Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not give her application to be re-housed the correct priority. Mrs X says she has an urgent medical need to move home. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council arrived at its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X submitted a complaint on behalf of his wife, Mrs X. He says the Council failed to award the correct housing points for their application to be rehoused. Mr X says the extra medical points are required in order to move to a property suitable for Mrs X’s health and welfare needs.

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 can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), 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. I considered Mr X’s complaint and the information he provided.
6. I considered the information I received from the Council in response to my enquiries
7. Mr X and the Council were given the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I did not receive any comments from Mr X nor the Council.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr and Mrs X lived in a two-bedroom, first floor flat with their three children. Two of their children have additional needs. The property was owned by the Council.
9. Mrs X had physical and mental health conditions that were exacerbated by her housing situation. Mrs X’s health deteriorated after a fall on the stairs leading up to her first floor flat. She applied to be rehoused on medical grounds and requested a move to a three-bedroom accommodation.
10. The Council agreed the current accommodation was not suitable. The Council awarded Mrs X a priority of 30 housing points and granted a like for like move to a two-bedroom ground floor property rather than wait a lengthy amount of time (approximately 8-10 years) for a three-bedroom property. It agreed that if the family moved to a two-bedroom ground floor flat, the Council would allow them to reapply to the housing register and they could retain their original qualifying date and their waiting time points for larger accommodation.
11. Mr and Mrs X were unhappy with the Council’s decision and requested a review.
12. The Council referred the matter to an Independent District Medical Officer (DMO). The DMO agreed the priority awarded was reasonable and appropriate.
13. Mrs X had a second fall in the home and was admitted to hospital. Mr X asked the Council to call the hospital ward as they refused to discharge Mrs X due to the stairs at home.
14. The Council contacted the hospital ward. The hospital said the x-rays showed no damage and it was arranging for Mrs X to be safely discharged via ambulance. Before the hospital could arrange the ambulance, Mrs X discharged herself, she was seen by several professionals on the ward to get herself out of bed and leave the hospital independently carrying her own bags. Mr X says this is not a true representation of what happened.
15. Due to the conflicting information the Council had about Mrs X’s mobility, it requested an assessment from an Occupational Therapist (OT). In June 2021, an Occupational Therapist carried out an assessment with Mrs X. The OT advised the Council Mrs X’s current property was failing to meet her needs or her long-term needs, and it cannot be adapted to meet these needs either. The OT identified Mrs X ideally needed a ground floor flat with level or near level access or a house with level or near level access with a stair lift. The assessment also identified that Mrs X required a property that has a level access shower.
16. The assessment was sent to the DMO for a review. The DMO did not change her original recommendation as it was her opinion the case did not meet the threshold for an urgent medical priority for a three-bedroom house.
17. Mr and Mrs X remained unhappy with the decision and they went through the Council’s complaint process. The Council did not uphold their complaint. It found the DMO considered all the information available to her when making her decision and the Council was not in a position to question the DMO’s professional medical opinion. Mr X then brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
18. The Council became aware the family were being targeted and a brick had been thrown at their window. This impacted on Mrs X’s mental health and her physical health also deteriorated due to complications with an operation she had.
19. The Council reviewed Mrs X’s application and based on the new information that had come to light, it awarded the housing points for an urgent need to move.
20. Mr and Mrs X and their children have since been rehoused to a three-bedroom house.

Back to top

Analysis

21. The evidence shows Mr X was asked to provide medical evidence in support of the request for urgent medical priority. This evidence was considered by a medical professional who made the initial decisions not to award urgent medical priority to Mr and Mrs X.
22. I acknowledge Mr and Mrs X were frustrated with the Council’s decision not to award the points for urgent medical priority but I have found no evidence of fault in how it made its decision.
23. I have seen evidence that shows the Council went beyond its policy in order to help Mr and Mrs X by processing their application out of turn and also by agreeing that if the family moved to a two-bedroom ground floor flat, the Council would allow them to reapply to the housing register and they could retain their original qualifying date and their waiting time points for larger accommodation. I have also seen evidence of the Council making several attempts and through various avenues to obtain information from the hospital to support its decision making, albeit without success. The evidence shows the Council went to a great deal of effort in trying to help Mr and Mrs X and their family and I have seen no evidence of fault.
24. The Council has now decided to award Mrs X urgent medical priority and the family have moved to alternative accommodation. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council has resolved Mrs X’s complaint and no further investigation by the Ombudsman is likely to reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

25. There is no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation and closed this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman