Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it decided Mr X’s banding on its housing register. The Council was at fault for the time taken to process his housing register application but this did not cause Mr X injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to place his household into Band C on its housing register. Mr X says his household should be placed into a higher Band.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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. As part of this investigation, I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council for comments.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

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))

The Council’s allocations policy

8. The Council’s allocations policy (the policy) places applicants into Bands depending on their level of need, with Band A being the highest Band.
9. In relation to obtaining priority on medical grounds the Council places applicants into either Band A, B or C. Applicants can ask the Council to award medical priority. Medical assessments are an assessment of the impact of the applicant’s current housing on their medical condition.
10. For Band A the applicants (or member of their household) current housing must have a very serious effect on their medical condition. For Band B, the applicants current housing must have a serious effect on their medical condition. For Band C, the applicants current housing must have a moderate effect on their medical condition.
11. The policy says applicants who have an urgent need to move because they have a critical medical condition or very serious disability that is made much worse by their current housing will be placed into Bands A or B. The policy defines critical as situations where:
• The applicant’s condition is life threatening and the existing accommodation is a major contributory factor.
• The applicant’s health is so severely affected by their current housing that it is likely to become life threatening.
• The applicant’s medical condition is expected to become terminal within a period of 12 months and re-housing is needed to provide a basis for the provision of suitable care.
• The applicant is in hospital or residential care and is unable to return to their former home because this would severely worsen their medical condition and/or their mobility is severely restricted and the property cannot be adapted to provide level access.

Background

12. Mr X lives in a one bedroom property on the ground floor. Mr X lives with his wife and two children. Mr X’s son suffers with Autism.
13. In October 2021, Mr X asked the Council for priority on medical grounds. This was on the basis that his son needed a bigger property with his own room and the effect sleeping in the same room was having on his autism and the other members of the household.
14. The Council provided Mr X with its decision letter on 29 March 2022. This said Mr X was in Band C based on his households medical priority. The Council noted Mr X needed additional space and his households medical need to move was moderate.
15. Mr X requested a review of this decision on 8 April 2022. Mr X said he disagreed with the Council’s assessment of Band C and believed he should be in a higher Band as his son’s medical issues were more severe. Mr X said his son has no sense of danger or understanding of things relating to hygiene and wakes up in the night jumping and screaming which is affecting other members of the family.
16. The Council provided its review response in June 2022. The Council listed the information it considered as part of the review which included the medical reports and occupational therapy reports Mr X provided. The Council said it was satisfied Mr X should be in Band C for medical priority. The Council acknowledged Mr X needs to be rehoused but did not consider the impact of the housing was enough to warrant higher medical priority. The Council considered the property was on the ground floor so there was no threat of danger to Mr X’s son from a balcony. The Council also mentioned that apart from an occupational therapy report from November 2020, none of the other reports mentioned Mr X’s housing or the impact this has on his son.
17. Mr X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. Mr X said he believes he should be in a higher Band.

Analysis

18. My role is not to decide into which priority banding the Council should have placed Mr X’s application or consider the merits of that application. My role is to examine how the Council decided on Mr X’s priority banding.
19. I have not found the Council at fault for the way it decided Mr X’s priority banding. The Council considered the evidence Mr X submitted and decided Band C was appropriate. These included the medical reports and occupational therapy report. The Council showed it considered the impact of Mr X’s property on his son but did not think was great enough to warrant a higher Band. I recognise Mr X disagrees with this decision, however it was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
20. The Council was at fault for the time taken to decide Mr X’s application. Mr X asked for medical priority in October 2021 but did not receive a decision until March 2022. I have not seen any valid reasons as to why it took this long to process his application. There is not a statutory timescale for deciding housing applications, however we would expect a council to process an application within four to six weeks. While the Council was at fault for the time taken to decide Mr X’s application, I do not consider this caused him injustice as he would not have been placed in a higher Band.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was not at fault for how it decided Mr X’s priority Band. The Council was at fault for the time it took to process Mr X’s application, however this caused him no injustice so no remedy is recommended.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman