Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council has not dealt with her application for housing properly. The Council is at fault because it did not considered Mrs X’s medical circumstances properly. The Council has already agreed it will review Mrs X’s medical priority. If the review enhances Mrs X’s priority, the Council should backdate this award to October 2019 and pay her £250 for distress.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council has not dealt properly with her housing application because:
• It has not properly considered her family’s disabilities and she is being discriminated against because of this.
• It has wrongly removed her from the housing list in 2017.
2. Mrs X says her family is having to live in inappropriate overcrowded conditions which is causing distress, anxiety and affected her children’s health.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated that part of Mrs X’s complaint which concerns the consideration of her housing priority. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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)
6. 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)
7. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mrs X’s representative and considered the details of her complaint and the Council’s response. I reviewed documents from the Council and Mrs X.
9. Mrs 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

10. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
11. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants who need to move on medical grounds. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

The Council’s allocations policy

12. If an applicant applies for housing because their current accommodation affects a medical condition or disability, the application will be referred to the council’s medical adviser. Medical priority is awarded according to the extent to which the health or welfare of one or more members of the applicant’s household is affected by their current housing conditions and the expected benefits of providing suitable alternative settled housing.
13. Applicants will complete a Medical Assessment Form to provide details of the medical condition and other supporting information.
14. Based on the Medical Adviser’s recommendations, applicants will be placed in one of the following bands:-
• Band A – Emergency Medical: the applicant or a member of the applicant’s household has a life threatening condition that is seriously affected by their housing.
• Band B – Medical Hardship: the applicant’s current housing conditions are having a major adverse effect on the medical condition of the applicant or a member of the applicant’s household.
• Band C – Medical Need: the applicant’s current housing conditions are having a moderate or variable adverse effect on the medical condition of the applicant or a member of the applicant’s household.

What happened

15. Mrs X submitted a housing application in May 2018. In September 2018 the Council decided Mrs X did not meet the qualification rules and refused her application. Mrs X asked for a review of the decision and the Council assessed her medical information.
16. The Council accepted that Mrs X was overcrowded where she lived, the medical issues raised were the lack of space and awarded Mrs X Band C for overcrowding. This was enhanced to Band B because Mrs X had lived for 10 years continuously in the Council’s area.

Analysis

17. Medical issues raised in Mrs X’s 2018 application were greater than simply lack of space. Information about a rare medical condition was included.
18. In October 2018 the advice of the medical assessment was, “Family is lacking 1 bedroom and would be banded at B due to overcrowding and having 10 years. The medical needs for this family would not allow for increasing to Band A.”
19. Mrs X was awarded enhanced Band B from October 2018. The Council says in its response to my enquiries that, “the medical issues raised were the lack of space.” However, it goes on to state, “the medical issues raised would not have given Mrs X a higher priority.”
20. The past modal phrase “would not have” shows the Council did not properly consider all relevant issues as it references something that did not happen in the past. On the balance of probabilities, the Council only considered Mrs X’s overcrowding in October 2018 when it made the decision about her priority. This is fault by the Council. This did not cause Mrs X any injustice as she already held Band B priority and there is no evidence any member of her family has a life-threatening condition which would warrant Band A priority.
21. In October 2019 Mrs X provided a letter from her GP, which supported her application due to a rare medical condition. There is no evidence Mrs X’s medical needs have been re-considered by the Council until March 2021. This is fault by the Council. Mrs X’s medical needs have not been properly considered between October 2019 and March 2021. The Council has already agreed to review Mrs X’s medical priority and Mrs X has provided information to be considered during the review.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of this decision:
• Reassess Mrs X’s priority using all available information;
• If Mrs X’s priority changes as a result of the re-assessment of her medical needs, the Council should backdate her priority to October 2019; and
• If Mrs X’s priority changes, the Council should pay her £250 for distress.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice to Mrs X. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

24. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint that the Council removed her from the housing list in 2017. Mrs X has not complained about this issue until now to either the Council or the Ombudsman. This is a late complaint and I have seen no good reason to accept it for investigation now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman