Summary: there was no fault in the way the Council decided not to award medical priority to Mr X’s Housing Register application. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for its delay in processing the assessment which is a satisfactory remedy for that fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains that he and his family have lived for several years in unsuitable and overcrowded accommodation because the Council has not awarded the correct priority to his housing application.
2. Mr X also raised wider concerns about the way the Council manages its social housing stock and its policies for working with developers to build new properties in the borough. He also claimed that the Council failed to properly investigate the sub-letting of some Council properties.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about the priority given to his Housing Register application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We 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)
    
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council when it is acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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

7. I have spoken to Mr X and considered evidence from the Council’s records. I also read the relevant parts of the Council’s published housing allocations policy which explains how it assesses Housing Register applications.
8. Mr 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

Mr X’s housing needs

9. Mr X, his wife and two sons live in a one bedroom Housing Association flat. Their daughter, who is over 16, is staying temporarily with her grandparents because there is not enough space and privacy for her at home. She is still a member of Mr X’s household for rehousing purposes because this is not a permanent arrangement.
10. Mr X’s wife and two sons sleep in bunk beds in the bedroom. His wife shares the lower bunk bed with their youngest son who is under 10. Their eldest son sleeps in the top bunk.
11. Mr X sleeps on the sofa in the living room. He says he finds it difficult to manage the five internal steps to reach the bedroom. But even if he could manage the steps, there is not enough space for him to sleep there. The bathroom is on the same level as the living room and Mr X can access it.
12. There is no lift in the block and Mr X has to climb two flights of stairs to reach his flat.
13. Mr X has chronic lower back pain. He told me his condition is deteriorating and he is undergoing further medical tests and investigations to diagnose the cause.

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

14. Applicants who qualify to join the Council’s Housing Register are placed in one of five priority bands following an assessment of their housing needs. Applicants can then express interest in properties advertised on the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme – Choice Homes – by placing a bid. The Council allocates properties to the bidder in the highest priority band who meets any specific criteria for the property. The applicant’s waiting time in the band is used to decide priority between bidders in the same band.
15. Band 3 (medium priority) is awarded to applicants whose current accommodation is overcrowded under the Council’s bedroom standard.
16. Priority may also be awarded to applicants who need to move on medical grounds. Band 1 (emergency) priority is used for patients who cannot be discharged from hospital because their accommodation is unsuitable for their needs and other exceptional cases. Band 2 (high priority) is awarded if the Council decides, after considering advice from its Independent Medical Adviser (IMA), that:
• the physical or mental health of the applicant or a member of their household is severely adversely affected due to their current housing; and
• they cannot be housed satisfactorily in the private housing sector; and
• they need to be rehoused urgently.

The Council awards Band 3 (medium priority plus) if it is satisfied that:

• the physical or mental health of the applicant or a member of their household is significantly affected due to their current housing; and
• they cannot be housed satisfactorily in the private housing sector; and
• they need to be rehoused non-urgently.

Mr X’s priority band

17. The Council accepted Mr X’s application to join its Housing Register. Under the bedroom standard, Mr X’s family needs a three bedroom property. The Council therefore awarded Band 3 priority because their current home is overcrowded.
18. In late March 2021 Mr X submitted a Disability and Health Questionnaire to request an assessment for medical priority. He wanted the Council to award medical priority and move his application to a higher priority band. He gave the following information on the form:
• he suffers excruciating back pain which makes it difficult to go up and down stairs and this also affects his balance and causes falls;
• due to the lack of space and his inability to manage the internal steps, he was sleeping on the sofa or floor which made his back pain worse;
• he listed his prescribed medication and gave details of his GP and hospital.
19. On 12 April, at the request of the IMA, the Council asked Mr X to upload relevant hospital reports and an MRI report he had mentioned. Mr X did this. The MRI report from January 2021 found minor degenerative changes to Mr X’s spine but no other abnormality which would cause the back pain.
20. Mr X also uploaded a letter from his GP confirming he suffered from lower back pain which radiated to his legs. The GP said this restricted his mobility and made it difficult for him to manage stairs. An X ray and MRI scan had not established the cause and Mr X was waiting for an appointment with a specialist in the orthopaedic team.
21. Due to an IT issue, the Council did not refer this evidence back to the IMA until 2 November 2021. The IMA then gave the following advice:

“The applicant’s scan showed minor changes. I can’t find any confirmed medical condition to preclude use of some stairs Overcrowding attracts its own priority.”

22. One week later, the Council sent Mr X its decision. It explained it had decided not to award medical priority and his application would stay in Band 3 for overcrowding. It told him about his right to request a review of the decision within 21 days.
23. Mr X did not request a review. Instead he used the Council’s complaints procedure to raise his concerns with the Council.
24. In response to his complaint, the Council apologised for the time it had taken to complete the medical assessment. It explained the delay was due to issues with its IT system which had also affected some other users. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me these issues have been resolved and it is currently completing medical assessments within 10-14 days on average.

My analysis

25. Mr X and his family are clearly in housing need because they are overcrowded and need to move to a larger property. The Council recognised this need by awarding Band 3 which is the correct priority for overcrowding.
26. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider his request for higher priority on medical grounds. The Council’s delay in processing Mr X’s request for medical priority was fault. It took more than six months to complete the assessment and tell Mr X its decision. It apologised to Mr X for this delay when it investigated his complaint. That is a satisfactory remedy because, when the medical assessment was finally completed, it did not lead to any increase in Mr X’s priority.
27. The Council is now processing medical assessments in a reasonable time and there are no longer any systemic delays.
28. Mr X could have used his right to request a review to challenge the November 2021 banding decision. We would usually expect someone who disagrees with a banding decision to use this process. Instead Mr X raised his concerns by using the Council’s complaints procedure.
29. I considered the way the Council made the decision not to award Band 2 medical priority. Apart from the unreasonable delay which I have already commented on, I found no other fault in the decision-making process. The Council followed the procedure set out in its housing allocations policy. It considered the information on Mr X’s Disability & Health questionnaire, the medical evidence he provided and the advice from the IMA. After considering all this evidence, it decided Mr X’s medical condition did not meet the criteria for Band 2. That does not mean the Council disputes the evidence from Mr X and his GP that he suffers from back pain which has some impact on his mobility. It means the Council does not consider his current flat has such a severe adverse impact on his health that it can only be resolved by urgent rehousing. I know Mr X strongly disagrees but I cannot question this decision when there was no fault in the way it was made.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed the investigation and found no fault in the way the Council decided Mr X’s priority for the Housing Register. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for its delay in processing his medical assessment and that is a satisfactory remedy.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

31. I did not investigate Mr X’s wider concerns about the way the Council manages its social housing stock for the reasons given in paragraph 5.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman