Summary: Mr D and Miss E complained that the Council had refused to accept their application onto the housing register and upheld its refusal on review without giving adequate reasons for the decisions. we found fault with the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to pay Mr D and Miss E £100 and improve its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Mr D and Miss E complained that East Hampshire District Council (the Council) did not properly considered the complainants’ application to join the housing register or adequately explained why they did not qualify. This caused them stress and worsened Miss E’s mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr D 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

Hampshire Home Choice Allocations Framework

5. This policy sets out how social housing will be allocated across five council areas in Hampshire including the Council. Applicants who are accepted on to the register are placed in one of four bands, with Band 1 being urgent priority, Band 2, high priority, Band 3 medium priority and Band 4 low priority.
6. It says that an applicant or household member who has a significant health or welfare problem caused or substantially worsened by their existing accommodation and where it could be alleviated or resolved by rehousing, may be awarded priority on health and/or welfare grounds.
7. Applicants with medium medical or welfare grounds will be placed in Band 3.

What happened

8. Miss E and Mr D are council tenants living in a second floor flat, in a different council area. Miss E has a mental health condition which has led to suicidal thoughts and self-harm. Mr D is her full-time carer.
9. In March 2022 she applied to the Council for housing closer to her family for support. She said on the health and welfare form that her current accommodation was adversely affecting her health due to the lack of private outdoor space and her suicidal thoughts. She requested ground floor accommodation with outdoor space in areas near to her family. She provided a letter from her doctor, proof of her entitlement to disability benefits and a letter detailing her diagnosis.
10. The Council replied on 17 March 2022 saying that they did not qualify to join the housing register because they were social housing tenants, adequately housed. It suggested they register for Homeswap and seek a mutual exchange and speak to her GP about her health.
11. Mr D and Miss E requested a review emphasising the negative impact on Miss E’s mental health of their current accommodation and the extent of her medical treatment. They believed the risk to her life was high enough to warrant approval of their application.
12. The Council replied on 24 March 2022 upholding the decision that they were not eligible to join the register. It repeated its view that they were adequately housed. It acknowledged Miss E’s mental health condition but said there was no evidence that their ‘current first floor flat’ presented a risk to her health or that by moving her health would be improved.
13. Mr D then complained to us.
14. In response to my enquiries the Council said it had ‘reviewed the decision and assessed the medical’. Based on this information it had accepted they had a housing need and placed them on the housing register. It said they had a small amount of rent arrears, and these would need to be cleared before they could bid for properties.
15. In response to a further request for information the Council said their application was now active in band three of the housing register and had been backdated to the date they applied (1 March 2022). The Council had not suspended it due to rent arrears. The Council had requested a second medical assessment in response to my enquiries and this resulted in the revised decision. The Council also said they had not missed out on any offers during the period of complaint because all successful bids were from applicants who had registered between July and October 2019.

Analysis

16. The Council failed to provide an adequate explanation as to why Miss E and Mr D’s housing application did not qualify to join the Housing Register. They had provided a detailed explanation of the extent of Miss E’s mental health condition and the impact of the current accommodation on her health. They explained how moving to ground floor accommodation with private outdoor space would improve her condition. The Council discounted their evidence without explanation and simply said they did not qualify because they were adequately housed. This was fault.
17. The Council repeated the error in the review decision and failed to say why the evidence Miss E had provided about the effect of being in the second floor flat, did not meet the medical and welfare criteria. The Council also incorrectly referred to them living in a first floor flat which caused uncertainty as to whether the Council had considered their case properly. This was fault.
18. The Council has provided no evidence to show how the Council considered the medical grounds or why it refused the application twice. This reinforces my view that the Council did not consider the case properly.
19. I am pleased the Council has now reviewed the case and placed their application in Band 3 with effect from 1 March 2022. But it should not have been necessary to complain to us for the Council to consider the case thoroughly.
20. I understand they have not missed out on any accommodation because of the length of time they are likely to have to wait for a property, but I consider they have been caused some distress and time and trouble.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. In recognition of the injustice caused, I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision pays Miss E and Mr D £100.
22. I also recommended that the Council, within three months of my final decision, reviews its health and medical assessment process to ensure:
• it keeps a record of the reasons why medical/welfare priority is refused and why evidence provided by the applicant has been discounted; and
• provides a summary of these reasons in the decision.
23. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Miss E and Mr D and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman