Summary: Miss X complains that the Council wrongly awarded her Band B priority on her housing application. She says the Council failed to consider medical evidence about her son’s condition. Miss X says the Council’s decision means she missed out on available properties. She says this has had a strain on her and her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, complains that the Council has wrongly awarded her Band B priority on her housing application. She says the Council failed to consider medical evidence about her son’s condition.
2. Miss X believes she should be in Band A priority and the current decision means she missed out on available properties. She says this has had a strain on her and her children’s physical and mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
5. I considered the relevant legislation and policies, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

6. Councils must have an allocation scheme to determine priorities and set out the procedure it will follow when allocating housing. Each council’s allocations scheme will be different but in general most will award 'reasonable preference' to allocations by awarding points or placing an applicant in a certain priority band. Applicants have a right to request a review of a council’s decision about the number of points or band they have been awarded.

The Council’s housing allocations policy

7. The Council’s housing allocations policy sets out the different priority bands for applicants. Band A is the highest priority band. The policy says Band A is for:
• applicants who need to move urgently because of a critical medical or welfare need, including emergencies; and/or,
• applicants who, at the Council’s discretion, need to move urgently because there are critical safeguarding circumstances (this includes situations where there are child protection or public protection implications, or they are a victim of harassment, domestic abuse, or a hate crime).
8. The policy says Band B is for:
• applicants who need to move because they have been assessed as having a serious medical or welfare need; and/or,
• applicants who, at the Council’s discretion, need to move urgently because there are serious safeguarding circumstances.
9. The policy says that in exceptional circumstances, homeless households (where the Council has accepted full housing duty) will be placed in Band A if they are assessed by the Council as being in ‘severe need’. The policy says ‘severe need’ is met if any of the following apply:
• terminal or life-threatening illness
• permanent wheelchair users
• frail and elderly
• severe mental health and/or have been detained under the Mental Health Act and have been, or are likely to be, unable to cope with living in temporary accommodation
• critical medical or welfare need, including situations where there are critical safeguarding implications
• they are especially vulnerable and the Council is unable to provide them with temporary accommodation
10. The policy says where an applicant’s current housing is detrimental to their health, or a move to more suitable accommodation would have a positive effect on their health, they may ask to be awarded medical priority.
11. The policy says the Council’s specialist housing team will consider applications for medical priority. It says each application for medical priority is assessed on its individual merits, but gives examples of the type of situation in which an applicant may be assessed as having a critical medical housing need. Critical medical housing need may include the following:
• the applicant’s condition is life-threatening and the existing accommodation is a major contributory factor
• the applicant’s health is so severely affected by their current housing that it is likely to become life-threatening
• the applicant’s medical condition is expected to become terminal within a period of 12 months and re-housing is needed to provide a basis for the provision of suitable care

A summary of what happened

12. Miss X has four young children, two of whom have medical conditions.
13. In February 2019, the Council decided Miss X should be awarded Band B priority.
14. Miss X provided medical information regarding her children. The Council’s Independent Medical Advisor (IMA) assessed the evidence.
15. In December, the Council wrote to Miss X with its decision. The Council said it considered the information and evidence Miss X had provided, and the IMA’s assessment. It decided that medical priority did not apply in this case, and said Miss X remained in Band B.
16. Miss X complained that she believed she should be in Band A because of her children’s needs.
17. In its complaint response, the Council said the IMA had not recommended medical priority for Miss X. It said she could be placed in Band A if there was a severe need. It explained that ‘severe need’ means life-threatening need, or critical welfare or safeguarding concerns.
18. In January 2020, Miss X’s GP wrote to the Council. The GP said that one of the children would benefit from outside space.
19. The Council reviewed its banding decision and told Miss X of its decision by letter. It said it had considered Miss X’s circumstances and the evidence she provided. The Council explained its housing allocations policy, and repeated that Band A is only awarded where there is critical need. It said Miss X did not qualify for Band A, and said she remained in Band B.
20. Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

21. Miss X complains that the Council has wrongly awarded her Band B priority on her housing application. She says the Council failed to consider medical evidence about her son’s condition. Miss X believes she should be in Band A priority.
22. None of medical evidence or information Miss X provided the Council meet the criteria set out in the policy for Band A critical medical or welfare need, or ‘severe’ need.
23. Miss X has confirmed to me that neither of her children’s medical conditions are life-threatening or terminal.
24. Miss X believes she meets the criteria for Band A because her child’s health is so severely affected by their current housing that it is likely to become life-threatening. She says this is because she lives on the first floor, and at one time one of her children forced his way through the railings on the balcony and nearly fell. She says if he had fallen through the gap, it would be critical or life-threatening.
25. I do not agree that this means Miss X meets the Council’s criteria for Band A priority.
26. Miss X says the Council failed to consider her child’s need for private outdoor space. I have seen no evidence to suggest that private outdoor space is a critical or medical need for any of Miss X’s children. The GP said it would be beneficial. This is not the same as a medical need.
27. I find that the Council reviewed its banding decision as it should have: it considered the evidence Miss X provided and the assessment by the Independent Medical Advisor. The Council made the ultimate decision on Miss X’s banding allocation.
28. I do not agree that the Council failed to consider medical evidence about Miss X’s son. I find the Council considered all the medical information Miss X provided.
29. I therefore find no fault in how the Council decided to place Miss X in Band B. This decision is in line with the Council’s policy.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but this is not evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman