Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr L’s complaint about the Council failing to properly consider his application for sheltered housing. The Council failed to properly assess his application and ask for updated information as recommended by the independent medical advisor. It also failed to give clear advice and information about eligibility or consider whether it needed to exercise discretion. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr L complains about the Council’s failure to properly consider his application for sheltered housing; as a result, he remained in housing that did not meet his needs and feels frustrated with the way he was treated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)

Back to top

Council housing allocation scheme (2019)

4. The Council’s allocation scheme sets out how it assesses and priorities applications for housing, and how it decides which applicant is offered a council and housing association home.
5. A new applicant is placed in the band that reflects their housing need. (paragraph 44)
6. The Council carries out a preliminary assessment when it receives an application and tells the applicant which band they have been provisionally placed in. It will stay in the band until the application is verified. (paragraph 84 and 85)
7. When the application reaches a high enough position on the housing register, it will ask an applicant for evidence in support of it to check eligibility for housing. (paragraph 95)
8. It will assess an applicant who says their current medical accommodation affects a medical condition or disability based on the medical evidence provided. This may involve seeking advice from its independent medical adviser and/or getting additional information from a health professional such as an occupational therapist. (paragraph 256)
9. The assessment looks at how the current accommodation affects quality of life. It wants to find out whether an applicant’s health, or ability to assess services and be part of the local community, would improve by moving to alternative accommodation. (paragraph 257)
10. The scheme has 3 bands. Band 1 is for those with the highest priority and greatest urgency. Band 3 is for those with moderate housing needs and lower urgency. This includes those who have a health related, or disability need or, those who need to move on welfare grounds. (paragraph 213)
11. Where an applicant needs to move because the current accommodation moderately affects their medical condition or their disability, but the need is not urgent enough to go in to Band 1, it will place the applicant in Band 3. It gives examples where an applicant has restricted mobility and needs to move in to housing suitable for their needs. (paragraph 260 and 261)

Back to top

Sheltered accommodation

12. The Council’s website states eligibility for sheltered housing is for:

• Adults over the age of 60 years following an assessment of need but; and
• Applicants under this age will be assessed on an individual basis.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered all the information Mr L sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr L and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

14. Mr L, now 54, wants ground floor sheltered accommodation because he has various health problems and lives in a single bedroom flat on the third floor of a shared house. While the shared kitchen is on the same floor, the shared bathroom facilities are on the floor below. His health is such he cannot get out of bed on occasions and claims he can end up bedbound for up to 19 days. Mr L struggles with access to and from his flat and says he has fallen down stairs a few times.
15. In July 2018, Mr L applied to join the Council’s housing register. The Council placed his application in a ‘holding band’ while it assessed the medical evidence he sent. It could not complete its assessment until January 2019 because of the high number of applications received. It gave Mr L no medical priority as he failed to show how his current accommodation affected his daily living on medical grounds.
16. The Council review involved getting its independent medical adviser (IMA) to consider the request for medical priority. The decision remained unchanged.
17. In June, the IMA recorded needing up to date information from Mr L about his health.
18. On a further review, the Council decided to give him priority on welfare grounds with a priority date to when he first applied.
19. In September, Mr L applied for sheltered accommodation. The Council could not provide a copy of the application. It refused to consider him for sheltered accommodation because of his age. An email said, ‘sheltered accommodation is for those who are aged 60 years and above’. Mr L is unhappy with this advice and says its information on the website contradicts what it tells him. It went on to explain it would now verify his housing application to approve it as he was finding his property increasingly difficult to live in. It asked him to visit its offices with certain documents.
20. Mr L queried this decision based on age and noted many places accepted applicants aged 55 years of age with a Council recommendation. The Council replied saying he did not qualify for age restricted or sheltered accommodation as he did not meet the ‘55-60 60+’ age criteria. It would ask him to provide evidence in support of his application when he was high enough on the housing register. It also asked if he wanted a referral to adult social services to see if they could help with care packages. Mr L says the Council website states applicants over 55 can apply for this type of property, a screen shot of which he provided.
21. In response to his complaint, the Council told him it would not consider him for sheltered accommodation because this was for people who were at least 55. Mr L was 53.
22. The Council approved his application to join the housing register. His occupational therapist recommended a ground floor property and a wheelchair for when he is immobile. He is unhappy with the Council’s failure to reply to his queries about his application.
23. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it considered Mr L for sheltered housing. Officers are aware they need to get direction from a senior officer if they believe discretion needs exercising. It did not provide any guidance given to officers about the circumstances in which discretion needed considering or how to exercise it.
24. It said it will consider offering sheltered accommodation to an applicant under 55 with a significant learning disability, where general needs housing is unsuitable because of their vulnerability. In most cases, the age limit would apply.
25. The housing disability assessment done in May 2019 states Mr L is house bound as his condition is worsening and cannot go outside as he is unable to manage the 4 flights of stairs during any flare up. Flare ups are becoming more frequent and severe. He gets to the corner shop once a month if lucky. The occupational therapist noted he could not use the stairs during the visit because of a flare up. There were problems with him transferring on/off the toilet and recommended a toilet frame with seat attached. Mr L felt this was not possible as it was a shared bathroom with other residents. The recommendation was for ground floor accommodation.

Analysis

26. I found fault on this complaint and in doing so, took the following in to account:
1. The Council delayed processing the housing application Mr L sent in July 2018. It accepted it did not assess the medical evidence he sent with it until January 2019, six months later because of the high number of applications received. The preliminary assessment should have been done within 10 working days after which applicants get told their banding. An application remains in this provisional banding until verified. The delay in assessing his medical evidence is fault. I am not satisfied it caused Mr L a significant injustice. This is because the independent medical advisor made no recommendation for medical priority on 2 separate occasions. Nor did that decision change following a review.
2. The Council’s letter of 4 April 2019 states, ‘having carefully considered all the information that has been received the [independent medical adviser] has again felt unable to award priority for housing on medical grounds. Your application does not therefore meet the minimum threshold to be included in the housing register’. It went on to explain when making his recommendations, the IMA took account of all relevant information about his health, accommodation, and living conditions, along with the needs of other households with housing problems because of the very limited resources available.
3. The IMA recommendation stated, ‘No demonstrated need for [ground floor] accommodation’. The IMA offers no reasoning on which this decision is based There is no evidence showing housing officers reached their own considered view. The evidence suggests officers merely passed on the decision of the IMA without any analysis of their own. This is fault.
4. There is no evidence the Council considered how the current accommodation affects his quality of life. There is nothing to show it considered whether him moving to alternative accommodation would improve his health, or his ability to assess services and be part of the local community. These failures are fault.
5. I have not seen Mr L’s application for sheltered accommodation.
6. In June, the IMA recorded up to date information was needed to consider his request for medical priority. There is no evidence of the Council asking Mr L for this. This is fault.
7. The Council emailed Mr L in September 2019 and told him housing accommodation was for those aged 60 years and above. It failed to tell him it could consider applications from those under this age. This is fault.
8. There is no evidence showing officers considered whether they needed to exercise discretion on Mr L’s application for this type of accommodation even though he was under 60. While the Council explained there is discretion to consider such applications, there is no evidence officers considered it. This is fault.
9. The Council failed to explain the policy about letting sheltered accommodation to Mr L properly at this point. It also failed to explain exceptions to the age requirement and whether these were considered in his case. This is fault.
10. The second email he received provided a little more information about the eligibility criteria. It referred to 2 separate age categories: those aged 55-60; and those aged 60+. It gave no explanation about any distinction between the two groups. Nor did it explain whether officers considered him under general discretion despite his age. This is fault.
11. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it will consider offering sheltered accommodation to an applicant under 55 with a significant learning disability, where general needs housing is unsuitable because of vulnerability. I consider the Council fettered its discretion. This is fault. It limited considering applicants under 55 for this accommodation unless they have a significant learning disability. There may well be other circumstances it needs to consider exercising discretion.
12. I saw nothing in the Council housing allocation policy which explains the eligibility requirements for sheltered accommodation or how discretion is exercised.
13. I am satisfied these failures caused Mr L injustice. The distress caused included: lack of clear advice/information about the criteria for this type of accommodation; not knowing whether it properly considered and assessed his housing application properly and his application for sheltered accommodation. Clearer information to Mr L might have resulted in fewer emails from him, for example, about eligibility for this type of accommodation. It also caused him some stress and frustration.

Agreed action

27. I considered our guidance on remedies.
28. The Council will, within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, carry out the following:
1. Send Mr L a written apology for the failure to: process the application promptly when received: assess the housing application properly; ask him for up to date information as suggested by the IMA; provide clear advice and information about the eligibility for this accommodation; consider the need to exercise discretion on his application for this accommodation; consider and apply unfettered discretion.
2. Carry out a review of all the medical information Mr L sent on his main housing application and decide whether it would have made any difference to his priority banding. It will also look at what actions it can take to ensure the delay between receiving the application and assessing the medical evidence is not repeated in the future.
3. Carry out a review of all the medical information he sent in support of his application for sheltered accommodation. This should look at the impact his previous accommodation had on his quality of life and ability to access services and the community.
4. Consider whether it needs to exercise discretion on his application despite him not meeting the age requirement.
5. Review its housing allocation policy to include a section about sheltered accommodation and the exercise of discretion.
6. Consider whether it needs to issue guidance to officers about the exercising of discretion on sheltered accommodation applications.
7. Take steps to ensure information about eligibility for sheltered accommodation on its website, and that given by officers, is clear and consistent.
8. Pay Mr L £300 for the distress caused by the fault.
9. When it has carried out b), c) and d), the Council will check to see if Mr L’s application would have had a higher priority banding, or it would have exercised discretion in his favour. If he would have, it will check its records to see whether he would have been allocated accommodation as a result. It will pay him £200 a month for each month that has passed from the date he would have been allocated a property to the present date.

Back to top

Final decision

29. The Ombudsman found fault on Mr L’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman