Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to correctly assess his child’s medical needs when assessing the family’s housing priority. He says the Council’s actions caused the family stress and frustration. The Ombudsman finds there was some fault by the Council in this matter. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and to implement system improvements to ensure its decision letters fully explain what considerations have been made.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to correctly assess his child’s medical circumstances when assessing the family’s housing priority.
2. Mr X is unhappy the Council decided the effect of his current housing on the health of one of his children did not meet the criteria to increase his priority banding. He says the Council’s actions caused unnecessary stress and anxiety to his child and the wider family.

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. 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

5. I have considered the information provided by Mr X.
6. I have made enquiries to the Council and considered the information provided by it.
7. I have shared a draft of this decision with Mr X and the Council and considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. 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))
9. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
10. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
11. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
12. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
13. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process;
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline.
14. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
15. The Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

The Council’s policy

16. The Council’s housing allocations scheme awards priority to applicants in need of housing with Band A being the highest priority. Applicants with an urgent need to move because of critical medical conditions, the Council places in Priority Band A. Applicants who need to move because they have been assessed as having a serious medical need, the Council places in Priority Band B. The policy contains examples of a critical medical housing need. For example, an applicant with a life-threatening condition and whose existing home is a major contributor to worsening that condition.
17. The policy says the Council will consider applications for medical priority where the applicant's housing conditions negatively affects their health and they may expect a benefit from suitable alternative housing. The Council may seek information from landlords, housing officers, doctors, occupational therapists, health visitors and other parties who may have relevant information or expertise.
18. The Council uses an independent medical adviser from which its officers take medical advice when necessary, to help it decide an applicant’s priority.

What happened

Background

19. Mr X lived in a two-bedroom property with his partner, Y, and their two children, Child A and B.
20. Child A was diagnosed with a medical condition which meant they presented challenging behaviour. This included physical aggression which sometimes caused injury to Mr X and Y.
21. Child A shared a bedroom with Y, whilst B occupied the other bedroom. Mr X slept in the living room.
22. Because of Child A and B’s ages, the Council assessed Mr X and his family as needing a three-bedroom property.
23. The Council assessed Mr X’s priority for a transfer to alternative accommodation as Band C.
24. In 2018, Mr X asked the Council to review its priority banding decision based on the medical needs of Child A.
25. The Council acknowledged Mr X required a three-bedroom property but decided his priority banding remained as Band C.
26. In 2019, Mr X again asked the Council to review its priority banding decision and submitted a Health Assessment form to the Council. This was the same form as previously submitted to the Council in 2018, but with the date amended.
27. Mr X said Child A’s medical condition and sensory needs meant they needed their own space and their own bedroom. He said Child A’s needs were increasing and their challenging behavior placed other members of the family at risk. Mr X provided evidence of Child A’s medical history and a letter from their school in support of his request.
28. The Council considered Mr X’s request and decided a further medical recommendation was not required. It decided that Child A’s medical condition placed them in the category of a “moderate” medical need.
29. Based on its decision, the Council said Mr X’s priority banding remained as Band C. It said the issue of overcrowding was not considered as part of the medical assessment because this attracted its own priority.
30. The Council said Mr X could register a complaint with the Ombudsman if he was dissatisfied with its decision.

What happened next

31. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate.
32. In early 2020, there was an incident at the building where Mr X lived which required him to temporarily vacate the property.
33. The Council placed Mr X and his family in emergency accommodation so that repairs could be carried out to his home address. This temporary accommodation was a three-bedroom property.
34. The Council reviewed Mr X’s case via the Housing Decisions Panel and approved a like-for-like two-bedroom decant. However, after further representations for a three-bedroom property were made, the Council considered its decision again.
35. The Council decided there were exceptional circumstances within Mr X’s case. It agreed to offer Mr X a permanent decant into a three-bedroom property once a suitable property became available.

Analysis – was there fault leading to injustice

36. It is acknowledged that the Council has now agreed to decant Mr X to a three-bedroom property.
37. My role is not to decide into which priority banding the Council should have placed Mr X’s application or consider the merits of that application. My role is to examine how the Council decided on Mr X’s priority banding.
38. The Council’s housing allocations scheme says “applications for medical priority will be considered by the Council’s specialist housing team which will assess the extent to which the applicant’s health is affected by their housing conditions and the expected benefits of providing suitable alternative housing”.
39. The Council said it considered that Mr X and his family lived in a ground floor property surrounded by green space which could be accessed by supervised play.
40. Although Mr X says this space was unsuitable for Child A because it was open and unsecure, the Council has demonstrated it considered the effect of Mr X’s then-current housing on Child A’s health.
41. But the Council did not explain how it considered the expected benefits of providing suitable alternative accommodation. Its decision letter to Mr X failed to explain how this aspect of the application was assessed.
42. The Council’s decision letter refers to its allocations policy and says the information provided by Mr X was not enough to justify a Band A or Band B placement.
43. It says it recognised and agreed that Mr X had a level of medical need. However, it said Mr X did not meet the criteria of having a serious or critical medical need and priority banding remained at Band C.
44. But the Council did not explain how it decided that Child A’s medical need did not meet the criteria. It did not explain how it determines the severity or category of an applicant’s medical problem. Its housing allocations scheme refers to certain circumstances which the Council may consider to be a critical need. But it is silent on how the other categories are determined and this information is missing from the decision letter.
45. The Council may have considered the benefits of alternative accommodation and determined Child A’s medical needs to be moderate. In order to demonstrate a robust decision has been made, it is necessary to be able to explain and evidence what factors were considered. As previously stated in line 10, Councils must give reasons for their decisions. In this case, the Council has not done that and I consider this to be fault.
46. The injustice flowing from this fault is the stress and frustration caused to Mr X by the Council failing to adequately explain its decision. Mr X’s previous request for a review of his priority banding was unsuccesful. The Council’s lack of explanation for its decision in 2019 led Mr X to believe his child’s medical needs had not been acknowledged.
47. Mr X says the issue of overcrowding also caused stress and anxiety. However, this is not a direct result of the Council failing to explain its decision.

Agreed action

48. To address the injustice arising from the fault identified, the Council agrees to:

• Apologise to Mr X within four weeks of the final decision;
• Implement system improvements within three months of the final decision, specifically to provide guidance reminding staff of the need to ensure all decision letters fully explain what considerations have been made.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have completed my investigation and found fault leading to personal injustice. The Council has agreed actions that I consider provide a fair remedy to the complaint and will prevent recurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman