Thurrock Council (21 016 100)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 16 Aug 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application for medical priority, causing distress and leaving her family in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. We found fault by the Council causing injustice. We recommended the Council provide Mrs X with an apology and pay her £1200 for the time spent in unsuitable accommodation; £300 for distress and uncertainty and; £100 for time and trouble.

The complaint

  1. Mrs X complains the Council did not process her 2018 application for medical priority correctly and has not made a direct offer as agreed in June 2021. Mrs X says her family has remained in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary and suffered distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  3. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (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

  1. I reviewed documents provided by Mrs X and the Council.
  2. I gave Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s housing scheme

  1. The Council has five bands for prioritising applicants on the housing waiting list.
  2. Applicants in Band 1 have the highest priority while applicants in Band 5 have the lowest.
  3. Once an applicant is registered, they are given their bidding reference number, banding and the types and size of properties that they can bid for. An applicant has the right to request a review of their banding at the point of registration, and at any point prior to an offer of accommodation, where their circumstances have changed.

The Council’s Medical Priority policy

  1. A person may apply for a higher banding based on medical needs.
  2. At stage 1 the Council will review the information provided by the applicant. Within three working days it will tell the applicant whether it:
    • needs more information
    • refuses the application
    • has sent the application for medical consideration
  3. It if passes an application for medical consideration, in most cases an Independent Medical Service will review this and advise the Council. It will process the application and provide its decision within 15 working days. The outcome may be:
    • band 2 – the highest band, only awarded for the most urgent of cases, such as where a person cannot be discharged from hospital due to their housing situation
    • band 3 – awarded for less urgent cases, such as where more suitable housing would make a substantial improvement to a person's quality of life
    • refusal – no medical priority.

What happened

  1. Mrs X lives with her husband and two children in a two bedroom property. She was on the Council’s housing register. In 2018 she sent information to the Council about her child, Y, to support an application for priority housing on medical grounds. This included a doctor’s letter about Y’s medical condition.
  2. The Council says it received this information on 30 April 2018. By letter of the same date the Council told Mrs X it could not progress her application because of a lack of supporting information. It asked her to provide supporting medical evidence of Y’s condition by way of a paediatrician letter and report from any another professional involved. I note this letter does not refer to any medical information already provided or explain why this was inadequate. The Council says the relevant officer has since left the Council and it has no other records of their decision making.
  3. In September 2020 Mrs X sent the Council information about her husband, Mr X, to support an application for priority housing on medical grounds.
  4. The Council sent the application for medical consideration, considered the report provided by the independent medical service, then sent Mrs X a refusal letter on 15 September 2020.
  5. The Council says Mrs X then raised questions about Y’s medical need for an additional bedroom. Because of this it sent her application from 2018 for medical consideration.
  6. The Council considered the report provided by the independent medical service. It then sent Mrs X a letter awarding medical priority band 3 effective from 22 September 2020 and confirming she could bid on three bedroom properties.
  7. Mrs X contacted the Council in December 2020. She queried the effective date of the priority band. The Council told Mrs X that the independent medical team take into consideration the date they receive the information. As the team received the information in September 2020, this was the effective date given.
  8. Mrs X bid on four properties between December 2020 and March 2021:
    • December 2020; Property A; Mrs X withdrew her bid as she considered the property was not suitable and did not meet the needs of her family.
    • December 2020; Property B; Mrs X finished in ninth position for the property. She contacted the Council to express her dissatisfaction and queried the effective date of the band again. The Council maintained the effective date of the band was correct as this was when it sent the information to its independent medical team.
    • January 2021; Property C; Mrs X finished in fifth position for the property. She asked the Council why she was unsuccessful. The Council told Mrs X shortlisting for properties was by date and the successful applicant had been waiting longer.
    • March 2021; Property D; Mrs X withdrew her bid as she considered the property was not suitable and did not meet the needs of her family.
  9. In June 2021 Mrs X complained to the Council about delays in allocating her a suitable property.
  10. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in June 2021. In summary:
    • It apologised for the delay in awarding Mrs X a priority band.
    • It acknowledged that if it had sent the information for medical consideration in 2018, it could have been considered at that time.
    • It had now backdated the effective date on the housing application to 30 April 2018; the date she originally provided the medical information.
    • It noted Mrs X had restricted her area of choice, which would increase her waiting time for a property. It therefore encouraged her to consider all property types and local areas.
  11. Mrs X complained further. She said the Council’s failure to apply the date of 30 April 2018 in September 2020 meant she had missed out on two suitable properties since then, and now there were no properties to bid on. She asked how the Council would compensate her for its error.
  12. The Council responded in July 2021. It said:
    • Mrs X would have received offers on Property B and Property C if it had applied the date of 30 April 2018 at that time.
    • It had now added Mrs X to the direct offer list, to be put forward for the next available property in the area.
    • It could not guarantee when a property in Mrs X’s preferred area would become available.
    • It apologised for the error and directed Mrs X to the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
  13. In August 2021, the Council offered Mrs X a three bedroom property as a direct offer. Mrs X refused this; she considered the property was unsuitable as it had a downstairs bathroom and she wanted one on the first floor.
  14. In October 2021 and January 2022 Mrs X queried two properties with the Council which she believed were available, yet not offered to her. In both instances, the Council confirmed the properties were not available to be let as they were currently used as temporary accommodation.
  15. In June 2022, in response to enquiries, the Council:
    • Could not say why it decided it needed more information in 2018 yet passed the same information for medical consideration in 2020. Both officers who dealt with the case have since left the Council.
    • Said Mrs X had not placed any bids until September 2020;
    • Confirmed it only made one direct offer in August 2021 as no other suitable properties were available.
    • Accepted it should have identified the error in banding date much sooner following Mrs X’s concerns. It had since addressed this with the team.
  16. Mrs X told the Ombudsman it was stressful for the family not having a third bedroom. Y could be aggressive, so her other child slept in a room with Mrs X. Mr X and her found it extremely stressful not having their own space. It was particularly hard living in their current accommodation during the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.
  17. In comments on a draft decision the Council said:
    • It did not agree there was any fault in its decision making.
    • It did not agree Mrs X suffered any uncertainty as she knew it refused the medical priority in 2018.
    • It backdated the priority band as a goodwill gesture; it was not obliged to do this.
    • There was no guarantee Mrs X would have been offered Property C. It recognised she missed out on the chance of being considered. However, there were many reasons for a person in first position to not be offered a property. This included suitability, rent arrears, failure to produce correct documents, or failed transfer inspections.
    • It considered placing Mrs X on the direct offer list was a suitable remedy.
    • Mrs X could have bid on other suitable properties with her band 3 awarded in September 2020. Had she done so, she would have been shortlisted for a total of 21 suitable properties. The first property she would have finished in first position for would have been on 11 March 2021.
    • A medical priority is seen as an urgent need to move and it believed Mrs X should be considering all suitable available properties regardless of the area, given the urgency she advised. Mrs X had contributed to a delay in relation to her own rehousing.
    • It took a total of 10 months for Mrs X to raise a formal complaint regarding her band effective date. It considers a complaint would have been raised immediately had the impact on Mrs X been as great as indicated.  

Findings

  1. Mrs X was unaware of any fault in the Council’s decision on her April 2018 application until it reached a different decision in September 2020. She then complained to the Council but did not complete its complaints process until July 2021. I note Mrs X contacted the Ombudsman within 12 months of the Council’s final complaint response as she was unhappy with its response. I therefore consider Mrs X complained to us about this in time. And I consider there is good reason to investigate the Council’s decision making from 2018 to properly assess any fault and injustice.
  2. The Council does not have adequate records of its decision making in 2018 regarding Mrs X’s application for medical priority based on Y’s needs. It is not clear why it found the medical information provided inadequate. I therefore find fault in the Council’s record keeping.
  3. However, I cannot say this fault affected the Council’s decision. Each officer is entitled to reach their own view on the information available and decide whether to pass it for medical consideration. That an officer took a different view in 2020 does not mean the previous officer acted in error. However, I am satisfied Mrs X has since suffered uncertainty as to whether she should have got medical priority sooner. This is injustice.
  4. The Council awarded medical priority in September 2020 but did not consider whether to backdate this, despite Mrs X’s queries, until June 2021. I consider it was at the Council’s discretion whether to backdate the award to 2018, however its delay in deciding to do so amounts to fault. Mrs X was put to avoidable time and trouble raising this with the Council. This is injustice. Further, Mrs X missed being rehoused in Property C in December 2020 because of the Council’s delay, casing her family avoidable distress. This is injustice.
  5. While it is not certain Mrs X would have been rehoused in Property C, there is no evidence to suggest she would not have been. I accept on the balance of probabilities this was a missed opportunity and that Mrs X remained in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.
  6. I acknowledge the Council placed Mrs X on the direct offer list in July 2021 and made her an offer in August 2021. However, I do not consider this adequately remedied the additional time spent in unsuitable accommodation, from December 2020 to August 2021. While Mrs X was entitled to refuse the August 2021 offer she could have avoided further injustice by accepting this or expanding her search area. I therefore do not consider the Council is directly responsible for any further injustice after this date. However, I will recommend a payment for the period December 2020 to August 2021 in line with the Ombudsman’s published Guidance of Remedies. This suggests a payment for each month spent in unsuitable accommodation.
  7. While the Council has taken a view on the properties Mrs X should have bidded on, they may not be ones she wished to bid on. Mrs X was entitled to a choice and she was nonetheless placing some bids. I am therefore satisfied she was taking steps to seek housing. And I remain of the view she could have been housed in December 2020 but for the Council’s delay.
  8. The Council has explained Mrs X has limited her search to a small area which means there have not been other properties available to offer. It has also given reasons why it did not offer her two properties as she expected, namely that they were already in use as temporary accommodation. I find no fault in this respect.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. To remedy the fault set out above, I recommend the Council carry out the following actions.
  2. Within one month of the date of my decision:
    • Provide Mrs X with a further written apology;
    • Pay Mrs X £1200 in recognition of the time spent in unsuitable accommodation from December 2020 to August 2021;
    • Pay Mrs X £300 for distress and uncertainty and;
    • Pay Mrs X £100 for time and trouble.
  3. The Council has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I find the Council at fault in its handling of Mrs X’s housing application for medical priority. The Council has accepted my recommendations and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings