Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of an application for rehousing. The Council has given Miss X the correct priority according to the allocations policy and considered her medical evidence without fault. She complains that her children have to share a bedroom.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complains the Council has not rehoused her which means that her 12 year old son and 19 year old daughter are sharing a bedroom.
2. Miss X says that her daughter cannot study in peace and it is making Miss X depressed.

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)
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 read the papers put in by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Miss 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

Key facts

8. The Council accepts that Miss X’s family are overcrowded and lack a bedroom. In line with the Council’s allocation policy the family need a 3 bedroom property but are living in 2 bedroom accommodation. The Council registered Miss X’s rehousing application on 22 October 2014 as Band 3, with an overcrowding priority awarded as lacking 1 bedroom.
9. The Council has said about 17 three bedroom properties are available per month, although this figure may go up or down. There are over 1000 households with higher priority than Miss X on the housing register.
10. The Council’s medical adviser considered medical evidence Miss X provided in November 2019. Miss X stated she has had depression for 3 years and was on antidepressant medication. When asked how her home affected her health, Miss X said she is ‘constantly shouting at the kids, always stay in my bedroom, don’t want to talk to anyone, some days I can’t even wash, I feel like quitting my job because I struggle to get out of bed, my kids don’t help, they are always fighting’.
11. The Council said that its view was that Miss X had suffered from depression for 3 years before completing the medical form or starting anti-depressant medication. The GP had not referred Miss X to secondary mental health care services, but advised her to self-refer for counselling. The GP noted that Miss X was having thoughts about overdosing and had in the past taken an overdose but there was nothing to suggest the GP assessed Miss X as someone at high risk of overdosing. Based on the above, the Medical Adviser considered that Miss X had had mental health issues for several years and had just sought treatment when she sought a medical assessment. So, her mental health issues were not just related to her current accommodation.
12. The Medical Adviser also considered the type of accommodation Miss X lives in, which is a 2 bedroom property with a lounge and kitchen, accessed via 42 steps. The medical adviser said that Miss X’s accommodation was suitable for her mental health issues. The main issue was overcrowding. The Medical Adviser noted Ms X had already been awarded an overcrowding priority so no medical priority was given as the Medical Advisers do not award a medical priority where they are satisfied that a person’s living circumstances are not significantly detrimental to their health and functional ability.

My analysis

13. I can find no evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing priority. It accepts Miss X’s family lacks a third bedroom and has awarded her the correct priority according to its allocations policy. Unfortunately, there are many households with similar and/or greater priority and few properties available. So, there is no guarantee that she will be rehoused within a reasonable timescale.
14. The Council has also assessed Miss X’s medical evidence and understands that she is depressed. However, as the evidence suggests that Miss X’s property is suitable for her, other than a lack of a third bedroom, no additional priority is appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is not upheld as I have found no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman