Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about a significant delay by the Council in assessing medical priority for their son. There was a delay in completing the medical assessment, but this did not cause Mr and Mrs X an injustice. The Council failed to respond to Mr and Mrs X’s request to split their household. The Council has now agreed to consider separate applications from Mr and Mrs X to bid on smaller properties.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain about a significant delay by the Council in assessing medical priority for their son. They say because of the Council’s failings, their family is living in accommodation which is unsuitable and severely overcrowded. This is affecting their son’s health and development.

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. As part of my investigation I have:

• considered the complaint and information provided by Mr and Mrs X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response; and
• considered the relevant law and guidance.

5. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

6. 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))
7. 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))

8. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s allocations policy in October 2020

9. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

Medical Priority

10. The Council’s allocations policy states that reasonable preference will be awarded, “where an applicant’s current home is unsuitable and is having an effect of exacerbating the poor health of the applicant and the applicant needs to be rehoused on medical grounds”.
11. Where an applicant falls within the reasonable preference category, they are placed into the Priority Homeseeker group on the housing register.

Multiple Needs

12. Where applicants qualify for more that one reasonable preference category the Council can assess them to see if they qualify for additional preference. If an applicant qualifies for additional preference, they will be placed into the Multiple Needs Group. To qualify for additional preference an applicant needs to score four or more in the Council’s assessment.
13. If an applicant is entitled to bid on the housing register, they cannot be considered for any additional preference.

What happened

14. I have set out below a summary of the key events relevant to the complaint. It is not meant to show everything that happened.
15. In November 2020 Mr and Mrs X completed a medical assessment form as part of their request for medical priority for their son, Z. They submitted this form to the Homeless Prevention and Advice Service.
16. At the time Mr and Mrs X and their six children were living in private rented accommodation provided by a housing association.
17. On 14 December 2020 Mr X informed the Council that their landlord had served them with an eviction notice.
18. On 15 January 2021 the Council wrote to the housing association requesting further information including the reasons for the eviction and the date the family needed to vacate the property. The Council also asked the housing association if it would reconsider its decision to prevent the family losing the property.
19. On 25 May 2021 the Council closed the case as no further information had been received. The records show that Mr and Mrs X had not been evicted.
20. In July 2021 Mr X contacted the Council again to inform them that they had received a repossession order. The Council asked Mr X to provide a copy of the possession order from the Court showing the date and time they needed to vacate the property.
21. On 26 November 2021 the Council sent Mr X a medical form to complete for his son Z. Mr X completed the form and submitted it to the Council with support information.
22. On 10 January 2022 the Council wrote to Mr X and said they had been granted reasonable preference on medical grounds with a requirement that Z should have his own bedroom. The Council said Mr X was eligible to bid for five bedroom properties.
23. On 24 February 2022 the Council wrote to Mr X and said he had been awarded increased priority status with an additional preference because they were a household that was also severely overcrowded.
24. In July 2022 Mr X contacted the Council and asked if it would consider splitting the family into two smaller properties. He said this would address their housing situation and the lack of larger homes.

Analysis

25. Mrs X told the Ombudsman she wants suitable accommodation for her family, however, our role is limited to checking the Council’s allocation scheme has been properly applied. If there has been fault in the Council’s process, we then consider whether any injustice has been caused and how it should be remedied.
26. Mr X submitted a medical priority application form in October 2020. The Council failed to action this until a further application was made twelve months later. This is fault.
27. Where we find evidence of fault, we consider what would likely have happened if there had been no fault. The Council properly considered medical priority and whether Z needed his own bedroom when it received the assessment in November 2021. I consider it likely that if there had been no fault by the Council in October 2020, it would have made the same decision that it did in January 2022. At that time the Council awarded reasonable preference on medical grounds and a five bedroom need with requirement for Z to have his own bedroom.
28. I cannot say, if this fault had not occurred, Mr and Mrs X’s housing situation would have improved. Mrs X says under the Housing Allocations Policy in place in October 2020, they would have qualified for multiple needs. As explained in Paragraph 13, I find that because Mr and Mrs X were on the housing register, they were not entitled to be assessed for any additional preference due to multiple needs. It is my view that even if Mr and Mrs X were entitled to an assessment, they would not have scored sufficient points to qualify. To move into a higher group on the housing register two or more members of the household need to have a reasonable preference to move on medical grounds and score four or more in the Council’s multiple needs test.
29. Therefore, I find that Mr and Mrs X have not been caused an injustice by the Council’s delay in completing the medical assessment for Z.
30. However, it is my view that Mr and Mrs X were disadvantaged because larger properties (five bedrooms) rarely become available and so they are likely to remain in overcrowded accommodation for far longer than smaller families due to the number of bedrooms they require.
31. Mr and Mrs X told me the Council did not respond to their request to bid on two smaller properties so that they could move sooner. This was fault. Mr and Mrs X’s housing situation would be significantly improved if they were able to bid on smaller properties. In response to our enquiries the Council said it would consider separate applications from Mr and Mrs X which would allow them to bid separately for smaller properties. Mr and Mrs X should not be disadvantaged if they decide to make these new applications.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of my final decision the Council will write to Mr and Mrs X confirming its decision to allow them to make two separate housing applications and therefore bid on smaller properties.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation finding fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mr and Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman