Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her application for medical priority on its housing register, did not identify her housing needs and delayed managing her complaint. We find the Council failed to send Miss X an allocation letter after its housing assessment and delayed responding to Miss X’s complaint causing uncertainty and distress. It should apologise to Miss X and pay her £200 in recognition of uncertainty and distress caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council:
1. Did not properly consider her applications for medical priority on its housing register in January 2022 and February 2023.
2. Did not correctly identify her housing needs during a homelessness application assessment.
3. Did not offer her suitable temporary accommodation after it accepted a homelessness duty.
4. Did not explain why her medical issues met the criteria for its homelessness duty but not a medical priority banding allocation.
5. Delayed managing her complaint.
2. Miss X said the Council left her in in unsuitable accommodation which caused a deterioration of her medical condition. She says trying to resolve the situation with the Council also caused her uncertainty, frustration, and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as Housing Associations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
7. 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

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated Miss X’s complaint except:
• Part of 1(a) being Miss X’s medical priority application in February 2023. The records indicate this was a separate application involving Miss X’s landlord as a housing association (‘HA’). It relates to a request for an internal HA transfer which did not involve the Council’s decision making. We cannot investigate a housing association’s actions as explained above (paragraph 6).
• 1(c) because Miss X had a right to appeal any decision in the magistrate’s court, which she chose not to exercise, and I consider it reasonable for her to have done so, as explained in paragraph 5 (above). Miss X explained she was being assisted with her housing issues by a legal charity at the time.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered information provided by Miss X and discussed her complaint with her. I also made enquiries with the Council and considered its response and evidence provided.
10. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

11. 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))
12. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
13. The Council’s allocations policy says:
• Medical priority may be awarded following an assessment by the Council’s medical officer (‘MO’). Medical priority will be awarded depending on the extent of the impact on the health of the applicant by their current housing situation.
• The decisions regarding medical priority will be notified to the applicant in writing. If an applicant disagrees with the decision, they may request a review within 21 days of the decision. The Social Housing Assessment’s team will conduct a final review to ensure the Council’s allocations scheme has been observed.
• The Council places housing applicants into four bands A-D. Those applicants assessed as having medical priority are placed in band B. Applicants for whom the Council accepts a homeless duty are placed in band C.
• Applicants accepted for rehousing under homelessness legislation and residing in temporary accommodation provided by the Council will not normally be eligible for medical priority. If their temporary accommodation is detrimental to their health the Council will first look to provide alternative temporary accommodation.

Homelessness

14. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
15. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. If a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless then the council will owe the ‘relief duty’. This requires the council to take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person for at least six months.
16. As part of its assessment the Council will produce a personalised housing plan. This is a document which sets out the applicant’s housing needs including any health issues and steps the Council will take to secure suitable accommodation as part of its relief duty.
17. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days. After this period, the council should decide whether it owes the applicant the ‘main housing duty’. It will owe the main housing duty if it is satisfied the applicant is eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless.

The Council’s corporate complaints policy

18. The Council has a two stage complaints process. At stage one it will acknowledge complaints within five working days and aim to respond within 20 working days.
19. Complainants may escalate complaints to stage two if they remain dissatisfied but must set out their reasons clearly. If accepted, stage two complaints will be acknowledged within five working days and the Council will aim to respond within 30 days.

What happened

20. Miss X has epilepsy and lives in a block of flats with a lift.
21. Miss X explained her condition is worsened by heights and being in lifts.
22. In February 2022, Miss X applied for medical priority on the Council’s housing register. Miss X said she included letters from her GP. Her landlord at the time was a housing association (‘HA’).
23. The Council sent Miss X’s application and medical evidence to its medical officer (‘MO’). It asked the MO for their opinion on whether Miss X’s medical condition affected her use of a lift and if she needed a ground floor level property.
24. The MO’s report said Miss X’s property was not impacting her health and the medical evidence did not show it prevented her from using a lift. The Council then wrote to Miss X in late March explaining why it was not awarding her any medical priority.
25. The records say Miss X requested a review of the decision with further medical information and evidence showing the lifts were often faulty. The Council forwarded Miss X’s information to the MO for a further assessment. In early April the MO considered Miss X’s medical information and confirmed his original recommendations (paragraph 24).
26. The records say the Council wrote to Miss X to explain the review findings. It also advised her it was the HA’s responsibility to maintain the lifts. The records indicate Miss X was awarded a band D (no priority) and allowed to join the Council’s housing register.
27. In April, Miss X made a homelessness application with new evidence. The Council has not provided us with a copy of the new evidence. But the records say Miss X presented documents to show unresolved maintenance problems with the lifts which prevented her from accessing her home. She also included further information about multiple steps to access her front door, which she found difficult to manage due to her health condition.
28. In early May, the Council assessed Miss X’s homelessness application and accepted a relief duty. It then wrote to Miss X with an outcome. The Council then conducted a full assessment and produced Miss X’s personalised housing plan. The plan mentions Miss X’s epilepsy and states she needs to be housed on the ground floor. Miss X told us these were also her main requirements.
29. In late July the Council accepted a main housing duty to Miss X. It wrote to Miss X and explained it would discharge the duty by securing alternative suitable accommodation. It also said it would write to Miss X to explain her new priority and housing allocation band. The records do not show Miss X was sent a copy of her allocation outcome letter. The records indicate Miss X was allocated band C and she later refused the Council’s offer of alternative accommodation.
30. The records show the Council also wrote to Miss X’s MP. It explained it had offered to place Miss X in emergency accommodation due to her medical needs, but Miss X had also declined this offer.
31. Unhappy with the Council’s decisions, Miss X approached the Ombudsman.

Miss X’s complaint

32. In August 2022, the Council informed us Miss X had not completed its complaints process. We advised the Council to remain in contact with Miss X to ensure the complaints procedure was completed.
33. Miss X contacted us again in January 2023 to say the Council had not responded. Upon our further enquiries the Council logged Miss X’s complaint at stage one.

The Council’s complaint response

34. In its stage one response (Feb 2023) the Council said:
• It had received Miss X’s complaint in August 2022, but no further action was taken due to human error for which it apologised.
• Miss X had recently advised she would send further medical evidence. Once received the Council would send it to the MO for further consideration.
• Miss X had refused its offer of emergency accommodation, but this remained an option. It was also in the process of finding Miss X alternative suitable accommodation but there was a long waiting period.
• It had kept in regular communication with Miss X and addressed her housing issues at various stages.
• It would pay Miss X £200 compensation for delays in progressing her complaint.
35. Unhappy with the Council’s response Miss X returned to the Ombudsman.
36. In response to our enquiries the Council explained:
• It did not award Miss X medical priority in February 2022, as there was insufficient evidence to show her home was having a negative impact on her health issues.
• Miss X then provided new medical evidence during her homelessness application. Based on the new evidence the Council decided her accommodation was not medically suitable. However, the Council awarded Miss X band C and did not award a higher band for medical priority in line with its allocations policy (paragraph 13). It then offered Miss X both suitable alternative and emergency accommodation, but she refused.
37. Miss X has confirmed the Council has since awarded her a band B allocation with medical priority.

Was there fault and did it cause injustice?

i) Miss X says the Council did not properly consider her application for medical priority on its housing register in January 2022.

38. Based on the available evidence, the Council correctly considered Miss X’s medical priority application and subsequent review request as set out in paragraphs 23-26 (above). In summary, the Council sent Miss X’s application and evidence to its medical officer (MO). The MO considered Miss X’s evidence and provided his professional opinion that Miss X’s evidence did not show her housing situation impacted her health. The Council therefore decided not to award Miss X medical priority and informed her of the outcome. This was in line with the Council’s housing allocation policy at paragraph 13 (above). I do not find the Council failed to properly consider Miss X’s application or any fault with the steps in the Council’s decision-making process. I therefore cannot question the merits of its decision not to award Miss X medical priority.

ii) Miss X says the Council did not correctly identify her housing needs during a homelessness assessment.

39. The records show the Council assessed Miss X’s housing needs as set out at paragraph 28 (above). The available evidence shows it discussed the situation with Miss X who provided new evidence to prove she had difficulties accessing her property due to her medical condition. The Council produced a personalised housing plan for Miss X and noted she needed a ground floor property due to her health issues. This was in line with the Council’s duties as set out in paragraphs 14-16 (above). Miss X said she did not believe the Council understood her needs but the records show the Council noted them correctly in her housing plan. I do not find the Council at fault in relation to this point.

iii) Miss X says the Council did not explain why her medical issues met the criteria for its homelessness duty but not a medical priority award.

40. The Council has explained Miss X’s applications for medical priority and homelessness were considered separately. The records show Miss X’s initial medical priority outcome letter clearly explained the reasons for the Council’s decision. I do not find the Council at fault in relation to this point.
41. The Council said it would write to Miss X to explain her priority and banding after it accepted a full housing duty (paragraph 29). However, the records do not show it sent the letter to Miss X. This is fault and poor communication which caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty and frustration, about the reasons for her subsequent allocation band and why it did not meet the criteria for higher medical priority, when the relief duty had been accepted on medical grounds.

iv) Miss X says the Council delayed managing her complaint.

42. The Council’s complaint policy says it will respond to complaints (stage one) with an acknowledgment within five working days and a full response within 20 working days (paragraph 18). The records show the Council did not acknowledge or respond to Miss X’s complaint between August 2022 and January 2023. It has explained this was due to human error. It subsequently logged Miss X’s complaint in January 2023, and sent a response in early February including an offer of £200 compensation for the delay.
43. I find the Council did not process Miss X’s complaint in line with its complaints policy between August 2022 and January 2023. I find there was undue delay of five months which caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty and distress about whether her complaint was being properly managed. However, in my view the Council’s apology and offer of £200 compensation for the delay was an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. Within a month of my final decision the Council should:
• Write to Miss X and apologise for its delay in responding to Miss X’s complaint and failure to send Miss X a copy of her housing allocation and banding letter after accepting its homelessness duty and any uncertainty and distress caused.
• Make a payment to Miss X of £200 in recognition of the delay in managing Miss X’s complaint and uncertainty and distressed caused.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I find fault which caused Miss X injustice. The Council should apologise and make a payment to Miss X in recognition of injustice caused.
47. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman