Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her application to join the housing register. She says the Council ignored medical evidence and disrepair issues of damp and mould. She also says the Council delayed in accepting her onto the register. We find fault with the Council for not properly considering Mrs X’s medical evidence. This caused a delay in her being accepted onto the register. We also find fault with the Council’s complaint handling. We have made recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Councils handling of her application to join the housing register. She says:
• The Council ignored medical evidence and disrepair issues of damp and mould.
• The Council delayed in accepting her onto the register as she first applied in December 2017 but was only accepted in March 2020.
• The Council has not reflected that she needs a ground floor and adapted property on her housing register account.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s actions have caused her health, and her daughter’s health, to decline. She also says she was caused financial loss due to having to run three dehumidifiers and because of property that was damaged by the damp and mould.

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 spoke with Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
7. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. I sent a draft decision to Mrs X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s allocation policy

9. The policy sets out that the law states there are five groups of applicants where reasonable preference must be considered, including:
• People occupying unsanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions.
• People who need to move on medical or welfare grounds (including grounds relating to a disability).
10. The policy also notes when an applicant will not qualify for entry onto the housing register, including:
• Applicants who are assessed as having no housing need. Housing need is defined as meeting one or more of the reasonable preference categories.
11. The policy states the Council will complete medical assessments for any applicant who believes their medical condition or disability is being affected by their current accommodation. The applicant has to fill in a self-assessment medical form, detailing the effect their current accommodation is having on their medical condition or disability. The applicant may be required to provide supporting information or details of their doctor, medical consultant, etc.
12. A housing officer will initially assess all medical applications. Where appropriate, the housing officer will refer to a medical professional for their opinion of how the medical condition is affected by the applicant’s housing circumstances. Their assessment will be based on:
• the applicant’s (or member of the household included in the application) medical condition;
• the effect their property has on that condition and;
• how moving to an alternative property can help that condition.

Council’s complaints policy

13. The Council operates a three stage complaints process. The policy notes the response timelines for the following stages:
• Stage one: 10 working days
• Stage two: 10 working days
• Stage three: 35 working days

What happened

14. Mrs X moved into a private rented property in 2016. Mrs X lives with her daughter.
15. At the end of November 2017, Mrs X made an application to join the Council’s housing register. She said the property she lived in had problems with damp and mould which was affecting her medical conditions. She provided the Council with some medical information which showed she had a diagnosis of asthma and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
16. The Council declined Mrs X’s application in January 2018. The Council said Mrs X was not eligible to join the housing register as she did not meet the criteria to receive band A-C priority.
17. Mrs X applied to join the housing register again in June 2018. She provided the Council with some further medical evidence to support her view that the property she was living in was negatively affecting her medical conditions.
18. The Council declined Mrs X’s application on the basis the medical evidence provided showed medical professionals were appropriately supporting Mrs X’s medical conditions. The Council also said the disrepair issues had to be dealt with by her landlord. The Council asked Mrs X to contact its private housing team to discuss the disrepair matters.
19. At the end of August 2018, Mrs X sent the Council medical evidence from her respiratory consultant which noted the disrepair issues of damp and mould in her property were making her asthma worse.
20. In October 2018, Mrs X made a third application to join the housing register. Mrs X again provided the medical evidence from her respiratory consultant.
21. The Council declined Mrs X’s application in November 2018. The Council said Mrs X did not meet the criteria to receive band A-C priority. The Council also said it had assessed the medical information provided but did not agree that an award of medical priority was appropriate. The Council did not set out how it had made its decision.
22. Mrs X made a further four housing applications to join the housing register between January 2019 and January 2020. The evidence showed Mrs X provided the August 2018 letter from her consultant with each application.
23. The Council declined Mrs X’s applications as it decided she did not meet the criteria to receive band A-C priority.
24. Mrs X made a complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing applications in July 2019. Mrs X said the Council had not properly considered her medical evidence that the damp and mould issues with her property was negatively affecting her medical conditions.
25. The Council responded to Mrs X at stage one at the end of July 2019. The Council said it had assessed the medical evidence provided by Mrs X, but it did not agree she should be awarded medical priority. The Council did not explain its reasons for this decision.
26. The Council also said it had attended the property and agreed damp was present, but it was not excessive. The Council also said Mrs X’s landlord had agreed to complete the required works to repair the damp. The Council also told Mrs X the medical evidence she provided was out of date and not current.
27. At the beginning of August 2019, an occupational therapist (OT) visited Mrs X to investigate installing adaptations to the property to assist Mrs X. After the visit, the OT concluded Mrs X did not need an adapted property but could benefit from being on a ground floor with a more accessible bathroom. The OT also confirmed they could not recommend any adaptations due to lack of space and the property’s thin walls.
28. The OT emailed the housing service and asked whether the service would reconsider her housing application because of Mrs X’s condition and difficulties. The Council said the housing service took the view the email did not contain any recommendations or new medical information, so did not reconsider Mrs X’s application.
29. Mrs X asked the Council to investigate her complaint at stage two in August 2019. Mrs X said the Council had overlooked the medical evidence from her consultant from August 2018 which stated the damp and mould problems with her property were making her asthma worse.
30. The Council responded at stage two at the end of August 2019. The Council said it had reviewed the evidence again but there was no extra evidence to overturn the decision not to allow her onto the housing register. The Council said it took into consideration how Mrs X’s current accommodation affected her health but did not set out its reasons for why it felt Mrs X’s property was not affecting her medical conditions.
31. Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s response and sent a further complaint in November 2019. The Council dealt with the further complaint at stage three of its complaint procedure.
32. At the end of February 2020, the Council completed a second OT assessment. This assessment determined an adapted property was not necessary. The OT also said a ground floor property would be more suitable for Mrs X. Following this visit, the Council agreed to allow Mrs X onto the housing register. The Council awarded Mrs X’s application band C priority and agreed to backdate the effective date of her application to August 2018.
33. At the end of March 2020, the Council suspended its housing register, and no biddings were allowed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
34. In July 2020, the Council decided to amend Mrs X’s banding to band B priority, also backdated to August 2018.
35. Mrs X told the Council in July 2020 her effective date had not been changed to August 2018 as agreed. The Council fixed this at the end of July after Mrs X raised the issue.
36. The evidence showed Mrs X chased the Council for an update on her complaint several times between May 2020 and September 2020. The Council responded to Mrs X’s stage three complaint in September 2020.
37. The Council’s stage three investigation found fault with the following:
• A medical assessment was not requested when Ms X raised medical reasons for her need to be rehoused.
• The housing service did not follow up on the OT email which alerted them to possibly significant information in August 2019.
• There were delays in involving the OTs to complete a medical assessment.
• The band C allocation had not been backdated to August 2018 as agreed. The revised band B allocation was also not backdated.
38. The stage three investigation made the following recommendations:
• Apologise for not considering Ms X’s medical conditions earlier and for the consequent delay in resolution of her application.
• Apologise for the time taken to resolve Ms X’s complaint.
• Make a payment of £500 to reflect the delay and the anxiety that has been caused to Mrs X when pursuing her application and the delay in being rehoused which may have resulted.
39. We asked the Council to explain whether it was possible to know if Mrs X would have been successful for any bids had it accepted her onto the housing register in August 2018.
40. The Council explained Mrs X would have been eligible to bid on 21 two-bedroom, ground floor properties between August 2018 and November 2020. The Council also confirmed it had paused bidding for properties between March 2020 and June 2020 because of Covid-19.
41. The Council said it was not possible to say whether Mrs X would have been successful in securing a property. The Council also said there were currently 36 applicants with an effective date older than Mrs X’s waiting for a two-bedroom property. The Council said there would have been significantly more applicants ahead of Mrs X in August 2018, had it accepted her application to join the register then.

Analysis

42. The evidence shows the Council found fault with its handling of Mrs X’s housing application during its stage three complaint investigation. The Council accepted there had been delays with involving OTs to medically assess Mrs X and that information from her respiratory consultant had not been properly considered.
43. Having reviewed the evidence, I agree with the Council’s investigation that there was fault in its handling of Mrs X’s housing application. This is because Mrs X provided the Council with evidence from a medical professional that stated her property was making her asthma worst. The evidence shows Mrs X first provided the Council with this information in August 2018.
44. The Council’s housing allocation policy notes medical applications will be first assessed by a housing officer. It notes their assessment will be based on the applicant’s medical condition, the effect their property has on that condition, and how moving to an alternative property can help that condition. When the Council declined Mrs X’s application in November 2018, there is no evidence the Council had considered the above. Therefore, the Council did not properly consider the medical evidence provided by Mrs X. This is fault.
45. I consider the fault identified would have caused Mrs X an injustice. This is because she would have been caused distress and anxiety as the Council did not properly consider her medical evidence.
46. When the Council accepted Mrs X onto the housing register in March 2020, the Council agreed to backdate her application to August 2018. This was appropriate as this was the date Mrs X first sent the Council a copy of the letter from her respiratory consultant. However, the evidence shows the Council did not backdate the effective date of Mrs X’s housing application to August 2018 until the end of July 2020. The Council has accepted fault for this.
47. As the Council has backdated Mrs X’s application, this suggests there has been a delay in the Council accepting Mrs X onto the housing register. The Council has already acknowledged fault for this.
48. I consider the fault has caused some uncertainty for Mrs X. This is because it is not possible to say, even on balance, whether Mrs X would have successfully bid on a property if her application had been accepted in August 2018.
49. The Council has offered a payment of £500 to recognise the injustice caused by the faults identified. I consider this amount to be appropriate.
50. The Council has also acknowledged fault in the length of time taken to resolve Mrs X’s complaint at stage three. The evidence shows the Council’s responded to Mrs X’s stage three complaint after just under a year after she first escalated the complaint. The Council’s complaints policy notes stage three responses should be made within 35 working days.
51. The Council’s stage three investigation recommended the Council apologise for the delay in dealing with Mrs X’s complaint. This is appropriate. However, given the severity of the delay, I consider it would also be appropriate for the Council to make a small financial payment to Mrs X to recognise the time and trouble taken to pursue her complaint.
52. Finally, Mrs X said the Council has not reflected that she needs a ground floor adapted property on her housing register account. However, the evidence shows the Council has not assessed Mrs X as needing an adapted property. The OT has only noted Mrs X would benefit from a ground floor property. Therefore, I do not find fault with the Council for not reflecting that she needs an adapted property on her housing register account.

Agreed action

53. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the distress, uncertainty, and anxiety caused by the faults identified in the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s housing application.
• Apologise to Mrs X for the time and trouble caused by the delays in the complaint handling.
• Pay Mrs X £500 to recognise the distress, uncertainty, and anxiety caused by the faults identified in the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s housing application.
• Pay Mrs X £150 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the delays in the complaint handling.
54. The Council should complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I find fault with the Council for not properly considering Mrs X’s medical evidence. This caused a delay in the Council accepting Mrs X onto the housing register. I also find fault with the Council’s complaint handling. The Council has accepted my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman