Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it considered whether Ms X should receive reasonable preference for medical issues, however this did not cause her any injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the way the Council handled her application for reasonable priority on medical grounds. Ms X says this means she remains in a property which is not suitable for her needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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. As part of this investigation I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I discussed the complaint with Ms X over the telephone. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the response received. I sent a draft of this decision to Ms X and the Council for comments.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

6. 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))
7. An 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))
8. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s allocations policy

9. The Council runs a choice based lettings scheme which enables applications to bid for available properties which it advertises.
10. The allocations policy says applicants can receive reasonable preference where their current home is, “unsuitable and is having the effect of exacerbating the poor health of the applicant and the application needs to be re-housed on medial grounds.”
11. Where an applicant falls within a reasonable preference category they are placed into the Priority Homeseeker group on the housing register.
12. Where applicants qualify for more than one reasonable preference category the Council can assess them to see if they qualify for additional preference. If an applicant qualifies for additional preference they will be placed into the Multiple Needs Group. To qualify for additional preference an applicant needs to score four or more in the Council’s assessment.
13. For reviews of decisions, the allocations policy says there is no further right to a review, so it is important the review is thorough. The reviewing officer must satisfy themselves the decision was correctly made in accordance with the allocations policy, and take advice where necessary. They should ask the applicant for more information if this is necessary to ensure that the full facts are clear. The Council must notify the applicant of the result of the review in writing giving reasons and tell them there is no further right of review.

What happened

14. In November 2020 Ms X completed a medical assessment form for her housing register application. At this time Ms X was in the Priority Homeseeker group due to overcrowding. Ms X said she found it difficult to climb the stairs to her flat due to back and leg pains. She provided a supporting letter from her doctor and an organisation supporting her.
15. On 8 December 2020 the Council wrote to Ms X telling her she did not qualify for reasonable preference on medical grounds. The Council said it considered the evidence Ms X provided but decided not to award priority on medical grounds as it was satisfied Ms X’s accommodation did not exacerbate her poor health. The Council said Ms X was not dependant on mobility aids and urgent interventions. The Council considered Ms X’s mental health issues but decided these were not serious enough to warrant psychiatric care.
16. In late December 2020 Ms X requested a review of this decision. Ms X asked the Council to provide her with a copy of her housing file so her legal adviser could consider this and make written representations on her behalf. Ms X also told the Council she does not have access to a lift in her property and cannot manage carrying her child.
17. On 20 January 2021 the Council sent a review acknowledgement letter to Ms X.
18. On 20 March 2021 the Council sent Ms X its review decision. The Council decided to uphold its original decision that Ms X did not have reasonable preference for medical priority. The Council said Ms X provided no clinical evidence of her condition and her doctor only said Ms X told him about her ailments. The Council said Ms X has provided nothing further in support of her review. In relation to the stairs the Council said Ms X’s son was old enough to walk up these without being carried and will only get better as he gets older.
19. The Council told Ms X to make a subject access request if she wanted to obtain her housing file. The Council said if she wanted to make any further representations within 56 days in support of her case she could. The Council also said even if it had awarded Ms X reasonable preference on medical grounds this would not have made any difference to her housing register application as she already was in the Priority Homeseeker group as she has reasonable preference for overcrowding.

Analysis

20. Ms X says the Council has not properly considered whether she should receive reasonable preference on medical grounds.
21. When Ms X requested a review she asked the Council to provide her with her housing file so her legal adviser could consider the file and make representations on her behalf. The Council did not supply Ms X with a copy of her housing file or tell her how she could officially request this prior to making its review decision. This is fault. It would have been appropriate for the Council to tell Ms X how to officially request her housing file, so she had to opportunity to do this and submit representations based upon its contents before issuing a decision.
22. In the written review decision provided to Ms X the Council gave her a further right of review to put in representations within 56 days of the review decision. This is also fault. The Council’s allocations policy says there is no further right of review and Ms X should have been notified of this. If the review officer felt they needed more evidence they should have asked Ms X for this. Also as Ms X had expressed a desire to submit further representations, in support of her review, but had not done so, it would have been appropriate to write to her asking for this information before issuing a review decision.
23. As I have found the Council at fault for the way is considered Ms X’s review I need to assess whether this would have caused her injustice. Ms X already has reasonable preference for overcrowding and is already in the Priority Homeseeker group on the Council’s housing register. To move into a higher group on the housing register Ms X would need to qualify for additional preference. To do this she would need to have an emergency medical need or score four or more in the Council’s multiple needs test. Even if the Council had awarded her reasonable preference on medical grounds too Ms X would still have remained in the Priority Homeseeker group. Obtaining reasonable preference on medical grounds would not have increased Ms X’s priority on the housing register as she would not have qualified for an emergency medical move or have enough points on the Council’s multiple needs test to increase her priority group.
24. Even though the Council were at fault for the way it considered Ms X’s review, this would not have affected Ms X’s housing register status even if the Council had awarded her reasonable preference on medical grounds, therefore Ms X has not suffered injustice from the Council’s fault.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council when considering Ms X’s request for reasonable preference on medical grounds. This has not caused injustice to Ms X, so no remedy is required.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman