Summary: The complaint is that the Council based a decision to refuse a request for urgent medical priority on inadequate evidence. The Ombudsman has seen the surveys the decision considered. Our decision is there was no fault. The surveys provide a basis for the Council’s decision. So we cannot question its merits.

The complaint

1. An advice worker, whom I shall refer to as Mr L, complained on behalf of Ms J and Mr K. They complain the Council did not properly assess their request for extra priority on their housing application. The effects on their health, of damp and mould in their home, meant the Council should have awarded them more points.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. This complaint only looks at how the Council considered Ms J and Mr K’s housing priority for the affects the damp on mould on their health. The end of this statements sets out matters I have not investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have considered Mr L’s complaint and the documents he provided. I have also considered documents the Council sent us. I sent my draft decision to Mr L and the Council and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

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. The Council uses a points scheme to decide priority. It includes points for applicants with a medical need to move. And extra points for applicants with an urgent medical or welfare need to move, because they are:

“…living in conditions which pose an imminent, unavoidable risk of serious physical or mental harm and for whom other housing options are not reasonably available”.

The Council’s ‘Damp Reduction Initiative’

8. The Council has a Damp Reduction Initiative (DRI). This scheme investigates properties where the Council has repeatedly visited to carry out damp repairs. The DRI aims to finds ways to tackle the causes of damp symptoms and prevent and/or reduce recurrence.
9. As part of the DRI, a surveyor completes a damp survey. The surveyor then writes to the tenant with the outcome of the survey.

What happened

10. Ms J and Mr K live in their two bedroom council home with their three dependent children. They have an assessed need to move from the property. The Council has allocated them points for multiple reasons, including overcrowding and medical issues in the family.
11. Ms J and Mr K first reported mould in the property at the beginning of 2021. The Council treated the mould. It carried out further treatments in the summer of that year.
12. In the early autumn, Mr L complained about various issues, including the damp and mould in the property. As part of its complaint response, the Council said its DRI team would survey Ms J and Mr K’s property. This would include checking whether there were any structural reasons for the mould and damp.
13. At the beginning of December, the Council received a reply from its medical adviser about a query it had made about an application from Mr L for extra priority due to the damp/mould. The adviser said it was best to await the outcome of the DRI survey.
14. The Council’s surveyor visited shortly after. The Council has sent me a copy of his survey. This records that the surveyor:
• had taken a series of humidity readings in various rooms;
• had not found any damp or mould;
• had not found any structural defects;
• recommended a follow-up survey the following February, to check if there had been any changes in the humidity readings.
15. The Council wrote to Ms J and Mr K advising what the survey had found. It gave them some advice on heating their home.
16. The Council’s allocations team received the DRI report later in December 2021. It wrote to Mr L advising him of its decision: that it would not award any extra priority. The letter advised of Ms J and Mr K’s right to appeal that decision. They exercised that right and asked to appeal.
17. In February 2022, a different surveyor visited and carried out a second survey. The Council has sent me the report, which contains a new set of readings. The Council says the surveyor told Ms J the results of the survey at his visit.
18. At the end of February, the Council’s housing allocations manager wrote to Ms J and Mr K with the outcome of their appeal. He advised that, as the DRI surveys did not find any evidence of damp and mould in the property, he was not upholding the appeal. He recognised that Ms J and Mr K had not received a copy of the second survey and asked for a copy to be sent to them.
19. Mr L complained to the Ombudsman on Ms J and Mr K’s behalf. His complaint was the Council based its allocation decision on inadequate evidence, as the surveys had not been thorough enough.

Analysis

20. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. So we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question the merits of the decision.
21. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the request for extra priority. In making its decision, the Council took account of the qualifying criteria as set out in its allocations procedure (see paragraph 7). It considered the information from the DRI survey and information from Mr L.
22. The DRI survey reports say the surveys considered structural defects. And they took a series of readings in the property. My decision is those surveys form a sufficient basis for the Council’s decision that Mr and Mrs M did not have an urgent medical need to move from their home. Therefore I cannot consider the merits of the decision the Council made.

Back to top

Final decision

23. My decision is there was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

24. Ms J and Mr K have a continuing complaint against the Council, about an earlier assessment of their housing priority. Those matters are outside the scope of this investigation.
25. Complaints about repairs to the property (such as treatments of the damp and mould) are about the Council acting as a landlord. The Housing Ombudsman considers complaints about landlords. So those are not issues this Ombudsman can investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman