Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s decisions on a housing transfer application. When Miss X supplied more evidence the Council’s increased her medical priority but there is no evidence that it should have backdated the decisions. It is not possible to reach a decision on what happened on a social workers visit, as it was a private meeting and the accounts do not agree.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complains there were delays in placing her in priority Band A which means she has missed out on offers of suitable properties.
2. Miss X also complains a social worker’s visit had a harmful effect on her son’s mental health.

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 submitted by Miss X.
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

Housing priority

8. Miss X lives in a 2 bedroom flat with her family, rented from a Housing Association. She made an application for a transfer on 22 October 2020 and was placed in Band C.
9. The Council carried out a medical assessment on 18 December 2020 which gave her 20 medical points and agreed that her elder son needed his own bedroom, so they were entitled to a three bedroom property. A second medical assessment on 29 March 2021 increased her medical points to 30. A third assessment on 24 June 2021 resulted in no change to Miss X’s points.
10. A fourth medical assessment on 14th July 2021 resulted in the Council awarding her overriding medical priority, Band A. This is the highest priority band.
11. Miss X complains there were delays in placing her in priority Band A, which has led to her missing out on offers of accommodation. The Council’s housing allocations policy says that priority within Band A will be determined on a date order basis, according to the date the person was placed in Band A.
12. In order to determine if there is fault, I have looked to see what evidence was available to the medical assessor on each assessment.
13. The December 2020 assessment took into account:
• Her elder son’s Education and Healthcare plan (EHC plan).
• Letter of support from Occupational therapist.
• Letter of support from her elder son’s school.
• Medical report on her Elder son.
• Letter of support from her doctors.
• Letter of support from Health Visitor.
14. The March 2021 assessment also took into account:
• A further letter from her doctors, which included information about the effect of harassment from neighbours on Miss X’s mental health.
• A further letter from her Health Visitor.
15. The July 2021 assessment also took into account:
• A number of emails from Miss X to the housing officer, providing detailed information on how their current flat affected her family’s safety and mental health.
16. I understand Miss X’s view that her situation did not change so she should have got Band A priority on the first assessment. But, I have looked at all the information and I can see that further medical/written evidence was added each time the Council carried out a medical assessment which gave her greater priority. So, I do not consider there was fault by the Council, as it was the additional evidence supplied that increased her priority rather than a review of the initial information.
17. In response to Miss X’s comments, I made further enquiries of the Council to establish exactly why a different decision was made in July 2021. The Council explained that Miss X’s emails were not shared with the medical advisor before July, as normally only the form and medical evidence is shared. However, the head of housing intervened in July 2021 and as an exception, asked Miss X to supply further information to send to the medical adviser. It was this that led to the award of over-riding medical priority and so I cannot fault the Council’s decision not to backdate the medical priority to January 2021.
18. Miss X feels the Council should agree to her request for a managed move due to exceptional circumstances. The Council has considered this request but decided that this is not appropriate. This is a professional judgement that officers are entitled to make and I see no reason that it was made without considering all the evidence.

Social workers visit

19. Miss X also complains a social worker’s visit had a harmful effect on her son’s mental health.
20. From the information I have, I can see that the social workers account of the visit is different to that of Miss X. As I was not present at the meeting, there is no way to determine now what happened or whose recollection is accurate. So, on this point I cannot reach any conclusion as there is simply not enough independent evidence to determine what happened.

Back to top

Final decision

21. 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