Summary: The Council was not at fault for its refusal to increase
Mr B’s housing priority. It considered evidence provided by his GP, assessed his needs and acted in line with its allocations scheme.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, is disabled (registered partially blind). His wife, whom I refer to as Ms C, complains on his behalf.
2. Ms C says Mr B’s property is making his condition worse, and he has suffered injuries because it is unable to be adapted.
3. Ms C says the Council should award Mr B medical priority under the terms of its housing allocations scheme.

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 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)
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. I considered information from Ms C and the Council. Both 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

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

7. This scheme sets out the priority bands within which each application is categorised.
8. With regard to applications made for medical priority:
• Band 1 is for applicants whose medical problems or disabilities cause an “urgent” need to move. This includes people whose life is at risk, who are at risk of admission to hospital or residential care because of critical safety concerns about their property, or whose property is unable to be adapted to ensure they can complete daily living activities or access essential services.
• Band 2 is for when an applicant simply “needs to move on medical grounds”.
9. The Council’s medical team assesses applications for medical priority, and awards it only if there is a clear connection between someone’s medical condition and their property. “If their current accommodation is not having a severe or critical impact, medical priority will not be awarded”.
10. Band 3 of the scheme is for people who are overcrowded and need one bedroom more than they have.

What happened

11. In January 2022, after Ms C had applied for medical priority for Mr B and the Council had said no, she submitted an appeal. She said Mr B’s blindness caused him to be depressed – for which he was on medication – and to struggle with day-to-day tasks. He said his property was not accessible for him, and had no handrails, no bathroom aid and no walk-in shower. She said the flat was too small to make the necessary adaptations, and this was causing him injuries. She said he should be in Band 1 of the Council’s housing scheme.
12. Ms C provided a GP letter with her appeal. This said Mr B has retinal dystrophy - a condition which has got worse since early childhood – and is registered as partially sighted. It also said Mr B has reported that his property has a severe impact on his health.
13. The Council refused Ms C’s appeal. It said Mr B’s housing need was related to overcrowding, and he already had priority for that. It provided no comment on his medical needs.
14. Ms C then complained about the Council’s refusal of her appeal. The Council told her in response that the evidence she provided did not demonstrate that
    Mr B’s property was having a significant impact on his health. It said he was fully mobile and independent on the stairs, and could access facilities and complete daily living activities in the home with help and support.
15. The Council said many of its housing applicants suffer from uncomfortable and debilitating illnesses, but, if their property is not causing serious ill health, then the Council will not award medical priority.
16. The Council concluded that Mr B did, however, have some priority for overcrowding, because he needed one bedroom more than he had.
17. Ms C remained dissatisfied, and approached the Ombudsman.
18. After this, an occupational therapist visited Mr B’s home to do a medical assessment on behalf of the Council. She fitted a ‘shower board’ to assist Mr B getting in and out of the bath. She disagreed that the flat was too small for adaptations and ordered two ‘grab rails’ to assist Mr B to move around. She also referred Mr B for a further assessment for more bathing adaptations.
19. The therapist concluded that Mr B could move independently around the property, particularly with the assistance of the adaptations she had identified, and should have no medical priority.

My findings

20. It would have been helpful if the Council had conducted a proper assessment in response to Ms C’s appeal. As it was, its response provided basically no information about Mr B’s medical needs.
21. This, however, did not cause Mr B a significant injustice. The Council provided
    Ms C with some clarification about its decision shortly afterwards. And then, after the Ombudsman decided to investigate her complaint, the Council did a medical assessment, which resulted in no change to Mr B’s housing priority.
22. I accept that Mr B and Ms C do not agree with the Council’s decision. But it considered the evidence Ms C provided, conducted its own assessment, offered and provided adaptations to help Mr B, and decided Mr B’s condition did not justify increased priority.
23. This means there was no fault in how the Council considered Mr B’s case. Because of this, I cannot question its decision, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

24. The Council was not at fault for its refusal to increase Mr B’s housing priority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman