Summary: Miss X complained the Council would not consider her request for a larger Housing Association property to accommodate her medical needs. The Ombudsman did not find fault with the Council’s decision. This is because the Council made its decision in line with its policy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council would not consider her request for a larger Housing Association property to accommodate her medical needs.
2. Miss X says she needs a third bedroom to accommodate her dialysis equipment as she and her two children occupy the only two bedrooms in her property.
3. Miss X says she has provided supporting medical evidence to the Council, but it did not consider this proof enough of her need.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We 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)
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 considered all the information Miss X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
7. The Council accepted my draft decision. Miss X did not comment.

Back to top

What I found

The Law and the Council’s allocation policy

8. The Council is under a legal duty to have a scheme for allocating accommodation under the Housing Act 1996. The Council has the right to set its own housing policies and decide all aspects of the allocations process.
9. The law says the Council must give people with a high housing need “reasonable preference” through the allocations scheme. This includes people at risk of homelessness and those who need to move for medical or welfare reasons.

Banding and Priority

10. The Council decides reasonable preference by placing applicants in a certain priority band depending on their circumstances. Applicants have a right to ask for a review of this decision.
11. There are four bands, A to D. A is for applicants with an emergency and very severe housing need. The Council awards Band B to people who have an urgent need to move.
12. If the need for housing is related to a medical condition the Council will refer a matter to its medical adviser for assessment. A medical assessment considers how the current accommodation affects the health or disability of a household member. The Council groups medical housing need across four bands. Band B is for medical hardship; the current housing conditions are having a major adverse effect on a medical condition.
13. The Council can also provide additional priority to people who have lived in the borough continuously for more than ten years. The Council can increase a band B to the band A in such a circumstance.

Accommodation Size and Type

14. The size of the accommodation the Council can allocate an applicant depends on the size and makeup of the applicant’s household. The Council considers the requirements of a couple, or single person, with two children of the same sex is a two-bedroom property. The Council will consider larger accommodation than specified in the policy in exceptional circumstances on recommendation from a specialist such as the Council’s medical adviser.
15. The Council also offers adapted housing for people with a disability based on a mobility category called “DSL”. The Council has three levels of DSL with DSL 3 being for applicants who have some mobility needs such only being able to manage one or two steps or stairs.

Background

16. Miss X lived in a two-bedroom Housing Association property with her two male children (aged six and two). Miss X was at end stage of kidney failure and needed to go onto home dialysis to combat this. Miss X’s doctors were arranging to provide dialysis equipment to her home.

What Happened

17. Miss X asked the Council about rehousing on 19 May 2020 because of a decline in her health. The Council asked Miss X for evidence of her medical need. Miss X provided a letter from her social worker which said:
• Miss X was due to start home dialysis.
• Home dialysis requires both medical equipment and fluid boxes which would take up the space of a small box room.
• Miss X’s property does not have enough space for home dialysis.
• Miss X needs a larger two bedroom or three-bedroom property on the ground floor with a garden space to accommodate Miss X’s home dialysis and one of her children’s disability.
18. The Council contacted its medical advisers for a review of the need for a larger property on 27 May 2020. The medical advisers requested further proof of Miss X’s medical need as Miss X had only provided a letter from her social worker.
19. Miss X completed a Homelessness Prevention and Medical Assessment Form on 29 May 2019. This form provided:
• Details of Miss X’s medical conditions.
• Details of one of her children’s medical condition.
• Miss X’s doctor’s details and confirmation that her doctors could release her medical information.
20. The Council passed this back to its medical advisers on 1 June 2020.
21. The Council completed an assessment of Miss X’s housing needs on 25 June 2020. This assessment put Miss X into Band B for medical hardship but increased to Band A due to continuous residence in the borough. The Council said that Miss X’s eligible need was for a two-bedroom ground floor property with a mobility requirement of DSL 3.
22. Miss X appealed the decision on 6 July 2020 and asked the Council considered the space needed for her home dialysis equipment.
23. The Council responded to Miss X’s appeal on 15 July 2020. The Council upheld the original decision from 25 June 2020 and declined Miss X’s appeal.
24. Miss X complained to the Council in response to its review of her appeal.
25. The Council provided its Stage 1 response on 24 July 2020. The Council said it had reviewed Miss X’s appeal and upheld the decision made on 25 June 2020. The Council said it found no fault in the decision and it had assessed Miss X correctly.
26. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman on 27 July 2020.
27. Since Miss X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council offered Miss X an adapted two-bedroom property on the ground floor and a two-bedroom adapted bungalow with a garden. Miss X rejected both properties without viewing them.
28. Miss X also asked for a further review from the Council on 26 August 2020. The Council responded on 27 August 2020. It said:
• Its medical examiners had considered Miss X’s medical need and decided she needed a larger two-bedroom property. The medical examiner is independent of the Council.
• It must adhere to its housing policy consistently and in line with the Housing Act 1996.
• It cannot award another bedroom to Miss X without a material change in her household circumstances.
• It has awarded Miss X the highest banding on the Housing register and the correct bedroom need in line with its policy.

Analysis

29. When Miss X applied for re-housing on medical grounds the Council needed to assess Miss X’s housing size need and her priority. Since Miss X’s application was based on medical grounds, the Council should have consulted its medical advisers.
30. The Council acted in line with its policy by passing Miss X’s application over to its medical advisers.

Priority

31. The Council’s medical advisers determined that Miss X should qualify for Band B priority.
32. The Council increased Miss X’s priority to Band A because of her continuous residence in the borough.
33. The Council has acted in line with its policy when it decided Miss X’s priority banding. I would not find fault with the Council’s decision. The highest band is Band A so there is no injustice to Miss X in this decision.

Housing Size Need

34. The Council’s policy says a couple, or single person, with two children of the same sex are eligible for a two-bedroom property. Miss X and her children fall into this category. The Council has acted in line with its policy by allocating Miss X a two-bedroom property.
35. However, the Council can consider larger accommodation when there is medical need. The Council’s medical advisers considered Miss X’s evidence and determined that Miss X was eligible for a ground-floor property with a mobility requirement of DSL 3. The Council has considered Miss X’s medical need and this decision is in line with the Council’s policy.
36. Miss X disputed the Council’s decision not to offer a three-bedroom property based on her medical need. The Evidence Miss X has provided from her social worker says Miss X needs either a larger two-bedroom property or a three-bedroom property. The Council has decided to offer Miss X a larger two-bedroom property rather than a three-bedroom property. This decision is in line with the social worker’s recommendation.
37. I did not find fault with the Council’s decision to offer Miss X a larger two-bedroom ground floor property with a mobility requirement of DSL 3. The Council made this decision in line with the Council’s policy.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation as there was no fault in the Council’s decision to award a larger two-bedroom property instead of a three-bedroom property to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman