Summary: Mr X complained that the Council wrongly decided he has no housing need and so he did not qualify to join its Housing Register. We found fault because the Council did not follow the procedure in its housing allocations policy for medical assessments when it assessed Mr X’s housing needs. This caused injustice to Mr X because his application was not properly considered. The Council has agreed to reconsider his application and make a new decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council wrongly decided he has no housing need and therefore did not qualify to join the Housing Register. Mr X says he needs to move on medical and welfare grounds because his current accommodation is having a serious impact on his mental health and wellbeing.
2. He says the Council’s decision that he has no housing need caused him anxiety and distress. He wants the Council to let him to join the Housing Register and award Band B priority on medical grounds.

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 spoken to Mr X and considered the information he gave me. I have examined relevant correspondence and records the Council sent me and its housing allocations policy.
6. Mr 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

7. Legal duties
   Every local housing authority must publish a housing allocations scheme that explains 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))
8. The Localism Act 2011 gave councils new freedoms to decide who qualifies to join their housing registers. But there is a legal duty to 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))
9. Councils must notify the applicant in writing if they decide they do not qualify to join the Housing Register and give reasons. They must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of this decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

Hillingdon Council’s allocations scheme

Unsatisfactory accommodation

10. Hillingdon Council’s allocations scheme says it cannot offer alternative accommodation to everyone who lives in a property in need of repairs or modernisation. Most landlords have a duty to carry out repairs to their tenants’ homes. The Council’s aim is to ensure repairs are carried out so residents can remain in their property. In limited circumstances, a household may be rehoused due to disrepair problems.

Medical needs or disability

11. The Council’s scheme says that if someone applies for housing because their current accommodation affects a medical condition or disability, the application will be referred to the council’s medical adviser or occupational therapy team depending on what the person says in the application.
12. Applicants who apply on medical grounds should complete a Medical Assessment Form to give details of the medical condition and other supporting information. If the Council needs more information to make a decision, it will obtain this at its expense.
13. The Council’s Medical Advisers then consider this information. The medical adviser does not make a decision on the application,but gives a professional opinion about the severity of the person’s medical condition, and whether it has an impact on their housing situation. The Medical Adviser may recommend no medical priority, or an award of Band A, B or C priority depending on the severity or urgency of the applicant’s needs. The decision about whether to award medical priority must be made by a Council officer.

Mr X’s housing application

14. Mr X is a Council tenant who lives in a one bedroom flat in a small block.
15. In early July 2020 he applied to join the Council’s Housing Register. On the application form he explained he needed to move because his current accommodation was adversely affecting his mental health. He also said rotten windows and mould in the property made it difficult for him to breathe properly.
16. He said he suffers from anxiety, stress, depression and schizophrenia. He gave details of his prescribed medication. He self-harmed regularly and was last admitted to hospital in March 2020. He said he has learning difficulties and difficulties with reading and writing.
17. Mr X gave consent for the Council to contact health professionals for information. Mr X told me he does not have a good relationship with his GP so he did not send any supporting medical evidence with the form.
18. Mr X told me he has an allocated social worker and is supported by a local mental health charity. He does not currently receive support from the Community Mental Health service.
19. The Council did not ask Mr X to complete a separate medical assessment form and it did not refer his case to its Medical Advisers for assessment.
20. On 15 July 2020 Officer A, who works in the Housing Options and Homelessness Prevention team, considered Mr X’s application. She noted that he had a one bedroom property which was suitable for his needs as a single person. She therefore decided he had no housing need. She said he should contact the repairs service about the rotten windows. She also contacted Mr X’s tenancy management officer who told her the property was in reasonable condition when he last visited.
21. Officer A wrote to Mr X on the same day to say he did not qualify to join the Housing Register because he had no identified housing need. She explained he could ask for a review within 21 days.
22. Mr X requested a review in July. He provided brief details about his difficulties with some of his neighbours and the police.
23. On 13 September 2020 a different officer reviewed the case. She considered the information on Mr X’s tenancy file and his housing application records. She upheld the original decision that he did not qualify to join the Housing Register. She said there was no medical evidence that the accommodation was having an adverse effect on Mr X’s mental health. She said Mr X should report his allegations that he was being victimised by neighbours to the Tenancy Management Officer. She concluded that Mr X’s application had been assessed appropriately and in accordance with the Council’s housing allocations policy.

My analysis

24. When she assessed Mr X’s housing needs, Officer A focused on the fact that Mr X was adequately housed in a one bedroom flat. She also correctly said that it was the responsibility of the Council’s housing management service to resolve any repair issues.
25. However Mr X had also said his accommodation was adversely affecting his mental health. The Council therefore had to consider whether he may have a reasonable preference as someone who needed to move on medical or welfare grounds.
26. The Council’s allocations policy says, in clear terms, that when someone applies for rehousing because they claim the current accommodation affects their medical condition, it will be referred to the Council’s medical advisers or the occupational therapy team. The officer then considers the medical adviser’s recommendations before making a decision. That did not happen in Mr X’s case. There was no medical assessment before the original decision was made in July or when it was reviewed in September. The policy does not say officers have discretion to filter out applications made on medical grounds which they consider have no merit. And it does not give officers the power to decide someone has no medical priority without first seeking the opinion of medical advisers.
27. For this reason, I consider there was fault. The Council departed from the procedure in its housing allocation policy for medical assessments. The Council should have invited Mr X to complete a medical assessment form and then referred the case to its medical advisers for assessment. After considering that advice, an officer should then have decided whether or not Mr X qualified to join the Register.
28. Mr X’s application was not considered fairly and in line with the procedures in the published housing allocations scheme. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether or not Mr X is entitled to medical priority. The Council should reconsider his case and make a fresh decision following a proper medical assessment.

Agreed action

29. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Mr X and invite him to complete a medical assessment form. It should then refer the case to its medical advisers for assessment. A different officer should consider the medical advice and decide whether or not to award Mr X medical priority.
30. The Council will inform Mr X in writing of its new decision and the reasons for it. The letter should include information about the right to a review.
31. The Council will send us a copy of the decision for our records. It will share the outcome of this investigation with officers in the Housing Options team who deal with Housing Register applications to remind them to refer cases to the Medical Adviser when the applicant refers to a medical need for housing.

Back to top

Final decision

32. The Council was at fault because it did not follow its published procedure for assessing an application made on medical grounds. This caused injustice because the decision was made without the benefit of medical advice which deprived Mr X of a fair and properly informed decision. I have completed the investigation because the Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman