Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to consider medical evidence when it decided he and his partner were not eligible for a two-bedroom property. He said they needed separate bedrooms to manage their mental health. We did not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained the Council failed to consider medical evidence when it decided he and his partner were not eligible for a two-bedroom property. He said they needed separate bedrooms to manage their mental health. Mr B said because of this, his partner Mr C, slept on the sofa in the living room.

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. I considered:
• Mr B’s complaint and the information he provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
6. Mr B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I considered comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

7. A local housing authority must have an allocation scheme for deciding priorities and allocating accommodation. The scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants who fall within reasonable preference categories. (Housing Act 1996 s.166A (1,3) and s.167 (1, 2))
8. The Housing Act 1996 s.166A sets out the reasonable preference categories, these are:
• People who are homeless and eligible under the Housing Acts 1985 and 1996.
• People occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or living in unsatisfactory housing conditions.
• People who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
• People who need to move to a particular locality and a failure to move would cause hardship to themselves or to others.
9. The Council may give 'additional preference' to applicants within the reasonable preference categories, provided they have urgent housing needs.
10. The room standard assigns a married or cohabiting couple one room to sleep in. A room is considered available as sleeping accommodation if it is of a type normally used either as a bedroom or as a living room (Housing Act 1985, ss.324-325)
11. The Allocations Code of Guidance recommends one bedroom for each adult couple (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, 2012, Allocation of accommodation: Guidance for local housing authorities)

What happened

12. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
13. Mr B lives with his partner, Mr C. They are on the Council’s housing waiting list for a one-bedroom ground floor property.
14. In March 2021, Mr B’s doctor wrote two letters for Mr B to give to the Council. Mr B’s doctor explained Mr B and his partner had mental health difficulties. He advised they wanted to live in a two-bedroom property so they both had their own personal space as this would help them manage their mental health.
15. Mr B gave these letters to the Council. The Council wrote to Mr B’s doctor asking for more information.
16. An occupational therapist completed housing reports for Mr B and Mr C in April 2021. The occupational therapist said, “The property must have 2 bedrooms. Mr B lives with his partner Mr C who also has physical and mental health issues. To help them both to manage a 2 bedroom property is required, to allow them both to have a safe personal space to retreat to if needed to help them cope with their mental health symptom.”

17. Mr B’s doctor gave the Council more information about Mr B and Mr C’s mental health. They explained Mr B slept in the bedroom of their current property, and Mr C slept on the sofa in the living room. Mr B told the doctor this was so they did not disturb each other at night. The doctor advised they were asking for a two-bedroom property so they could both sleep in a bed without causing disturbance to the other.
18. The Council reviewed the information from Mr B’s doctor and the occupational therapist. The Council decided Mr B and Mr C were not eligible for a two-bedroom property.
19. It explained the information from the doctor was that Mr B and Mr C wanted a two-bedroom property, not that it was a medical requirement. It acknowledged the occupational therapists report said Mr B and Mr C needed a two-bedroom property. However, it told Mr B it spoke to the occupational therapist who confirmed it was Mr B and Mr C who suggested they needed two-bedrooms to manage their mental health. The occupational therapist said they had suggested one person use the bedroom and one use the living room when they needed their own personal space, but this was rejected by Mr B. The occupational therapist confirmed they did not have access to Mr B and Mr C’s medical records and the information that informed the report was self-reported.
20. The Council recognised a two-bedroom property could benefit Mr B and Mr C, but this was different from it being a medical priority. It explained given the pressures on housing it had to base its decisions on medical need rather than what could be beneficial. It decided Mr B and Mr C were not eligible for a two-bedroom property. It confirmed Mr B and Mr C had priority for a one-bedroom ground floor property given Mr B’s physical health needs.

Analysis

21. Mr B complained the Council failed to consider medical information when it decided how many bedrooms they were eligible for. Mr B said his doctor and an occupational therapist said they needed two bedrooms to support their mental health.
22. The Council considered information from Mr B, his doctor, and an occupational therapist. The Council decided Mr B and Mr C were not eligible for two bedrooms because it was not a medical requirement. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. I have not seen any evidence of fault in how the decision was reached so I cannot question its merits.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman