Summary: Mr R complained about the way the Council dealt with his application to its housing. The Council made him a direct offer of unsuitable accommodation. And it did not consider medical evidence he submitted. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint about a delay in considering Mr R’s medical evidence. But we do not criticise the Council for making the offer of accommodation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I shall refer to as Mr R) complains:
• he told the Council flats in tower blocks (including his refurbished old flat), were not suitable for him, because of the trauma caused by a fire and the effect on his mental health;
• he asked the Council to make him a direct offer of a flat in a converted house. He turned down the Council’s offer, as it was not suitable;
• the Council did not consider the medical evidence he submitted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an organisation’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)
3. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr R;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Mr R;
• sent my draft decision to Mr R and the Council and considered the responses I received.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

The national rules about 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))

The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy

8. The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy has four bands for eligible applicants, with Band 1 being applicants with an urgent housing need to move. Band 4 is the lowest band, with a low need to move. Applicants can bid for properties with the priority being decided by the applicant who has been in the highest band for the longest time.
9. The Council’s Policy:
• Gives a Band 3 priority for applicants whose housing conditions worsen a serious medical condition or disability;
• allows it the option of making a direct offer, outside of the normal lettings system, for a set of named reasons;
• has a review procedure for decisions on applications;
• says applicants with rent arrears will be placed in the lowest band (Band 4) until the arrears are cleared.

What happened

10. In the middle of 2020, Mr R had to move out of his flat, after a fire. The Council placed him in temporary accommodation to allow it to carry out repairs at his home.
11. The Council also agreed to make Mr R a direct offer of alternative accommodation, because he could not occupy his property (which meant he was in the highest band on the Council’s register).
12. The Council made Mr R an offer of a flat in one of its tower blocks in a letter dated 12 January 2021. The letter advised Mr R that it would be the Council’s only offer and that he would need “good reasons” to appeal the offer.
13. Mr R responded to say that, because of the trauma he had experienced, he had an “extreme fear” of living in a block of flats. He said he experienced anxiety attacks and had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. So, as an alternative, Mr R requested housing in a flat in a converted house.
14. The Council’s internal records do not have a record of an earlier request from Mr R for re-housing in a converted house. The officer who dealt with Mr R initially says he did not mention this need. And Mr R had not provided any medical evidence in support of this need.
15. In early February an officer advised Mr R that, as a (secure) Council tenant, he could try to mutually exchange his flat with another secure tenant. But to do that he would need a clear rent account (Mr R had substantial rent arrears).
16. Later in February the Council ended Mr R’s stay in the temporary accommodation. It says it did this as his old flat was ready for him to re-occupy. Mr R did not return to his flat, due to his anxiety about going back there.
17. In March 2021 Mr R completed a form for medical priority for his housing register application. He returned the form with a letter confirming he was on a wating list for therapy due to the trauma he had experienced.
18. Mr R complained about the issue; first to the Council, and when it did not uphold this complaint, to the Ombudsman. In February 2022, the Council responded to my enquiries. It advised that, due to a backlog, it had not forwarded Mr R’s March 2021 application for medical priority to its medical advisers.
19. Later responses from the Council advised:
• its advisers had since assessed Mr R’s application for medical priority and agreed a Band 3 priority – a moderate medical need for a move. It noted the difficult circumstances within his current accommodation and the effect on his mental health; but
• because of Mr R’s rent arrears, he was in Band 4 on the housing register.

Was there fault by the Council?

20. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s decision on a housing application/a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried the assessment out in line with its published allocations scheme.
21. Here the Council at first granted Mr R its highest priority because he could not return to his home. It made him what it viewed as a suitable direct offer. Mr R says he told the Council earlier that he could not accept an offer in a block of flats. But the Council’s notes do not have records of this and its officer does not remember this. Without evidence, I cannot uphold Mr R’s complaint that the Council should not have made this offer.
22. After the Council’s offer, Mr R made an application for medical priority. The Council’s delayed assessing that application – from March 2021 to March 2022. My decision is that that considerable delay was fault.
23. After belatedly considering Mr R’s medical priority application, the Council gave Mr R a Band 3 status – it accepted a reasonable priority on medical grounds. That fits with its own policy, so the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of that decision.
24. But because Mr R was in rent arrears, the Council has placed him in Band 4 until he clears the arrears. Its policy it allows it to do this. So, again, it is not something we can criticise.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

25. On the balance or probabilities, if the Council had acted without fault, it would have granted Mr R a medical priority around March 2021. The extent of the injustice to Mr R depends on whether he missed out on any properties (of the sort he says he wants) due to the fault.
26. I asked the Council about this. It advised that, in line with its policy, because Mr R is in rent arrears, his banding is demoted to Band 4. The Council has advised that this means the fault did not lead to him missing out on any properties.
27. Mr R has however been caused some unnecessary time and trouble and frustration by the delay.

Back to top

Recommended action

28. I recommended the Council, within a month of this statement:
• write to Mr R apologising for the delay;
• change the effective date of Mr R’s priority to 1 March 2021. This will help him when he clears his rent arrears and his priority moves back to Band 3;
• make Mr R a symbolic payment of £200 in recognition of the unnecessary time and trouble and distress its fault caused. But, in line with our own guidance, I accept that, as Mr R has rent arrears, the Council can use this payment as a reduction towards those arrears.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I uphold this complaint. The Council has not disputed my recommendations, so I have ended my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman