Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council considered her application to join the housing register and for failing to consider reasonable adjustments. There was fault in how the Council communicated its decision not to allow Miss X to join the housing register, and when it delayed in reviewing that decision. The Council agreed to pay Miss X £400 to recognise the injustice caused by the faults. There was no fault in how the Council allocated Miss X housing points or how it considered the reasonable adjustment she requested.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider the medical information she provided when it considered her application to join the housing register and when it allocated her housing points. Miss X further complained the Council did not consider the reasonable adjustments she requested due to her disabilities. Miss X states this caused her distress and made her health conditions worse.

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 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)
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 read the documents provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone.
6. I read the documents provided by the Council in response to my enquiries
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 Allocations Legislation

8. 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))
9. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in certain categories including people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
10. Councils must tell applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• the applicant is not eligible for an allocation; and
• the applicant is not a qualifying person.

The council must also tell the applicant of a right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

Council’s policy

11. The Council’s policy states applicants will not qualify to join the housing register if they are not eligible for more than 30 housing points. This is because they have no housing need as set out in the policy.
12. There are two levels of priority for housing and health related needs which will be assessed by a medical professional. It will award 500 points where housing is impacting on someone’s health and wellbeing and there is an urgent need of rehousing. It will award 150 points where rehousing is necessary but not urgent. It provides information on what health conditions meet urgent or necessary rehousing.
13. To recognise the time people spend on the housing register the Council adds five percent of the points award when the applicant has been on the register for a year, every year.
14. The policy states applicants have a right to know how the Council assessed their case. It will tell people in writing if they are ineligible or do not qualify for housing.
15. The Council has a two-stage review process. At stage 1 the original officer will reconsider their decision and provide a decision within 14 days. At stage 2 a reviewing officer will review the decision along with any extra information and tell the applicant of their decision within 56 days.

Equalities Act

16. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
17. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of nine protected characteristics. One of the nine characteristics is disability.
18. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
19. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
20. Only the courts can decide if the Council has breached the Equality Act. We can make a decision about whether the Council has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Councils will often be able to show they have done this if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

What happened

21. In January 2021 Miss X lived alone in a privately rented third floor flat. It had 45 steps to get up to the flat and no lift in the building. Miss X had three medical conditions, of which two were classed as disabilities. Miss X felt that living in her flat made her conditions worse. Miss X’s first language was not English.
22. Miss X applied to join the housing register at the Council. She told the Council about the disabilities and medical conditions she had. The Council considered the application and told Miss X that her application did not show a need for social housing and she could not join the housing register.
23. Miss X, supported by a friend, requested a review of the Council’s decision. She sent a health and disability questionnaire and a medical letter. She said her conditions were made worse by living in a small space on the third floor. She had difficulty leaving her flat as she was often unable to manage the three flights of stairs due to her disabilities.
24. The Council’s records show a medical adviser considered the information Miss X had provided and decided she did not meet the threshold for medical priority.
25. In March the Council wrote to Miss X and told her it had reviewed the information she provided. It told her it would not award health and housing points and Miss X could not join the housing register.
26. In April Miss X, with the support of an advocate, requested a review of the decision. She said she had not been able to provide full information in her first application due to her disability. She provided five medical letters and extra information about the impact of her housing on her conditions. Miss X asked the Council to visit her home to see the impact of the property on her.
27. The Council’s records show the medical adviser considered the letters and extra information Miss X provided. It does not show what weight they gave to each piece of evidence or if they discounted any. They decided the extra information did not change their decision.
28. At the end of April, the Council wrote to Miss X. It stated it considered the information provided and decided not to issue any points. It stated Miss X had a right to review of the decision. It did not provide any further information.
29. In May Miss X contacted the Council by phone and asked for an update on a stage 2 review of the Council’s decision.
30. The Council wrote to Miss X. It stated it reviewed the information Miss X provided in April and upheld its decision not to award health and housing points. It stated its decision was final.
31. The Council records do not show who conducted the second review or what information they considered. The record only specifies the result was upheld.
32. In June Miss X complained to the Council about its decision. She said she struggled to understand information due to her disability and because English was not her first language. She said the Council failed to enquire about reasonable adjustments for her disability or language translation and failed to make a reasonable adjustment to visit her home. She said the Council had not properly considered her medical conditions.
33. In July the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It stated Miss X had not told it she needed correspondence in a different language. As she was supported by a friend and then an advocate it had no reason to believe she could not understand its communication. It invited Miss X to inform it of any reasonable adjustments she needed in the future. It confirmed it did not need to visit the property to understand the impact on Miss X’s medical needs as it gathered information in other ways, such as documentary evidence.
34. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint that the stage 2 review decision letter did not explain how and why it decided not to award medical points. It said it had not explained how it ensured it had met its requirements under the Equalities Act. The Council apologised and stated it would reconsider its review decision. The Council also provided a translated copy of the letter.
35. Miss X complained to the Council again. She stated the complaint response did not explain how the Council made the decision. She stated the medical expert was not a specialist in her conditions and they did not take account of the information she provided. Miss X requested a home visit as a reasonable adjustment for her communication and cognitive impairment. Miss X asked for a review of the decision and for the Council to complete a home visit to consider the impact of the living conditions on her. Miss X asked the Council to provide its response in both English and translated into her first language.
36. The Council responded to Miss X. It said it could not provide the response she required as it had not yet completed the housing needs review and therefore its results were unknown. The Council stated once it had completed the review, if Miss X was dissatisfied, she could refer the matter to us. The Council did not translate this letter.
37. In October the Council wrote to Miss X. It said it reviewed the information she provided in January and April and would award 150 health and housing points. It also said it had considered her application in line with the Council’s policies and the Equality Act. The Council did not translate this letter.
38. In October Miss X complained to us about the way the Council made its decision and that it did not visit her at home. Miss X said she felt the Council should award her 500 points due to her medical conditions.
39. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it considered a home visit when Miss X raised her complaint. It decided it could gather enough information through documentary evidence to decide on her medical needs and housing. It stated it had limited capacity to complete home visits and must weigh the benefit of a visit against the time they take to complete.

My findings

40. The Council considered Miss X’s request for a home visit to assess the impact on her medical conditions and decided it was not necessary. It explained this decision in its stage 1 complaint response. There was no fault in its decision not to carry out a home visit.
41. When Miss X complained she said a home visit was a reasonable adjustment for her cognitive and language needs. However, Miss X had the support of a friend and then an advocate and the Council had no reason to believe she needed reasonable adjustments because none were previously requested. The Council had due regard to its obligations under the Equalities Act and was not at fault.
42. Miss X told the Council she needed documents translated into another language. The Council translated one letter after her request. It did not translate any further letters despite agreeing to do so and Miss X requesting this. The Council did not provide a reason. That was fault and caused Miss X frustration and the time and trouble of liaising with her advocate for each matter.
43. The Council records do not show how it considered the information Miss X provided during the first or second review, and its decision letters did not provide that information. The lack of records and explanation was not in line with its policy and was fault. It caused Miss X uncertainty and she had to make a further complaint to get an appropriate review. The Council has already apologised and completed the further review which is an appropriate remedy.
44. When the Council completed the final review, it followed its policy in assessing the information Miss X supplied. The medical assessor found Miss X was entitled to 150 housing points as rehousing was necessary, but not urgent. There was no fault in how the Council made the decision and it was in line with the Council’s policy.
45. The Council took 107 days to complete the final review and tell Miss X the result. This was 51 days longer than its policy allows and was fault. The fault caused Miss X frustration, delayed her access to the housing register and meant she missed the opportunity to bid on suitable properties.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. Within one month the Council will:
• pay Miss X £300 to recognise the uncertainty caused to her between April and October 2021, when she missed the opportunity to bid on suitable properties;
• backdate the points awarded to Miss X to April 2021 and ensure the five percent point uplift is applied on the anniversary of the application, in line with the policy;
• pay Miss X £100 to recognise the time and trouble caused to her by failing to translate letters in to her first language; and
• remind relevant staff of the importance of providing applicants with clear information explaining how it has made decisions relating to housing points.
47. The Council will provide us with the evidence that it has done so.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation. I found fault leading to injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman