Summary: the Council was at fault because it took far too long to deal with a request for a review of Mr X’s priority band and bedroom need for his Housing Register application. The delay caused frustration and uncertainty. We did not find fault with the decision to confirm his Band B medical priority. The Council has accepted our recommendations for a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a Council tenant. He complained that he has been waiting too long for an offer of alternative accommodation, which meets his needs as a disabled person, because the Council did not give his Home Move housing application sufficient priority.
2. Mr X’s current accommodation is unsuitable. He struggles with the stairs to his flat and cannot use the bath. The Council decided not to install a level access shower because Mr X would still need to move to a more accessible property.
3. Mr X’s wife (“Mrs X”) made the complaint for Mr X and on her own behalf as his carer. Mr X and his wife have since separated. Mr X stayed in the flat and asked us to continue with our investigation.

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. 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)
6. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
7. 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

8. I have spoken to Mr X and considered all the information he and his wife provided.
9. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and evidence from its housing records.
10. Mr 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

The relevant law

11. 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))

12. The 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;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

13. Applicants have the right to request a review of decisions made on their Housing Register application. This includes the right to request a review of the priority band the Council has awarded. The review must be carried out by an officer who is senior to the original decision-maker.

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

14. The Council’s housing allocations scheme has four priority bands: Bands A to D.
15. An applicant with an agreed need to move on medical grounds, or for reasons relating to a disability, may be placed in Band A or B.
16. The Council’s Homemove Team assesses whether an applicant is entitled to medical priority based on the information given on the self-assessment medical form. Medical priority is not awarded just because a person has a medical condition. The current accommodation must have some impact on the person’s medical condition.
17. Assessment officers in the Homemove team can seek advice from the Council’s Medical Advisor to help them decide whether to award medical priority. The Medical Advisor may also make recommendations in relation to mobility needs.
18. An applicant who qualifies for medical priority, will be awarded Band A or Band B depending on the urgency of their need.
Band A is an overriding (severe and immediate) medical priority. It is awarded when there is a need to move and the housing conditions have a severe and immediate adverse effect on the medical condition of the applicant or household member. It is an emergency priority.

19. Band B is defined as a high (major) medical priority where there is a need to move and the housing conditions are having a major adverse effect on the medical condition of the applicant or a member of the household.
20. A couple is entitled to a one bedroom property. An applicant may request an extra bedroom by submitting evidence about medical and/or mobility needs. The policy says the needs will have to be very high to be awarded an extra bedroom. Advice must be sought from the Council’s Medical Advisor in these cases.
21. The Council’s housing allocations scheme says reviews should be completed wherever practicable within eight weeks from the date the review is requested. The Council will look to notify the applicant if it cannot be completed in time and give reasons for needing an extension. Applicants are notified in writing of the review decision and the reasons.

The Homemove application

22. Mr X and his wife had been on the Council’s Housing Register for several years.
23. He is the tenant of a one bedroom Council flat on the first floor of a block with no lift. There is a sloping path to the communal entrance to the block and two flights of stairs to reach the entrance to Mr X’s flat.
24. Mr X has multiple chronic medical conditions which severely limit his mobility. He also has anxiety and depression. He uses a walking stick and cannot walk more than 100 yards.
25. In late August 2019 an Occupational Therapist assessed Mr X and wrote a housing needs report. She said the bedroom was too small to accommodate the profiling bed Mr X needed and a separate single bed for Mrs X. She said he needed to move to a property with a bedroom large enough for two beds and sufficient space around each bed for transfers. The profiling bed would need to be accessible from both sides in case Mr X required support from carers in the future. She said a move to a two bedroom property was an alternative option.
26. On 18 October 2019 the Council informed Mr & Mrs X it had completed a reassessment of their housing needs. It awarded Band B medical priority and said they needed a one bedroom property.
27. Mr X also qualified for Mobility 3 accommodation. This is accommodation suitable for a person who can manage two or three steps, may sometimes use a wheelchair and who may not be able to manage steep gradients. The property may have adaptations to assist people with limited mobility.
28. It seems the decision made on 18 October was made without the benefit of advice from the Council’s Medical Adviser. However a few days later, on 21 October 2019, the Medical Adviser did consider the case. She noted there was no new medical evidence and no new diagnosis. She accepted Mr X struggled on the stairs but he was not housebound and could leave the property. She said it was not ideal that he was sleeping in a recliner chair because he could not get in and out of bed. She concluded his circumstances did not warrant Band A medical priority.
29. On 22 October the Medical Adviser also considered whether Mr & Mrs X needed to move to a two bedroom property on medical grounds. She said there was no need for an extra bedroom. Instead they should bid for properties with enough space to accommodate a single bed and a profiling bed.
30. On 1 November 2019 Mrs X requested a review. She challenged the decision to award Band B medical priority. In her emails, she said Mr X had had several falls in the flat and on the stairs. She said he had not been able to take a bath for five years and she had to wash him. She struggled to care for her husband, and help him get up when he fell, due to the lack of space in the flat. She said her husband’s wheelchair was too heavy to carry up and down the stairs. There was not enough space in the bedroom for the hospital bed he needed. She referred to a recent assessment by an Occupational Therapist who confirmed the property could not be adapted to meet Mr X’s needs. She did not send any new medical evidence at this stage.
31. The Council acknowledged Mrs X’s request on 12 November. The eight week timescale for responding to Mrs X’s request ended in late December 2019. I have seen no evidence that the Council contacted Mrs X then to say it needed more time or to give reasons for the delay.
32. In late November 2019 the Council received a letter from Mr X’s GP supporting his need for a two bedroom property. She said he was sleeping in a reclining chair because there was not enough space for the recommended profiling bed. She said Mr X's legs had swollen due to the sleeping arrangements.
33. In December 2019 Mr X’s consultant wrote a letter which confirmed his medical history, recent falls and referred to the recommendations made by the Occupational Therapist.
34. The Council did not make the review decision until 4 March 2021, some 16 months after it received Mrs X’s request.
35. In her decision letter the reviewing officer said she had reviewed all the evidence in the housing records. She accepted Mr X had several medical conditions. She explained that her role was to consider whether the decision on banding and bedroom need was correct. She also had to consider any new evidence received since the original decision to see if it would change the decision.
36. She upheld the decision to award Band B priority and put Mr X in Mobility Group 3. She confirmed the decision not to approve them for a two bedroom property. She explained that by awarding Band B medical priority the Council had recognised Mr X’s current home was having a major adverse effect on him and his medical needs would be significantly improved by moving to alternative accommodation.
37. When she complained to us, Mrs X said an officer in the Homemove team had told her in early 2020 not to bid for properties advertised on the Home Move scheme. However the Council says there is nothing in its records to indicate Mrs X was given this advice. It says Home Moves officers would advise customers to keep bidding for one bedroom properties pending a decision on a request for a second bedroom.
38. While Mrs X lived with Mr X, she placed bids because Mr X does not use the internet. The Council’s records show Mrs X had only bid for two properties since January 2020. Both properties were allocated to applicants with Band A priority.
39. Mr X told me he would be satisfied with a move to a suitable one bedroom property now that he lives alone. He does not have live-in carers.
40. The Council says it has written to Mr X to ask if he would like officers to bid for suitable properties on his behalf (“auto-bidding”) and to find out if he is interested in a move to sheltered accommodation. Mr X told me he has not yet received this letter.

The Council’s comments on the backlog of review requests

41. The Council says it had to reassess all Home Move applications following changes to the housing allocations policy in 2016 and 2018. Many applicants were removed from the Housing Register which led to an increase in review requests. This caused delay in dealing with reviews which was compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. Officers who had been dealing with reviews had to take on other duties to support people who became homeless during and after the national lockdowns. Staff sickness and the number of vacant posts also increased which added to the time it took to respond to reviews.
42. The Council is addressing the backlog of outstanding reviews and working hard to respond to requests. Many applicants’ circumstances have changed since they made the review request so officers are reassessing those cases and offering the right to a further review where necessary.

Analysis

43. The Council took far too long to make the review decision. Its policy says it aims to make a decision within eight weeks of receiving a request. This is also the recommended timescale in the government’s statutory guidance on housing allocations. In this case it took 16 months to make the review decision. That was fault.
44. The review did not increase Mr X’s priority band or change his assessed bedroom need. So Mr X did not miss the opportunity to be rehoused sooner which may have been the case if the review had led to a Band A award. Nevertheless it was frustrating for Mr X to have to wait so long for a decision and to be left in a state of uncertainty.
45. The Council agrees Mr X’s flat is unsuitable. He cannot use the bath, or get the profiling bed he needs. He does not leave the flat very often due to the risk of falls on the stairs. This significantly reduces his quality of life and limits his independence.
46. It is not for us to decide whether Mr X’s medical needs are so extreme that the Council should award Band A medical priority. Our role is to consider whether the Council properly considered the evidence when it reviewed his priority band. I found no fault in the way the reviewing officer considered his case. She took account of all the medical evidence, Mr X’s self-assessment forms and the Occupational Therapist’s report and Medical Adviser’s opinion. When we find no fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the merits of the decision to confirm the Band B award.
47. Mr X’s circumstances have now changed and he no longer needs a two bedroom property. So there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve by pursuing this part of the complaint further.
48. Many other applicants will have been affected by the Council’s delay in dealing with review requests. Some may be entitled to a higher priority band on review and may have missed opportunities to be rehoused sooner due to the delay in making review decisions. I recognise the considerable pressures under which the Council has been operating but it is not acceptable that applicants wait so long for a review decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise in writing to Mr X for the delay in making the review decision;
• Confirm it has updated his application to reflect the change in his circumstances;
• Pay him £100 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay;
• Send us information about the number of review requests currently outstanding and the average waiting time for a decision;

Within two months, the Council will:

• Draw up an action plan, with targets, to clear the backlog of review requests and send it to us;
• Share the action plan with members of the relevant Council committee and give them regular progress reports.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have completed the investigation and found the delay in making the review decision was fault which caused Mr X some injustice. There was no fault with the decision-making at the review stage.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman