Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in carrying out an occupational therapy housing assessment for reviews of her medical priority. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council carried out its reviews of Ms X’s medical priority.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed in carrying out an occupational therapy housing assessment for her and failed to explain that it had not carried out such an assessment until she made a complaint in 2022. Ms X considers that as a result the Council has not given proper consideration to her medical needs when carrying out reviews of her housing priority.

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 information provided by Ms X;
• discussed the issues with Ms X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• invited Ms X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and the Council’s allocations scheme

5. 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))
6. The Council’s housing allocations scheme provides that applicants involving a health related issue will be assessed by the Council with advice from either the applicant’s doctor and/or the Council’s medical advisor as appropriate. The Council will award additional points if it considers a person’s ill health or disability is seriously aggravated by their living conditions.
7. The Council will award points if an applicant is considered to be overcrowded. The number of points depends on how many bedrooms they are lacking.
8. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

What happened

9. Ms X lives with her son in a one bedroom flat which is owned by the Council. The flat is on the 4th floor and served by a lift. Ms X has medical conditions which affect her mobility and her ability to exit the building if the lift is not working.
10. In May 2019 Ms X applied for a housing transfer as she considered her property was unsuitable. The Council placed her in band C. The Council awarded 50 points as Ms X is overcrowded and needs an extra bedroom. The Council did not award any medical points. Ms X applied for her banding to be reassessed as she considered the property was unsuitable due to her medical needs. The Council did not change Ms X’s band or points. I refer to these events by way of background as we have previously considered them in an earlier complaint.
11. In late 2019 an occupational therapist carried out an assessment for Ms X. The Council’s records show that the assessment was predominantly to establish if Ms X required aids or adaptations for bathing although Ms X had asked for support with a housing transfer. The officer’s case note shows an OT told Ms X a housing assessment could not be carried out as Ms X did not have any functional needs in her flat other than concerns about the lift. Ms X has said the Council did not tell her that the OT assessment would not be considered as a housing report.
12. In early 2020 Ms X sought a further review of her housing priority. The Council decided she should stay in band C with 50 points. Ms X made a request for another review of her transfer application during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms X was shielding due to her medical conditions. She considered she could not safely occupy her property due to the proximity of neighbours and communal areas. She also reported there was mould in the flat which affected her health and the lift regularly broke down so she could not safely exit the building.
13. The Council’s records show the officer dealing with the review contacted the OT who carried out Ms X’s bathing assessment. An email from the OT said Ms X would benefit from having ground floor accommodation.
14. The Council also found that there had been two engineer call outs for the lift in a six month period.
15. The Council sought an opinion from its medical advisor. He considered Ms X ‘s accommodation to be suitable for her medical needs and did not recommend increased priority. The Council notified Ms X that it would not increase her banding or points. The Council’s letter to Ms X detailed all the evidence it had considered when reaching its decision, including her medical evidence.
16. In early 2022 Ms X submitted a medical assessment form for a review of her transfer application. The Council sought a medical report from Ms X’s GP.
17. Ms X made a complaint to the Council in February 2022 as she considered the Council had mishandled her medical evidence. The Council considered Ms X’s complaint though its two stage complaints procedure. The Council noted the OT had taken the OT view that Ms X required a ground floor property as an opinion rather than a fact. This was because t it had not carried out a OT housing assessment. Ms X has said she was not aware the Council had not carried out an OT housing assessment until this time.
18. The Council reviewed Ms X’s banding in June 2022 following receipt of the GP information and sought a further view from its medical advisor. The Council has said the medical advisor also considered Ms X’s son’s OT report at this time. The Council did not award a higher banding or additional points.
19. Shortly afterwards Ms X attended Accident and Emergency as she was suffering from a reaction to mould in the flat. The Council placed Ms X in temporary accommodation for one night.
20. In July 2022 the Council carried out an occupational therapy housing assessment. It noted Ms X’s concerns about her allergy to mould and her concern that she could not leave the building with her son when the lift was out of order. The assessment recommended rehousing to meet Ms X’s needs. The OT housing report recommended ground floor housing for Ms X or double access lifts.
21. The Council reviewed Ms X’s priority following the OT assessment. The Council has said the report was considered by its medical advisor who did not recommend medical priority. The Council wrote to Ms X to notify her that no changes had been made to her application and she remained in band C with 50 points.
22. I asked the Council why it had not caried out an OT housing assessment for Ms X before 2022. The Council has said the OT assessment carried out in 2019 contained sufficient information about Ms X to support a decision with her housing.
23. Ms X considers the Council should award medical priority due to her medical needs including her allergy to mould and the fact she is unable to leave the building when the lifts break down. She has said these issues have caused the Council to place her in temporary accommodation on a number of occasions.
24. Ms X also considers the Council has not fully considered her medical needs as it did not tell her that it had not carried out an OT housing assessment in November 2019 and did not notify her until 2022.

Analysis

25. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has considered Ms X’s applications for medical priority between 2020 and 2022. The Council did not carry out an OT housing assessment until 2022. But it sought the opinion of the OT who assessed Ms X’s bathing needs in 2019 when carrying out the reviews in June 2020 and June 2022. The Council also considered a range of evidence including Ms X’s medical evidence, checked the frequency of lift breakdowns and sought information from Ms X’s GP for the review of June 2022. It also sought the view of the medical advisor before reaching a decision on each review. The Council also considered the OT housing report for the review carried out in August 2022. It wrote to Ms X after each review and set out its reasons for not awarding medical priority.
26. Ms X considers the Council relied on the opinion of the medical advisor who has not examined her. The Council is entitled to consult its medical advisor when making decisions on medical priority and this is accordance with its allocations scheme. The evidence shows the Council considered a range of evidence, in addition to the medical advisor’s opinion, and came to its own decisions on whether to award medical priority. It did not solely rely on the medical advisor’s opinion. I am therefore satisfied the Council considered Ms X’s request for medical priority in accordance with its allocations scheme. As there is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decisions not to award priority, I do not have grounds to question its decisions.
27. I have considered if the Council should have carried out an OT housing assessment for Ms X sooner. On balance, I do not consider it is at fault as the Council sought the view of the OT who assessed Ms X in 2019 when carrying out the review in 2020. But even if the Council was at fault, I do not consider an earlier OT housing assessment would have resulted in medical priority for Ms X. I say this as the Council has considered the OT housing assessment carried out in 2022 and not awarded medical priority.
28. The Council’s records show an OT told Ms X in late 2019 that she could not carry out an OT housing assessment as she did not have functional needs in her flat. It would have been better for the Council to have explained this in its responses to Ms X’s complaint but this does not amount to fault.

Back to top

Final decision

29. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Ms X’s applications for medical priority. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman