Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his housing register application. Mr X says the Council has not properly considered his medical evidence and not awarded him appropriate medical points. Mr X also complains the Council suspended his application inappropriately. We find fault with the Council for delays. We have made recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his housing register application. Mr X says the Council has not properly considered his medical evidence and consequently, not awarded him appropriate medical points. Mr X also complains the Council suspended his application inappropriately.

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 spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Housing Allocations policy

8. The policy sets out how the Council prioritises applications for council and housing association homes based on a person’s circumstances and level of housing need.
9. The policy outlines that as part of the application, applicants will be required to give details of all members of their household. It notes that a child is not part of the household if:
• the applicant has staying contact with the child for less than 50% of the time; or
• in the case of equal contact time, the property will not be the child’s main or principal home.
10. Where two applicants have equal staying contact with children, evidence as to the child’s main and principal home is required when assessing bedroom requirements. The Council will not include the child as a member of the applicant’s household if it is not satisfied they are a permanent member of the household.
11. With regards to checks and assessments, the policy notes that if an applicant is successful in bidding, a full verification will be carried out at the point of offer. In some cases, the Council may complete the full verification before it makes an offer.
12. The policy also sets out the criteria for additional points awarded on medical grounds when there is evidence the applicant’s current housing situation is having a direct impact on their medical condition. The policy outlines that medical cases are assessed by a housing needs officer. The officer may seek advice from an independent medical advisor before making their final decision.

What happened

13. In December 2019, Mr X approached the Council as homeless and asked to join the Council’s housing register. Mr X told the Council he had been evicted from his property as his landlord wanted him to move out of the property for four to five weeks to carry out repairs. Mr X explained he was not able to move out due to his poor health and so the landlord obtained a court order. Mr X confirmed he was not allowed to return as he had been evicted.
14. In February 2020, the Council told Mr X he was not eligible to join the Council’s housing register as he did not have a local connection. The Council referred Mr X to its homelessness team for further intervention due to his circumstances. Mr X was unhappy with the decision and made a complaint.
15. In March 2020, the Council responded to Mr X complaint and confirmed it was wrong when it told him he was not eligible to join the housing register. The Council confirmed Mr X did not need a local connection because of his age. The Council apologised for the fault. The Council also asked Mr X to provide some further information to allow it to fully assess his housing need.
16. At the end of March 2020, the Council spoke with Mr X about his housing situation. Mr X told the Council he had found private rented accommodation, was not homeless, and was not looking to make a homeless application to the Council. Mr X told the Council he wanted to join the housing register and move to the area to be closer to his family. The Council asked Mr X to provide his medical information so it could assess whether Mr X was eligible for any medical points.
17. The Council sent Mr X’s medical information to its medical advisor to assess. In April 2020, the Council’s medical advisor assessed Mr X as having no medical priority to move as there was no compelling or significant medical evidence that made his current accommodation unsuitable.
18. After considering the rest of Mr X’s medical information, the Council decided to awarded Mr X 10 medical points. The Council said it decided to award these points, despite the advice of its medical advisor, as the officer felt Mr X’s mental health would benefit from living closer to his daughter.
19. Mr X placed bids on properties throughout April 2020. Near the end of April 2021, the Council contacted Mr X and asked him to provide documentation by the beginning of May 2020. The Council explained this was because Mr X was appearing high in the shortlists for the properties he was bidding on and it wanted to verify his housing application to ensure it could offer him the property should he go to the top of the waiting list.
20. Mr X did not provide the requested documentation by the deadline set. The Council chased Mr X for the documents. As Mr X did not provide the information, the Council did not shortlist Mr X for a property he had bid on.
21. Mr X did not contact the Council until near the end of June 2020. Mr X told the Council he had issues with his access to internet and so had difficulties responding to emails. Mr X also said his ill health and needing to isolate because of the COVID-19 pandemic also meant he could not respond to the Council’s request. Mr X asked the Council to review his medical priority as he felt he should have more points awarded.
22. The Council told Mr X it could reassess him if he had further medical information. The Council asked Mr X to provide this if so. The Council also encouraged Mr X to continue to bid on properties and to be available should the Council try and contact him to verify his documents.
23. Mr X did not contact the Council until November 2020, when he asked the Council to provide a medical form. Near the end of November 2020, Mr X’s doctor also sent the Council a letter.
24. In December 2020, Mr X added his daughter to his housing application. The Council suspended Mr X’s application and asked Mr X to provide supporting documentation so it could consider whether his daughter was part of his household. The Council also left a voicemail for Mr X and emailed him requesting the information. Mr X submitted a complaint about this decision.
25. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at the end of December 2020. The Council explained it had suspended Mr X’s account to understand the change of circumstances. The Council explained it had asked Mr X to provide relevant documents to help it consider the change of circumstances. The Council again asked Mr X to provide the documents so it could assess his application and consider his housing need.
26. Mr X did not contact the Council until April 2021. He did not provide the documents requested by the Council but asked for the Council to escalate his complaint and to review the points awarded for his medical needs.
27. The Council arranged to discuss Mr X’s case In May 2021. The Council also responded to Mr X’s complaint. The Council explained the lack of sustained contact between Mr X and the Council was an issue. The Council said it had told Mr X what documents it needs to assess his application following his change of circumstances.
28. In May 2021, the Council spoke with Mr X to discuss his case. They discussed the following:
• Mr X confirmed he was in private rented accommodation.
• Mr X needed to provide evidence regarding his daughter.
• The Council had suspended Mr X’s housing register because he had added his daughter to his application and the Council had not received the information it needed to assess the change of circumstances.
• The Council would make a referral to adult social services as Mr X had mentioned he suffered from confusion and memory loss.
29. In July 2021, Mr X emailed the Council and explained the family court hearing that was supposed to take place to discuss the contact arrangements for his daughter had been adjourned. Mr X confirmed he had a child arrangement order for his daughter which confirms his daughter stays with him for 50% of all school holidays, every other weekend during school term time, and every Wednesday after school. Mr X also provided the Council evidence from a recent psychiatric assessment and asked the Council to consider it.
30. In September 2021, Mr X complained to the Council again about its management of his housing application and asked to make a homeless application.
31. In October 2021, the Council told Mr X it had reviewed the psychiatric assessment he provided along with his previously provided medical documentation. The Council said as there was no reference to his current circumstances impacting his mental health any worse than what it has been, the Council considered the medical points already awarded to be sufficient. The Council also said it had passed Mr X’s case to its homelessness team to respond to his request to make a homeless application.
32. In response to our enquiries, the Council noted its homelessness team had not acted on the referral made by its housing team in October 2021. The Council asked its homelessness team to urgently contact Mr X.
33. The Council said it called Mr X in April 2022, but as he did not answer, the Council emailed him asking him to get in touch. Mr X did not contact the Council.
34. In May 2022, the Council called Mr X again. Mr X answered and confirmed he was still in temporary accommodation and that his enquiry was regarding why his housing register account had been suspended.
35. The Council’s housing team contacted Mr X and confirmed with him that there was still no decision on the custody arrangements for his daughter. Mr X said the family court hearing was arranged to be heard in July 2022.
36. The Council told Mr X his daughter would not be classed as a member of his household because he did not have at least 50% custody. The Council asked Mr X whether he wanted to bid on one bedroom properties or wait for the family court hearing. Mr X told the Council he was happy to stay in temporary accommodation for another few months and said he would wait until the result of the court hearing.
37. The Council explained as Mr X decided he was happy to wait, it did not lift the suspension on bidding on his housing register account.
38. The Council also confirmed Mr X’s housing register application date was January 2020.

Analysis

Additional points awarded for medical need

39. The Council’s policy notes it is for the Council to decide what medical points to award. While it may seek the advice of its medical advisors, the final decision on whether to award any additional points for medical need lies with the Council.
40. The Council awarded Mr X 10 points despite its medical advisor recommending no medical points. The Council also clearly explained its rationale for awarding its points. Therefore, the evidence shows the Council properly considered Mr X’s medical information and made its decision in line with its allocations policy. As the Council made its decision properly, we cannot find fault or criticise the decision itself.
41. Mr X provided his psychiatric assessment, which was further medical information, in July 2021. However, the Council did not tell Mr X of its decision that this did not impact on the points awarded until October 2021. Even allowing the Council a reasonable amount of time to consider the new information, this was still a delay of around two months. This is fault.
42. However, we do not consider the fault identified caused any significant injustice. This is because the outcome would have been the same, even if the delay had not occurred. There is also no evidence Mr X chased the Council for a decision or expressed concern about the delay.

Housing register account suspension

43. The Council suspended Mr X’s housing register account in December 2020 after he added his daughter to his housing application. The Council sent Mr X a letter which outlined the reasons for the suspension and the information Mr X needed to provide. Therefore, the Council clearly communicated with Mr X the reasons for its decision and the action Mr X needed to take to allow the Council to assess his application.
44. The evidence shows Mr X did not provide the Council with the information it needed. We note, and are sympathetic to, the fact Mr X told the Council he suffers from short term memory loss, and this was why he often forgot to respond to the Council’s requests. However, without Mr X providing the information the Council needed to assess his application, we are satisfied there was nothing further the Council could do.
45. We also note the Council did act reasonably and proportionately by chasing Mr X for the documents. However, we are satisfied it is not realistic to expect the Council to chase him continuously. The Council also showed it was aware of Mr X’s vulnerability by appropriately referring him to its adult social care team.
46. Therefore, the Council’s decision to suspend Mr X’s account was not inappropriate. This is because it needed to assess Mr X’s change of circumstances to decide whether it was appropriate for Mr X’s daughter to be added to his household, in line with its allocations policy. As Mr X failed to provide the required information, the Council was not able to complete its assessment.
47. Mr X did not provide the Council with information about his daughter until May and July 2021. It was clear Mr X provided the Council with information which suggested he did not have his daughter for at least 50% of the time.
48. Despite having this information, the Council did not follow up with Mr X or decide whether his daughter could be accepted as part of his household. The evidence shows the Council did not tell Mr X that his daughter was not part of his household, due to not meeting the criteria outlined in its allocations policy, until May 2022. This is a significant delay and is fault.
49. We consider the fault identified has caused an injustice. This is because it is likely that, if the Council had made its decision sooner, it would have lifted Mr X’s housing register account suspension. Further, as Mr X had regularly bid on properties when his account was live, we consider it is also likely Mr X would have bid on available properties if the Council had lifted his suspension without delay. However, we cannot say whether Mr X would have been successful in any bids he made. Therefore, we are satisfied the delay has caused some uncertainty.
50. Finally, we note Mr X told the Council he is happy to wait until the outcome of the court hearing. Therefore, the Council has kept his housing register account suspended while it waits for further information from Mr X about the contact arrangements with his daughter. We are satisfied this is appropriate in the circumstances.
51. Once Mr X has further information about the contact arrangements for his daughter, it would be advisable for Mr X to provide this to the Council without delay. The Council can then assess Mr X’s application and decide on his housing need.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault identified, we recommend the Council complete the following:
• Apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty caused by the delay in deciding whether to accept his daughter onto his housing register account.
• Pay Mr X £200 to recognise the uncertainty caused by the fault identified.
53. The Council should complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I find fault with the Council for the delay in deciding whether to accept his daughter onto his housing register account. We also find fault with the Council for delay in considering the psychiatric assessment. However, this did not cause any significant injustice. The Council accepts my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman