Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not properly consider his application to join the Housing Register and wrongly decided he did not qualify. We found fault because the Council only considered his medical need for rehousing and did not assess whether he may qualify for reasonable preference on welfare grounds. The Council accepted our findings and agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council wrongly decided he did not qualify to join its Housing Register. He says he needs to move for medical and welfare reasons because his current accommodation is unsuitable. He also wants to live closer to family members in the Bury area who can support him.
2. Mr X says his current accommodation has an adverse impact on his health and wellbeing and he is not getting the support he needs.

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 Council’s response to my enquiries and evidence from the housing records.
6. I considered the relevant law and the Council’s housing allocations scheme.
7. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law

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. 
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 (including any grounds relating to a disability);
• people who need to move to a particular area to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
10. An Annex to the statutory guidance on Allocation of Accommodation includes several examples of when a person may need to move on welfare or medical grounds, including where the person:
• needs to give or receive care;
• needs to be near friends/relatives or a medical facility on medical grounds.
11. Each council can decide which groups of people qualify to join its Housing Register. When it draws up the qualification criteria, councils must consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and must not exclude entire groups who would be entitled to a reasonable preference.
12. However the statutory guidance on Allocation of Accommodation says councils may wish to adopt criteria which would disqualify individuals who satisfy the reasonable preference requirements. It gives as an example an applicant who is disqualified because of antisocial behaviour.
13. Councils must notify applicants in writing of a decision that 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.
14. Councils, along with other public bodies, have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure a disabled person is not put at a substantial disadvantage when using a service. The aim is to offer a service at the standard usually offered to non-disabled people. A reasonable adjustment for a person with a sight impairment may include using the telephone to communicate rather than sending written communications.

The Council’s housing allocations policy

15. The Council’s policy says an applicant qualifies to join the Housing Register if they are likely to be in one of the reasonable preference categories in paragraph 9 and are in housing need.
16. Even when someone meets one of the reasonable preference criteria, the Council may still disqualify them if they do not meet certain conditions expected of tenants. It says this is likely to apply to applicants who owe the Council, or any other landlord, two months or more rent arrears.

Mr X’s circumstances

17. Mr X is a single man who has substantial and permanent disabilities. He is a wheelchair user and is partially sighted. Due to his disability, he cannot complete forms and relies on others to do this for him.
18. Since 2004 Mr X has lived in a Council area outside Bury. He is a Housing Association tenant. He lives in a two bedroom bungalow. The property has been adapted to meet his needs as a disabled person and wheelchair user. There is step-free access to the bungalow and a level access shower and wet room. Mr X says the property has not been fully adapted to meet his needs and he is worried about getting out of the building safely in the event of a fire.
19. Mr X wants to move back to the Bury area. He says family members who live there can give him support. He has applied to join Bury’s Housing Register in the past but was not successful. This investigation examines the way the Council considered an application he made in June 2020 and his request for a review of the decision that he did not qualify to join the Register. We are not investigating the Council’s handling of previous applications.

Mr X’s housing application in 2020

20. While Mr X was in hospital in June 2020, a member of staff completed an online housing application form with him.
21. The form gave details of Mr X’s medical conditions and disabilities. It explained he is partially sighted and would prefer telephone contact if there were any queries about his application.
22. The main reason he gave for needing to move was medical grounds. It said:

“Property does not meet requirements, is unsafe due to disrepair, is a fire risk as no alternative escape route, I am wheelchair bound and limited vision, If I was relocated to Bury I would have family support.”

23. The medical section of the form asked the applicant to explain how the current housing circumstances affected his health and wellbeing. Mr X disclosed a history of suicide attempts and said he wanted to move back to Bury.
24. Mr X gave contact details for a hospital consultant and a social worker from Lancashire County Council on the form. Mr X said the social worker was trying to resolve his housing issues. Mr X was not receiving support from community mental health services.
25. Mr X said he needed support with daily living and he relied on others to help with shopping, cleaning and housework.
26. The form also asked:
• “Does anyone moving with you have close family living in the Borough of Bury for the last 5 years?”

Mr X answered “no”.

27. On 17 June the Housing Assessment officer informed Mr X that a Housing Occupational Therapist would consider his application because he had applied on medical grounds. It said the Council would contact him about the outcome of the assessment.
28. The Council says the Housing Occupational Therapist added the following notes to his application form:

“Applicant resides in adapted property with access to basic facilities, no medical priority.”

This assessment was based on the information on the application form.

29. In early July 2020 an officer in the Housing Assessment team informed Mr X that he did not qualify to join the Housing Register. The letter outlined the reasonable preference categories but did not explain why Mr X did not qualify. It said Mr X could request a review within 21 days.
30. Mr X telephoned the Council to ask for a review on 23 September. Although his request was made more than 21 days after the decision, the Council agreed to carry out a review. An officer contacted Mr X who confirmed he wanted the Council to review the decision that he did not qualify to join the Register. There is no written record of Mr X’s call. He did not provide any new evidence in support of his review request.
31. A manager in the Housing Assessment team considered Mr X’s review. On 24 September she asked a Senior Housing Occupational Therapist to review the case and give advice. She replied on the same day. She said Mr X was already in a property that he can suitably access and had access to basic facilities. She advised that he did not qualify for medical priority.  She said he should report issues with disrepair in the property to his landlord.  He could contact his local fire service to ask for a fire safety and evacuation assessment or ask his landlord to arrange one on his behalf. The OT added that if his housing situation was having a significant and detrimental effect on his mental health, he could send in supporting medical evidence from a health professional. However, in her view, the current property met his needs.
32. In early November the team leader informed Mr X of the outcome of her review. She upheld the original decision that he did not qualify to join the Council’s housing register. She reiterated the OT’s advice as her reasons.

The Council’s comments

33. The Council says Mr X has not sent any supporting evidence since then about the impact of his current accommodation on his mental health.
34. It says Mr X stated on the form that he did not have close family in the Bury area. He answered “no” to the question:

“Does anyone moving with you have close family living in the Borough of Bury for the last 5 years?”

35. The Council also informed us that Mr X has rent arrears of more than £5,000 for a former Council tenancy in the Bury area. It says it adapted this property for Mr X in 2011 but he never moved in. It says it did not take these rent arrears into account when it made the decision in July 2020 that he did not qualify. But, because of these arrears, it would be unlikely to consider him suitable to be a tenant and would disqualify him for this reason. Mr X told me he disputes owing any rent arrears.

Analysis

36. Mr X applied for rehousing mainly for reasons relating to his disability. When it assessed Mr X’s housing needs, the Council considered whether Mr X’s bungalow was suitable for him as a wheelchair user. It decided he did not qualify because the bungalow was accessible and it had been adapted to give him access to essential facilities. Based on the information given on the application form, that assessment appears correct. The Council also took advice from a Housing Occupational Therapist before making that decision. The Council appropriately advised Mr X to report repair issues to the Housing Association and to ask the fire service for an assessment if he was worried about evacuating safely in the event of a fire.
37. However there was some fault. The July 2020 decision letter did not give reasons for the decision that Mr X did not qualify to join the Housing Register. It simply referred, in general terms, to the reasonable preference categories. It did not explain the particular reasons why Mr X did not qualify.
38. There was further fault because the assessment of Mr X’s housing needs focused too narrowly on whether he was already adequately housed in adapted and accessible accommodation. The Council did not consider whether he may need to move on welfare grounds. Although Mr X’s main reason for requesting a move was medical, he also disclosed on the form that he needed support with daily living activities, such as shopping, cleaning and housework. He said he needed support from family members in the Bury area. He referred to his history of suicide attempts. This should have prompted the Council to consider whether he may qualify for reasonable preference for welfare reasons: to receive care or to avoid hardship. The Council could also have considered contacting Mr X’s social worker for more information about his welfare and his care and support needs. The failure to consider whether he might be entitled to a reasonable preference on welfare grounds was fault.
39. The Council says Mr X stated on the form that he did not have close relatives in the Bury area. However that question was poorly worded and confusing. It asked whether anyone moving with the applicant has close family in Bury. Instead it should have asked whether the applicant, or anyone moving with them, had close family in the Bury area. Mr X understood this question did not apply to him because he was a single person and nobody was moving with him.
40. These faults caused Mr X injustice because his application was not properly considered. There was sufficient information on the form to have prompted the Council to consider whether he needed to move on medical and welfare grounds.
41. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether Mr X qualifies for reasonable preference and whether he should be accepted on to the Housing Register. The Council must make that decision after a proper reconsideration of all the relevant evidence. The Council is entitled to take account of rent arrears from a former tenancy when it makes that decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. After it considered my draft decision and recommendations, the Council agreed to take the following action within one month:
• Apologise to Mr X;
• As a reasonable adjustment, an officer would telephone him to review the information on the application form about his welfare needs and local connection;
• Inform Mr X of the decision in writing, give reasons and inform him about his right to request a review;
• Review the wording of the question about close relatives on the housing application form to make it clear that it applies to the applicant as well as anyone moving with them.
43. After speaking to Mr X and discussing his case with a Housing Occupational Therapist, a senior officer decided Mr X met the criteria for reasonable preference. She telephoned to tell him he qualified to join the Housing Register. The Council awarded Band 4 priority and backdated it to 16 June 2020 when he originally applied. The senior officer decided to disregard Mr X’s rent arrears from his former Council tenancy.

Back to top

Final decision

44. The Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Mr X. I have completed the investigation because the Council accepted my findings and recommendations and agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman