to query the outcome of her change of circumstance application. The Council told Miss Y that her request was being considered by an independent medical assessor.
  6. The assessor submitted their report to the Council on 21 August. This concluded: “I note that she has previously recommended silver for medical priority and I agree that this remains appropriate. Whilst her condition has worsened slightly, given that current accommodation appears to be on the level once reached and she is managing the external stairs albeit with some difficulty, I do not feel that the priority for higher banding is met.”
  7. On 12 September the Council wrote to Miss Y confirming the outcome of its considerations. It listed the evidenced it had considered and concluded: “although your condition has worsened slightly, your banding for medical priority remains appropriate”
  8. Ten days later Miss Y asked for a review of the Council’s decision. The Council emailed Miss Y two days later with a review form for her completion, which Miss Y submitted in late October.
  9. Miss Y contacted the Council in November and December to query the status of her review. The Council explained there was a delay in reviewing applications but said an officer would like to meet with Miss Y in January to discuss her review. The Council asked Miss Y to bring with her copies of any supporting information which she has not already provided.
  10. A housing officer met with Miss Y on 10 January 2019. She noted the following:
    • Miss Y has an auto-immune disorder. Her immune system is affected by the presence of damp and a lack of central heating. Miss Y has experienced two chest infections and a kidney infection since October 2018
    • Miss Y’s benign brain tumour was shown to have increased in November 2018. The scan results show worsening of her spine and nerve canals, leading to increased falls.
    • Miss Y has always experienced falls on the stairs to her property, but these falls have increased. She struggles to access her flat and cannot carry heavy bags of shopping into the flat. The landlord will not install a handrail.
    • Miss Y struggles to park near her flat due to parking restrictions.
    • The shower cubicle has a two to three inch ‘lip’ and Miss Y catches her toe
    • Miss Y has physiotherapy and acupuncture to help relieve her pain.
  11. On 18 January 2019 the Council wrote to Miss Y to confirm the outcome of her review. It said: “You are in Gold band as you have an assessed urgent medical need to move to suitable alternative accommodation with level access to the property”.
  12. Miss Y submitted a complaint in October 2019 because, despite her gold banding, she remained in housing which was not suitable for her needs. She said many of the level access properties were restricted to those aged over 55 and this amounted to age discrimination. The Council did not uphold the complaint but did offer an apology for any trouble Miss Y had experienced when trying to contact the housing team.
  13. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Miss Y approached the Ombudsman.
  14. In December 2019, and following her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss Y moved home after placing a successful bid on a level access property.

Was there fault causing injustice to Miss Y?

Banding decision

  1. The Council decided in August 2018 that Miss Y should remain within the silver band. I have considered how the Council reached this decision. It consulted an independent assessor and took account of Miss Y’s supporting evidence. This is in line with the policy.
  2. The assessor acknowledged the medical evidence which said that Miss Y’s pain had increased since the 2016 banding decision, and her mobility had also declined. But the Council still felt that Miss Y met the criteria for silver banding because she could navigate the steps, albeit with difficulty. The threshold for placement into the ‘gold band’ is high because the applicant must demonstrate an urgent need to move.
  3. When Miss Y met with the housing officer in January 2019, the notes show that Miss Y explained how a recent scan showed deterioration in her spine and nerve canal. As a result, she fell more frequently on the stairs. The officer considered the information and awarded gold banding.
  4. Miss Y told the Council in 2016 about her falls on the external steps to the property. This was supported by a letter from Miss Y’s GP in June 2016, which the Council considered as part of its 2018 review. However, the notes taken by the housing officer in 2019 demonstrate a deterioration in Miss Y’s condition.
  5. Based on the evidence seen, I have no grounds to question the professional judgement of the officer who undertook the 2018 banding assessment. The Council provided a rationale for its decision which was based on the evidence submitted by Miss Y at the time. The Council then made a different decision when it reviewed the additional information Miss Y provided in 2019.

Delay

  1. The Council’s policy says it will consider change of circumstance forms within 28 days of receipt. Miss Y submitted hers on 20 March 2018 and the Council responded on 12 September. This is 149 days longer than the policy suggests. This is fault.
  2. Miss Y then challenged the decision in late October. The Council reviewed its decision and responded two and a half months later. The policy says the Council should conduct first stage reviews within 14 days of receipt, and let the applicant know if the review will take longer. The Council did not do so in this case. This is also fault.
  3. The fault caused injustice to Miss Y because the delay meant that she was not awarded gold banding as quickly as she should have been, had the Council acted within the published timescales. Consequently, Miss Y’s application remained in a lower priority and she may have lost the opportunity to place successful bids on suitable properties.
  4. Had the Council completed the review within the prescribed timescales, Miss Y would have received the gold banding award on 15 June 2018. This is taking into account six weeks of delay caused by Miss Y when she submitted a late appeal.
  5. I have looked at the bids placed by Miss Y between 15 June 2018, when she should have been allocated gold banding, and 18 January 2019 when the banding was eventually changed. This is to establish whether Miss Y lost the opportunity to successfully bid on a property.
  6. During this period, Miss Y placed bids on five properties. Based on the information received from the Council, I am satisfied that Miss Y did not lose the opportunity to be housed sooner due to Council delay. This is because:
    • Property one: allocated to an applicant with gold banding, but an older effective date
    • Property two: prioritised for applicants living in Tewkesbury
    • Property three: Miss Y did not meet the age criteria (over 55’s only)
    • Property four: allocated to an applicant with gold banding, but an older effective date
    • Property five: refused by the landlord due to the property being unsuitable for Miss Y’s needs.
  7. I have also asked the Council to provide details of all suitable properties allocated between March 2018 and August 2018. This is because Miss Y’s account was deactivated when she submitted a change of circumstance form, and there was a period during which she could not place bids. The Council made four allocations of ground floor properties with level access showers during this period.
  8. However, I am satisfied that Miss Y did not lose the opportunity to be housed sooner due to the Council’s deactivation of her account. This is because:
    • Property one: allocated to a gold applicant in April 2018. Miss Y was in silver banding.
    • Property two: allocated to a gold applicant in April 2018. Miss Y was in silver banding.
    • Property three: allocated to an applicant in emergency banding in May 2018. Miss Y was in silver banding.
    • Property four: allocated to an applicant in emergency banding in July 2018. Miss Y should have been in gold banding at this time, but those with emergency banding have highest priority.
  9. Although Miss Y was not in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary due to Council fault, the delay in her case was considerable and, in my view, caused her injustice in the form of time and trouble. The Council will apologise and pay £200 to Miss Y.

Age restrictions

  1. Miss Y complains that she was not considered for a ground floor property because it was reserved for applicants over the age of 55. The Council acknowledges that, due to the housing provider’s error with the advert, Miss Y was able to place a bid for the property in question. In normal circumstances, properties with age limits are open only to those applicants who meet the age criteria.
  2. Although I appreciate that Miss Y feels that she was discriminated against based on her age, I cannot find fault with the Council on this part of her complaint. The Council does not own any of its own social housing stock; the properties it allocates are through registered housing providers. The individual providers may have their own criteria regarding lets. Therefore, it was not the Council’s decision to reject Miss Y’s bid and so I cannot find fault.

Agreed action

  1. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
    • Write to the Ombudsman to explain what steps it has taken since the matters complained about to expedite the review process, ensuring compliance with the timescales outlined in its policy; and
    • Write to Miss Y to apologise for the delay identified in this statement and pay £200 in recognition of her avoidable time and trouble.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice for the reasons explained in this statement.

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