Summary: Miss X’s requested a review of the priority awarded to her Housing Register application. I have found fault as the Council has not shown it fully considered all the evidence provided for the review. The Council has agreed to conduct a new assessment, which provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council did not give proper consideration to medical and other evidence she submitted when she applied for rehousing on health and welfare grounds.
2. Miss X says her current flat is unsuitable and has a significant adverse impact on her health. She wants the Council to award sufficient points to enable her to bid for other properties advertised on its choice-based lettings scheme.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 have spoken to Miss X and considered the relevant housing records which the Council sent to us.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments submitted by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law

7. 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))
8. 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))
   

9. 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.

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

Health and wellbeing priority

10. The Council has a points-based allocations scheme to decide on the priority of applicants who qualify to join the Housing Register. This includes points for applicants who need to move for health and wellbeing reasons. There are three levels of priority:

High (1000 points) – where there is an urgent need to move and:

1. There is a risk to life without a move; or
2. The applicant is housebound, or a wheelchair user, and would become more independent with a move to alternative accommodation; or
3. There is a risk to the life of others unless the applicant moves (e.g delay in evacuating the person from the building in the event of a fire).

Medium (150 points) where the applicant’s need to move is less urgent, and not life-threatening, but living conditions are unsuitable and if left unresolved their quality of life will deteriorate.

Low (50 points) where the applicant’s living conditions cause them difficulty in carrying out daily activities but this is not life-threatening and it would not cause them greater harm or progress their illness if they did not move.

11. Points for insanitary or unsuitable accommodation are only awarded to private sector tenants, subject to meeting certain conditions. Council tenants cannot be awarded these points.
12. The Council’s scheme only allows applicants with 100 points or more to bid due to the high demand for social housing and short supply of properties.

Miss X’s circumstances

13. Miss X is a Council tenant. Since November 2020 she has lived in a one bedroom ground floor flat.
14. Miss X does not consider the flat is suitable for her on health and welfare grounds. In 2021 an officer from the Neighbourhood Housing Officer completed an online housing application form on her behalf. She referred to Miss X’s severe anxiety and depression.
15. Miss X also provided an undated letter from her GP. It confirmed Miss X’s anxiety and depression. It said her anxiety was getting worse due to her living conditions and the current state of her flat.
16. On 23 August 2021 the Council informed Miss X she was not eligible to join the Housing Register because she was adequately housed.
17. On 15 September the Council’s Medical Assessment Officer considered the case. She referred to the GP “note” and said Miss X’s health needs were anxiety and depression. She said she should contact the Neighbourhood Officer and police about the anti-social behaviour near her flat and ask her GP to refer her for psychological counselling and support. She recommended a low health and wellbeing award.
18. On 16 September a mental health social worker wrote a letter supporting Miss X’s request for rehousing. He made the following points in his letter:
• Miss X has anxiety and depression;
• the mould in the flat aggravates Miss X’s asthma;
• she has a fear of heights and is anxious about using lifts;
• drug users and drug dealers loiter outside her flat which makes her very stressed and anxious.
19. On 22 September an officer in the Housing Assessment and Allocations team notified the Neighbourhood Office that Miss X had said there was mould in her flat and asked them to investigate. The Neighbourhood officer forwarded this to the Council’s repairs team on the same day and asked them to carry out mould treatment in the affected rooms.
20. On 24 September 2021 Miss X sent an email asking how she could appeal against the decision to reject her application. The Council acknowledged her request on the same day and explained it would carry out a review within 56 days.
21. On 4 October 2021 Miss X sent the Reviews team an email with further details about the problems caused by mould in the flat and her other concerns about the property.
22. On 18 November 2021 the Medical Assessment Officer advised the Reviews Officer she could not award higher medical priority on the basis that Miss X’s property was damp. She noted this had already been reported to the Neighbourhood Office who would investigate and deal with it.
23. The Council’s Reviews Officer sent Miss X the review decision the following day. She said the Medical Assessment Officer had considered the medical evidence and the letter from the mental health social worker. She said the mould and damp in the flat could be resolved and this had already been reported to the Neighbourhood office. She accepted the recommendation for a Low health & wellbeing award of 50 points. She explained that the Council’s housing allocations policy requires applicants to have a minimum of 100 points to be able to bid for properties. As Miss X only had 50 points, she could not bid.
24. Miss X complained to us in early March 2022. She said she did not consider the Council had properly considered the evidence she submitted in support of her application. She believed her health needs are severe enough to qualify for a higher health and wellbeing points award which would allow her to bid for properties.

My analysis

25. Did the Council properly consider and address all the points made in the review request and the supporting evidence Miss X provided? The mental health social worker referred to Miss X’s fear of heights and using lifts and the impact this has on her anxiety condition. The review decision letter did not deal with this point. However, even if it had been considered, the fact that Miss X lives in a ground floor flat, and does not need to use a lift, means her current accommodation would not be considered unsuitable for this reason.
26. The medical assessment officer and the Review Officer both focused on the needs arising from Miss X’s anxiety and depression. Those were the health conditions mentioned in the GP’s letter. But the mental health social worker also referred in his letter to the impact of the mould on Miss X’s asthma. I can see no reference to Miss X’s asthma, and the impact of mould, in the Medical Assessment Officer’s advice or in the Review Officer’s decision letter. However, the Council has noted the GP’s letter made no mention of Miss X having a asthma diagnosis.
27. I am likely to find this fault caused injustice to Miss X because not all the evidence she submitted was properly considered. I cannot say whether the outcome would have been different if this fault had not occurred. And it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether Miss X meets the criteria for a higher priority award on health and wellbeing grounds. Only the Council can make that decision after proper consideration of all the evidence. However we can say the decision-making was flawed in November 2021 because one statement in the supporting evidence was not evaluated and addressed in the review decision letter. For this reason, I recommend that the Council arranges a new review by a different senior officer.
28. I have not found fault with the Council for imposing a threshold of 100 points for applicants to bid for properties. This threshold is clearly set out in the Council’s housing allocations policy and the Council has referred to caselaw which decided this approach was lawful.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within one month of my final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise in writing to Miss X;
• Arrange for a different senior officer to carry out a fresh review of Miss X’s housing priority. Miss X should first be given the opportunity to make further written representations and submit any new evidence she would like the review officer to consider.
• Inform Miss X of the review decision in writing and give clear and detailed reasons for the decision with reference to the evidence considered.

Back to top

Final decision

30. Subject to further comments by Miss X and the Council, I intend to find the Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman