Summary: Mr X complained he and his family are living in unsuitable housing which has a detrimental effect on his family’s health. The Council has appropriately followed legislation, policy and procedure in allocating housing. The Council are at fault for misclassifying autism, failing to understand Mr X’s additional needs and failing to record and explain a decision to remove the garden as a reasonable preference.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained he and his family are living in unsuitable housing after he applied to the Housing Register in 2018 and 2020. Mr X raises issues about the drains and asbestos. He states the house is detrimental to his family’s health and the Council has ignored or not considered their additional needs.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I am not considering Mr X’s original application to the Housing Register in 2018 by itself, it took place over 12 months ago and is therefore out of the Local Government Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Mr X has provided us with no good reasons as to why we might disapply this restriction. I will use some information from 2018 for background and context. I will also consider information from 2018 which Mr X has only become aware of in the last 12 months.
3. I will not consider the issue about drains and asbestos. This is outside the Local Government Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. It would be appropriate for the Housing Ombudsman to investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Housing Act 1996 and Government Social Housing Allocations Guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

The published scheme

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)).

Reasonable preference

9. 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))

Decisions and review rights

10. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
11. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)).
12. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Review procedures

13. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review, 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline, eight weeks is suggested as reasonable.

No fault

14. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

The Council’s policies and procedures

15. The Council is a Partner Organisation (PO) in Gateway to Homechoice which is a single housing register and a choice based letting scheme for allocated social housing. There are seven local authority areas in the scheme.

The Housing Allocations Policy

16. Homechoice has published its 2022 edition Housing Allocations Policy online. The events which form part of this investigation took place in 2020 onwards so I have considered the 2019 edition provided by the Council.
17. The policy explains when a PO receives a completed application form, it will assess the application and let the applicant know whether they have been accepted onto the housing register. The PO will confirm what band they are in, the effective date, the type and size of property the applicant can bid for, and if they require an adapted property. If the PO does not accept the applicant on the housing register, it gives reasons.
18. The policy explains the POs use a banding system to assess housing needs. The PO will place the applicant in a band, depending on the information provided. The bands are as follows:
• Band A is for ‘those with critical or urgent needs’. Examples are as follows: critical medical/welfare award including emergency situations, statutory accepted homeless applicants in severe need and applicants with multiple needs (for example, someone has two or more needs in band B will be moved into band A).
• Band B is for applicants with serious needs. This includes statutory homeless applicants and applicants with a serious medical/welfare award.
• Band C is for applicants with a medium need for housing. This includes applicants with a moderate medical/welfare award and applicants threatened with homelessness.
• Band D is called reduced preference. This is for applicants the PO has assessed as band C but with no local connection to the Gateway area.
• Band E is for applicants who do not have a housing need.

Medical assessments

19. Applicants who believe their medical condition or disability is affected by their accommodation complete a self-assessment medical form to demonstrate the impact their property has on their medical condition or disability. The form is assessed by the PO. The PO may place the applicant in a higher band depending on the impact their current accommodation has on their medical condition.
20. The medical priority procedure explains the awards range from band A, life threatening problems, band B for significant problems, to band C, moderate problems.
21. The Council considers two important factors before making an award for a medical condition:
• the physical link between the identified medical complaint and the housing accommodation/situation; and
• if there is a realistic expectation the identified medical condition would improve if alternative, more suitable accommodation was available.
22. The PO might ask for extra medical information from the applicant’s GP, hospital consultant, health visitor and other relevant parties.

Welfare assessments

23. The applicant can ask the PO to consider relevant evidence to support their application and consider the vulnerability of household members.
24. If an applicant applies under both the medical and welfare schemes, the PO will award priority under the band which reflects their higher needs.

Applicants with a medical or social need for a larger property

25. This section of the policy explains applicants can apply for an extra bedroom due to their medical or social needs. The PO will consider the applicants circumstances and evidence supporting the need for extra space.

Right to review

26. Applicants have the right to ask for a review of decisions made about their application for housing or offer of accommodation.
27. The applicant can ask for a review within 21 days. The request should outline the reasons for the review.
28. A different officer at the PO will review the decision and respond in writing within eight weeks.
29. If an applicant disagrees with the decision they can ask for an appeal. A different PO will consider the appeal. The officer will review the decision and reply to the applicant in writing within eight weeks.

What happened

30. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
31. Mr X lives with his wife, Mrs X, and their child, Z.
32. Mr X has a diagnosis of autism. Mrs X has asthma. Z has asthma and is being assessed for autism.

Council accepted homeless duty for Mr and Mrs X in 2018

33. In March 2018, the Council accepted a homeless duty for Mr and Mrs X. The Council placed them in band B and housed them in temporary accommodation.
34. Z was born in September 2018. The Council added him to the housing application and agreed the family needed a two bedroom property.
35. The Councils Customer Resource Management (CRM) records from the end of September 2018 state it was ‘Agreed applicant is only to be offered a property with its own garden.’ At the beginning of October, the CRM records state ‘Final Offer to be made on any 2 bed property. Own Garden is now not deemed reasonable preference’.
36. In October 2018, the Council offered Mr and Mrs X secure permanent accommodation. Mr X did not consider the property was suitable. The Council advised Mr X to accept the property and seek a review of suitability. Mr X followed the Council’s advice.
37. Mr and Mrs X asked for a suitability review in October 2018. The Council reviewed the decision and the property was upheld as suitable. The Council wrote to Mr X in January ending its homeless duty. Mr X did not appeal to the Court.

Mr and Mrs X made a new application to the Housing Register in 2020

38. In November 2020, Mr X made a new application to the Housing Register. Mr X said the flat had damp and dust which aggravates Mrs X and Z’s asthma. He also said there is not enough space in the flat for him to self-regulate as an adult with autism. Mr X provided supporting documents to the Council in February 2021.
39. The Council emailed Mr X a self-assessment medical form and provided advice on how to complete the form over the telephone.
40. The Council assessed Mr X’s medical form and used the matrix to understand and process the information provided. It decided not to make a further award. The Council said Mr X did not provide evidence to show the property was unsuitable. The Council explained the decision to Mr X in writing and over the telephone in early March 2021.
41. Mr X asked for a review of the decision and listed the reasons he felt the property was unsuitable for himself and his family.
42. A senior member of staff reviewed the decision and responded in writing to Mr X in May 2021. The letter confirms what information the officer considered and the enquiries they made. It also lists the reasons Mr X considered his property was unsuitable and responds to these in turn.
43. The officer gives Mr X suggestions of how Mr X could improve the property to better meet the needs of his family. For example, Mr X said the fluorescent lighting caused him issues. The officer suggested dulling the light by using a plastic covering, changing the fluorescent tubes to LED lights or using under cupboard lighting instead. Mr X said the property is first floor with no outside space. The officer responded by saying the property has a balcony and there is nothing to suggest Mr X and his family cannot access the outdoor space locally.
44. Mr X said he needed a separate room to work from home and a space to calm down when needed to help with his autism. The officer said the property has two bedrooms and a separate living room and kitchen which Mr X can access independently, away from his wife and child. The letter also responds to Mr X’s request under section 6.6 of the allocations policy for an extra bedroom. It explains the Council only considers this if a household member is at risk in their current accommodation. It says Mr X can have independent space by going into a different room.
45. The letter concludes it was suitable to award a band C medium medical award. It also sets out how Mr X can seek a further review from a neighbouring authority.
46. The letter does not explain the test for assessing priority. It does not explain what the different bands are or provide examples of specific conditions in each band.
47. Mr X asked for a further review from a neighbouring authority. Ipswich Borough Council (a PO within the Gateway to Homechoice association) independently reviewed the decision. Ipswich Borough Council reviewed the matter in early June 2021 and upheld the original decision. The decision letter says the Council replied to the points Mr X raised and was satisfied with its response. The review said the Council assessed the application from a medical and welfare point of view, using the standard matrix. The appeal concluded Mr X’s family was appropriately placed in band C.
48. The review letter gives examples of families in band B. An individual in welfare band B might have their life threatened by someone locally and the police support a move away from the area. For medical band B, an individual may have had an accident which means they can no longer access their property. The letter explains the use of bands to prioritise those in greatest need to move.
49. In response to my enquires, the Council provided a copy of its completed matrixes. The matrix places most of the conditions of each family member as ‘low’ priority. The highest category is Mr X’s autism which the Council categorised as ‘moderate’. This is classed as band C.
50. One medical matrix classed autism as a ‘learning or behavioural difficulty’ and in another as a ‘recognised mental health problem.’ The Council classified the same condition differently in different assessments.

What has happened since the events Mr X complained about

51. Mr X’s GP wrote a letter in January 2022 listing light, noise and neighbours as causes of anxiety to Mr X. The GP says they hope the Council can help Mr X and his family ‘find appropriate accommodation that will meet their needs, as his mental health is suffering with the stress this situation is causing.’
52. In March 2022, Mr X sent a letter from Z’s paediatrician. Mr X highlighted a section of the report which say Z ‘seems to show anxieties around leaving the flat and new situations’ and he ‘would benefit from more space and safe access to an outside area in which to do his “laps”’. Mr X says there is no outdoor accessible space for Z. The Council did not make an extra award. Mr X appealed the decision, the original decision was upheld.
53. In May 2022, Mr X sent the Council a private Occupational Therapist report on his son. The Council assessed the report. It said there was no evidential urgency to suggest the family needed to move and did not award any additional medical priority. Mr X appealed the decision.
54. Mr X made a Subject Access Request. He recently received the Council’s response. Mr X asked questions of the Council as he sought to understand the matter. The Council responded to Mr X but refused to discuss the matter in detail and said it had already provided information and explanations. Mr X’s advocate challenged the Councils response and explained because of Mr X’s autism, he needs reasonable adjustments to fully understand. The advocate challenged the Councils misclassification of autism and asked the Council to fully address Mr X’s concerns in a way that takes account of his autism.
55. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it welcomes the comments raised by the advocate and in conjunction with the POs of Homechoice, has arranged to review the impact and effect on housing that may be experienced by people with autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions. The Council also said together with Homechoice, it will review the assessment framework for welfare and medical priorities and particularly how outcomes are explained to applicants.
56. With further information provided by Mr X’s advocate, the Council said it will reconsider Mr X’s medical application and support him to seek an alternative home.

Analysis

The 2020 assessment and review

57. The Council has followed its administrative procedure within the allocations policy and has complied with legislative requirements. It told Mr X in writing its decision and responded to his requests for a review. A senior member of staff reviewed the decision within the eight-week timescale. Mr X then asked for an appeal. The Council referred this to a PO who reviewed the decision within the timescales. The Council and the PO followed the procedure set out in the policy and its legislative duties under the Housing Act. I do not find the Council at fault.
58. The Council has conducted the assessments and reviews within the timescales as set out in its allocation policy. There was no delay. The Council are not at fault.
59. The Council has used the matrix to understand the information provided by Mr X for himself and his family. The Council completed the matrix with relevant information and rated the effect the housing has on the individual’s health. Considering the 2021 matrix, for each element for Mrs X and Z, the effect the housing had on their health was rated as ‘low’. This corresponds with no award under the matrix. For Mr X, the matrix scores his autism and ADHD as a ‘moderate’ medical problem. This corresponds with band C under the matrix. The Council has considered the needs of all the family and assigned the banding. It allocated the banding according to the highest scoring member of the household.
60. The review letter from the senior officer at the Council sets out a response to each point raised by Mr X and shows why his family does not meet the criteria to move banding. The letter set out the officers thinking and reasoning and considered relevant information. It has not considered irrelevant information. The review letter also suggests practical changes Mr X can make to the property to better accommodate his family’s needs. I do not find the Council at fault in how it reviewed the decision.
61. I may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority where it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme, as the Council has done here. The Council has followed its procedure, considered relevant information, allocated the banding and communicated its decision to Mr X. I do not find the Council at fault.
62. The Councils review letter does not specifically set out the test for the different bands, neither does it reflect the allocations policy and demonstrate how the conditions fit within each bracket of the matrix. It is difficult to understand how Mr X’s situation corresponds with the allocations policy and how an individual might slot into each banding. The appeal letter from the PO provides slightly more context and gives examples of conditions within each banding. The Council made its decision in line with the policy and matrix, but it is difficult to understand out of context and without reading the letter alongside the policy and matrix. The Council’s letter should have been clearer. This is even more important as the Council should have been mindful of Mr X’s autism and any reasonable adjustments he may have required. This is fault.

Matrixes

63. There are inconsistencies in how the Council has applied the matrixes to Mr X and his family. One matrix classes autism as a ‘recognised mental health problem’ and another matrix classes autism as a ‘learning/behavioural difficulty.’ The inconsistencies in the application of the matrixes is fault. I do not consider this specific fault has caused specific injustice to Mr X and his family regarding their housing needs. The banding decision was the same despite how the Council classified autism. I do consider this has caused upset and distress to Mr X as the Council has failed to understand autism and failed to ‘categorise’ it correctly.

The need for a garden

64. The CRM records from September 2018 show the Council was only to offer Mr X a property with its own garden. At the beginning of October, the CRM records state a garden is no longer considered a reasonable preference and any two bed property is to be offered. There is nothing within the CRM records to explain or support this decision, or prove the Council told Mr X. In response to my enquiries, the Council did not provide any evidence to support why this decision was made. It said it would have consulted with the applicant at the time. The Council said the decision was likely to support Mr X be rehoused quickly, rather than wait for a property with a garden.
65. In conversation with me, Mr X said the Council did not discuss the requirement for a garden with him or tell him it had changed the decision. He only became aware of this when he received the Councils response to his Subject Access Request.
66. The Council has no records of why it changed the need for a garden. It should have discussed the needs for a garden with Mr X at the time and it should have made a record to explain how and why it made the decision. It did not, this is fault.

Working with Mr X

67. The CRM records show the Council has engaged with Mr X on the telephone. Officers have advised Mr X on his application and explained the process and decisions. I consider the Council’s handing of this matter would be appropriate for a customer who does not need reasonable adjustments.
68. The Council is aware Mr X had a diagnosis of autism. In their letter to the Council, Mr X’s advocate has said the Council ‘are failing to take suitable measures to make the necessary adjustments Mr X needs for appropriate and effective communication.’ In response to my enquiries, the Council has said it is reviewing how it will explain outcomes to applicants.
69. In this case, the result would still be the same, the Council would still have placed Mr X in band C under the matrix and allocations policy. There is therefore no injustice to Mr X on his banding and housing allocation, however the Council’s lack of understanding of Mr X’s needs has caused him distress.

Action already taken by the Council

70. The Council has met with Mr X and his advocate. Together with the Gateway to Homechoice Project Board, they have agreed to consider the impact and effect on housing that people with neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism, may experience. The Project Board will review the current assessment framework and how it will explain outcomes to applicants.
71. The Council has agreed to reconsider Mr X’s medical application because of further information received from his advocate. It will also support Mr X to find alternative accommodation.

Conclusion

72. The Council have followed legislation, policy and procedure when assessing Mr X’s housing application and review. It has met the timescales, considered relevant information and used the matrix to decide what banding to allocate Mr X and his family. The Council has explained its decision making and suggested improvements Mr X can make to his property.
73. The Councils decision letters do not explain how the policy has shaped its decision or taken account of Mr X’s autism and made reasonable adjustments. It has also miscategorised Mr X’s autism on one of the matrixes. The Council has also failed to record and explain a decision to remove the garden as a reasonable preference. This is fault.
74. The Council is now working with its partner organisations to review the assessment framework and how it will explain decisions to applicants with neurodevelopmental conditions.

Back to top

Agreed actions

75. In addition to the actions the Council has identified, I suggest the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing.
• Review Mr X’s family’s need for a garden and explain its decision fully in writing.
• Make a payment of £500 for the distress caused to Mr X and the time and trouble he has taken to deal with this complaint.
76. The Council should complete these actions within four weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

77. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman