Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to properly consider her application for medical priority, unreasonably suspended her housing register account without explanation and wrongly threatened her with prosecution over licensing for her home when she is a tenant. We cannot reach a safe conclusion about the information the Council gave Ms B about licensing for her property. The Council failed to follow its policy when considering Ms B’s medical priority and failed to respond to her query over the suspension of her housing register account. The Council’s agreement to refer the case to its designated officer for a decision on medical priority, an apology and payment to Ms B are satisfactory remedy. The Council will also amend the wording of its lettings policy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complained the Council:
• failed to properly consider her application for medical priority and the supporting medical evidence she provided;
• unreasonably suspended her housing register account without explanation; and
• wrongly threatened her with prosecution over licensing of her home when she is a tenant and not managing the property.
2. Ms B says errors by the Council have impacted on her mental and physical health.

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. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Ms B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended and 34(3))
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Ms B 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

Medical priority

The Council’s lettings policy

7. The Council’s lettings policy sets out the circumstances in which the Council will award points for medical priority. There are two levels of medical priority within the policy:
• “A” medical priority which will attract 100 points and places the applicant in the Urgent Band, and
• “B” medical priority which will attract 10 points and places the applicant in the General Band.
8. The policy says an applicant will qualify for an “A” medical priority in only the most urgent cases where the applicant or someone in their household is at risk due to the inadequacy of the home or is housebound within it and would otherwise be unable to go out or be taken out.
9. The policy says an applicant will qualify for a “B” medical priority if the need is urgent but the accommodation is not a threat to significantly exacerbating the condition, and a change of housing would make a substantial improvement in the quality of life of the affected person.
10. The policy says the final decision on whether an award is appropriate will be made by the appropriate designated officer.

Background

11. Ms B applied for medical priority on the Council’s housing register. Ms B provided supporting medical evidence. The Council referred the case to Now Medical. Now Medical did not recommend priority on medical grounds as it was not satisfied Ms B had provided evidence of a medical necessity for a self-contained flat. The Council wrote to Ms B to tell her about the outcome.
12. Ms B appealed that decision. The Council referred the case to Now Medical. Following receipt of Now Medical’s advice, which had not changed, the Council wrote Ms B to tell her it had not awarded her medical priority. The Council gave no explanation but provided Ms B with a copy of the assessment by Now Medical.
13. The Ombudsman contacted the Council in January 2021 to raise concerns about the failure to refer the Now Medical advice to the designated officer for decision on medical priority. The Council agreed to refer the case to its designated officer, which it did in February 2021. The Council wrote to Ms B after that to tell her it had not awarded her medical priority and explained its reasoning.

Analysis

14. Ms B says the Council failed to properly consider her application for medical priority and the supporting medical letters she provided. Ms B says her medical letters showed a need to live alone for mental health purposes and the Council failed to take that into account. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council took advice from Now Medical twice in 2020 when considering Ms B’s application for medical priority. Now Medical did not recommend any medical priority. However, the responsibility for deciding whether a housing applicant qualifies for medical priority lies with the Council. While the Council can take advice from an external expert it is still responsible for reviewing the information and making a decision on each case.
15. The Council’s policy says a designated officer in the housing team will take the decision about whether a housing applicant should receive medical priority. The Council’s policy then requires the designated officer to write to the applicant to explain the decision. In this case the Council failed to follow its policy. Instead of referring the case to the designated officer following receipt of Now Medical’s advice the Council passed on to Ms B the advice received from Now Medical. Failure to follow the Council’s policy and ensure a Council officer made the decision on the application for medical priority is fault.
16. The Council accepts in this case it failed to send the outcome of the external advice to a team manager to be reviewed. The Council has now completed the review and decided not to award Ms B medical priority. So, while the Council was at fault for not following its policy I am satisfied this has not resulted in any injustice to Ms B because the Council’s decision is still that she is not entitled to medical priority. It is not my role to comment on the merits of that decision given it has not been reached with fault as I am now satisfied the decision letter refers to the medical evidence Ms B provided in support of her application.

Housing register suspension

The Council’s lettings policy

17. The Council’s lettings policy says it may choose to review any waiting list application at any time to ensure an applicant remains eligible for the waiting list and remains entitled to the priority and bedroom needs assessment previously awarded. The Council may choose to review individual applications or different classes of application. The review may take the form of requesting confirmation the applicants’ circumstances are unchanged and that s/he wishes to remain on the waiting list, or, additional or updated documentation may be requested.

Background

18. In September 2020 the Council selected Ms B’s housing register application for periodic review and asked her to complete a housing register form and provide the required documentation. The Council said it had temporarily suspended Ms B’s bidding until she returned her signed and completed housing register form. Ms B asked the Council to explain why it had suspended and reviewed her account given her personal circumstances and the fact nothing had changed. Despite sending a chasing email the Council did not respond to Ms B’s contact. It has now become clear the Council did not suspend Ms B’s bidding because the interface between the Council’s systems failed. However, Ms B did not know that and did not know the Council had reinstated her bidding until after the Ombudsman contacted the Council in December 2020.

Analysis

19. Ms B says the Council wrongly suspended her housing register account without explanation. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me the Council told Ms B it had suspended her housing register account awaiting completion of review forms. While it now transpires the Council did not apply the suspension to the account it is clear from communications Ms B has provided that this is information the housing officer gave her. As a result Ms B believed her housing register application was suspended between September and December 2020. The issue is therefore whether the Council was right to tell Ms B it had suspended her housing register application while it completed the review.
20. The evidence I have seen satisfies me when Ms B received the review forms she contacted the Council to question why it had selected her case for review, particularly in light of her personal circumstances. There is no evidence the Council responded to Ms B’s communications about that, which is fault. I am satisfied though under the Council’s lettings policy it can select a case for review and I cannot criticise it for doing that. There is nothing in the Council’s lettings policy though that says bidding will be suspended while the review is completed. If that is the Council’s intention it needs to make that clear in the lettings policy. While I consider the Council at fault for not clarifying with Ms B why it had selected her case for review I do not consider it likely Ms B missed out on a property as a result of the suspension on her account. I therefore consider her injustice is limited to her frustration and the time and trouble she had to go to pursuing the complaint.

Licensing requirements

The Council’s licensing requirements

21. The Council requires all homes of multiple occupation to have a license. The Council can take enforcement action if a license is not held, including issuing financial penalty notices of up to £30,000 or seeking an unlimited fine from the court.
22. Under the Housing Act 2004 (the Act) if a house of multiple occupation lacks the required licence the Council may apply that financial penalty notice to any person having control or managing the property, as set out in section 263 of the Act.

Background

23. Ms B was living in a property with several other households, which made it a house of multiple occupation. Ms B helped out her landlord by seeking replacement tenants when people left.
24. In April 2020 Ms B contacted her Councillor with concerns about her landlord. In that letter Ms B referred to the fact her landlord had not licensed the property.
25. A member of the Council’s licensing team visited to inspect the property in May 2020. Ms B says during that visit the licensing officer told her it could prosecute both her landlord and Ms B as Ms B was a managing agent for the property. Ms B says she is not a managing agent. Following that visit the Council wrote to the landlord for the property to request a licence application. Ms B’s landlord applied for a licence in June 2020.
26. The Council wrote to Ms B in August 2020 to confirm it had received a partial application from her landlord. The Council told Ms B it would not prosecute her for any lack of licence because she was not the landlord for the property. The Council subsequently issued a licence for the property.

Analysis

27. Ms B says the Council threatened her with prosecution over licensing for her home when she is a tenant and not managing the property on behalf of her landlord. In contrast the Council says it did not tell Ms B it could prosecute her over the lack of a licence. There is limited documentary evidence in this case due to the cyber attack the Council has experienced which means it cannot access some of its systems. Ms B also confirms the information she was given about potential prosecution came from an officer who verbally told her that. I cannot take a view on what information the Council verbally gave Ms B during its visit to her property. I consider it likely though, given Ms B refers to the issue of whether or not she is managing agent (which is relevant in terms of who can be prosecuted) the officer she met with discussed the prosecution possibilities should the Council not receive an application for a licence. What I cannot be clear about is whether that was discussed in terms of treating Ms B as a managing agent and therefore, potentially, opening her to prosecution. I am satisfied though when the Council wrote to Ms B in August 2020 it made clear it could not prosecute her as she was not the managing agent for the property.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of my decision the Council should apologise to Ms B for the faults identified in this statement and pay her £250 to reflect her distress and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
29. The Council should revise the wording of its lettings policy to make clear it will suspend bidding on its housing register while a case is selected for review.
30. The Council has already referred Ms B’s request for medical priority to its designated officer and has notified her of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman