Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council assessed her priority band for the Bristol Home Choice scheme. We found no fault in the way it made that decision. However its handling of her complaint was poor and it has agreed to apologise for that.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council did not properly consider her health needs and medical evidence when it decided on the appropriate priority band for her Bristol Home Choice application. She believes she is entitled to a higher band because she has an urgent need to be rehoused and feels she has waited too long.
2. Miss X also complains that it took too long to reply to a complaint she made in late April 2020. The Council responded to a complaint about disrepair in July but it did not address the concerns she had raised about her need to be rehoused.

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 have spoken to Miss X and considered the information she sent me. I have read the relevant sections of the Council’s housing allocations policy and records of its assessment of Miss X’s housing application.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law

8. Every local housing authority must publish a housing 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. Every local housing authority has a wide discretion about how it prioritises applicants who qualify to join its housing register. Its scheme must, however, give “reasonable preference” to certain categories of applicants, including those who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
10. A housing applicant has a right to request a review of certain decisions on their application, including the priority awarded to it. The review must be carried out by an officer who is senior to the original decision-maker and who was not involved in making the original decision.
11. Statutory guidance published by the government says reviews should be completed wherever practicable within a set deadline. It suggests eight weeks is a reasonable timescale. (Allocation of Accommodation: guidance for local authorities paragraph 5.19).

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

12. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants who are accepted on the Housing Register to bid for available properties which are advertised. The scheme is called Bristol Home Choice.
13. Qualifying applicants are placed in one of four priority bands following an assessment of their housing needs. Band 1 is the highest and Band 4 is the lowest.
14. Band 1 priority may be awarded to an applicant (or household member) who has an urgent need to move on medical grounds. Band 1 is only awarded when:
• a person has a serious or life-threatening physical or mental health problem which is directly linked to their current housing; and
• a move is necessary to enable the person to function independently and safely and carry out activities of daily living and where the current property cannot be adapted to meet his or her needs.
15. Other applicants who have an accepted medical or welfare need to move are placed in Band 3. This group includes applicants (or a household member) who has a physical or mental health problem partly related to their current housing which could be helped by moving to a different type of accommodation or area. A further requirement is that the current property cannot be reasonably adapted to meet his or her needs.
16. The Council’s scheme confirms that applicants may request a review of the priority band. A request must be made within 21 days of the decision. The scheme does not give a timescale for the Council to make the review decision.

Miss X’s housing application

17. Miss X is a Council tenant. She has been on the Council’s Housing Register – Bristol Home Choice - since 2015 and had Band 4 priority.
18. Miss X and her daughter, who is a young adult, live in a two bedroom maisonette on the third floor. The bedrooms and bathroom are on the upper floor and there are 14 internal steps down to the living room and kitchen.
19. In February 2020 Miss X fractured and dislocated her kneecap when she had a fall at home. Since then she has worn a knee brace and uses crutches when she walks. She was expected to recover within six weeks. Miss X says she has not yet made a full recovery and is still finding it difficult to walk normally.
20. There is a lift in the building which serves Miss X’s floor. Miss X says she cannot use it because she suffers from severe vertigo. She uses the communal stairs instead. She struggles with the stairs and goes one step at a time because of her impaired mobility. She also finds it difficult to carry shopping home and to take laundry to the launderette. She cannot open the kitchen window in her flat because it is only accessible if she climbs on to the worktop. She says the Council, as the landlord, refused to carry out adaptations.
21. As well as her mobility issues, Miss X has mental health issues with anxiety and stress. She says these conditions are adversely affected by noise from a neighbour’s property.
22. In late April 2020 Miss X completed an application form to ask for her housing needs to be reassessed. She gave details of her medical conditions, and her mobility issues, and explained how these were affected by her current accommodation in the health section of the form. She did not mention the problem with noise from her neighbours and focused mainly on the mobility problems.
23. The form explained that medical priority is only awarded if the current housing is having a harmful effect on the person’s disability or illness. It says it is not possible to give everyone a medical priority, for example if the condition is temporary and expected to improve.
24. On 22 June a health and housing adviser considered Miss X’s form. The adviser noted Miss X’s enduring mental health conditions, vertigo, and the fracture. The adviser accepted that Miss X’s access to the accommodation, and to essential facilities within the maisonette, were likely to be difficult due to the recent injury. However the adviser concluded it was reasonable to assume she would overcome these difficulties with appropriate treatment and therapeutic input. The adviser also noted Miss X did not have a care package and did not receive disability benefits. The adviser did not recommend awarding priority on health grounds.
25. On 23 June the Home Choice team informed Miss X her application would remain in Band 4. It would not award a higher priority on health grounds. Miss X asked for a review of this decision. She also mentioned the impact of noise from a neighbouring property on her mental health.
26. In late June 2020 Miss X sent medical evidence to the Home Choice team and asked if it could advertise a wider range of more suitable properties. On 8 July the Home Choice team acknowledged Miss X’s email and treated it as a request for a review of the priority band.
27. In early August a senior officer reviewed the decision not to award priority on health grounds. The officer said Miss X’s injury would be regarded as a short term injury. Even if she still had some pain or discomfort, it was not a long term mobility issue requiring a move.
28. The adviser noted Miss X had referred to her mental health in the review request. A letter from her GP explained the impact of anti-social behaviour on her mental health. The adviser said if these issues were ongoing, it would be likely to have an effect on her mental health. Information provided by Miss X’s housing officer confirmed there was ongoing noise.
29. On 12 August the senior officer wrote to inform Miss X of her review decision. She said she had decided to award Band 3 priority on the basis that noise caused by a neighbour’s children had an adverse impact on Miss X’s mental wellbeing. She acknowledged Miss X’s mobility was also limited by her knee injury. But she did not award priority for this condition because it was temporary.
30. Miss X considers Band 3 does not adequately reflect the urgency of her housing needs. She says she should be awarded Band 1 priority because she has an urgent medical need or, in the alternative, because she has an exceptional and urgent need to move within three months. Under the Council’s housing allocations scheme, Band 1 for an exceptional need must be approved by a senior manager.
31. The Council does not share Miss X’s view that she meets the criteria for Band 1 priority on health grounds. It says her mobility issues were considered in both the initial assessment and when the banding was reviewed. It does not consider Miss X’s injury is a long term problem which attracts a health priority. It added that Miss X does not have any identified personal care needs or care package. She does not receive disability benefits and she can walk with crutches when she goes out.
32. The Council sent details of 11 properties Miss X made bids for on Bristol Home Choice between April and November 2020. Apart from one bungalow, they were all houses. It says that by bidding for houses, Miss X must consider she is capable of managing stairs.
33. All but one of these properties were allocated to applicants in Bands 1 or 2. One property was allocated to an applicant with Band 3 priority. This property had a stair lift and level access shower so applicants who had an assessed need for these adaptations were prioritised.
34. Based on this evidence, the Council commented that even if Miss X had been moved to Band 3 sooner, it would not have made any difference to the outcome of her bids because the properties were allocated to applicants in higher bands.

Miss X’s complaint to the Council

35. There are two stages in the Council’s non-statutory complaints procedure.
36. Miss X complained to the Council on 23 April 2020. The complaint was wide-ranging: she raised concerns about the conduct of a named officer in the estate management team, repairs, adaptations to her home, anti-social behaviour and her need to move.
37. The complaints procedure says a reply should be sent to a Stage One complaint within 15 working days. Miss X chased up a response in mid-May.
38. On 9 July a supervisor who investigates complaints about disrepair in Council properties replied to Miss X’s complaint. She outlined the action taken to deal with the reported disrepair. She said the Responsive Repairs team could not make a decision on the rehousing part of the complaint but she would pass this information on to the relevant team. She also told Miss X she could ask for her complaint to be considered at Stage Two of the complaints procedure if she was not satisfied.
39. On the same day, Miss X asked for a Stage Two investigation. Among other matters, she expressed concern about living in unsuitable accommodation that was having an adverse impact on her health. The timescale for responding to a Stage Two complaint is 20 working days.
40. The Council sent the Stage Two reply on 6 August 2020. It said the Rehousing Policy Team was currently reviewing whether to increase Miss X’s priority band from Band 4 and it would inform her of its decision. This was the Council’s final response to Miss X’s complaint.
41. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it had wrongly allocated Miss X’s Stage One complaint to the service that handled an earlier complaint about disrepair in her home. It did not identify that the April 2020 complaint raised other issues which should be considered by another service. That was an error.

Analysis

42. The Ombudsman will not find fault with a council’s assessment of an applicant’s housing needs and priority band if it was done in accordance with its published housing allocations scheme.
43. The Council properly considered the information Miss X gave about her health and disability on the April 2020 application form. It sought advice from its health and housing team and decided she did not meet the criteria for an award of priority on health grounds. The Council was entitled to take into account that Miss X would be expected to recover from the February 2020 fracture and therefore her mobility issues were likely to be temporary. The fact that Miss X made bids on Bristol Home Choice for houses, rather than flats, suggests she believed she could manage stairs in the longer term.
44. The Council appropriately carried out a banding review when Miss X challenged the decision not to award priority on medical grounds. At the review stage, the Council considered evidence about the impact of noise from a neighbouring property on Miss X’s mental health. This led the Council to award Band 3 health priority in August 2020.
45. Miss X says her housing needs are so urgent she should qualify for Band 1 priority on medical grounds or exceptional need. However, it is not for the Ombudsman to assess her housing needs and decide on the appropriate priority band. Provided the Council properly considered the evidence, and followed the rules set out in its housing allocations scheme, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the merits of its decision to award Band 3 priority. I see no evidence of fault in the way it reached that decision.
46. The Council accepts there was fault in the way it handled Miss X’s Stage One complaint. There was a significant delay in responding. When it did reply in July, it did not apologise for the delay. It only dealt with the repair issues because it had not identified that another service would need to investigate and respond to other parts of the complaint. This caused Miss X some frustration and she had to chase up a reply.
    
    
    
    

Agreed action

47. Within one month of my final decision the Council will apologise to Miss X for the frustration caused by its poor handling of her April 2020 complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed the investigation and found no fault in the way the Council assessed Miss X’s priority band. However there was fault in its handling of her complaint and that caused Miss X some frustration and put her to the trouble of chasing a reply. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and that provides a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman