Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s decisions not to include his daughter in his housing register application and refusal to award him medical priority. We found no fault in the process the Council followed, we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decisions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complained about the Council’s decision to refuse his request for medical priority under its Housing Allocations Policy. He said it failed to properly consider the impact on his health when his daughter stays with him, as set out in a Court Order.
2. As a result, Mr C said he experienced distress, uncertainty and ongoing discomfort from the unsuitable sleeping conditions when his daughter stays with him.

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 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)
5. 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

6. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr C’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr C and considered the information he provided:
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• considered the relevant law and Council Policy to the complaint.
7. Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocations

8. The Council’s housing allocations scheme (the Scheme) sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
9. The Council’s Scheme allocates applicants into band’s (Band A, B1, B2, and C). Band A is the highest priority, and Band C has no priority, but applicants will be housed in order from the date their application was registered.
10. The Scheme says the Council provides reasonable preference to applicant who must move because they have a medical need or a disability which are seriously affected by the design of their home, which would normally be Band B1 priority. To decide if this applies the Council will consider the applicants medical information and may refer to is Medical Adviser to assess and make a recommendation on whether or not the applicant should have medical priority due to their health or disability.
11. The Scheme says Applicants may only include children who live with them permanently. Children who live permanently elsewhere or where there are contact arrangements may not be included.
12. In circumstances where the family is separated, and the children reside equally between two parents, then a decision will be required on the size of property that each party is eligible for. In reaching a decision, the Council is entitled to consider:
• whether any court order reflects the reality of current living arrangements; and
• the extent to which there will be overcrowding or under occupation at each parent’s property.
13. However, where there is suitable accommodation available for the child elsewhere and there is no risk to them if they remain, the Council will not include the child on the applicant’s Housing Register application.
14. A housing register applicant has a right to request a review of any decision which the Council has made about their application.

What happened

15. Mr C lives in a bedsit which has an open room with a kitchen, bed, sofa, and a separate toilet. He has some medical conditions which includes a heart condition and pain in his shoulders, knee and back.
16. Mr C moved into his bedsit several years ago and remains on the Council’s housing register under Band C with a need for a one-bedroom property.
17. Mr C lives alone but has a daughter who lives with him between 2-3 days per week, this arrangement was set out in a court order in 2017. The Court order says his daughter’s primary residence is with her mother.
18. In January 2022 Mr C asked the Council to review his housing register application as he believed he should have a higher priority band due to his medical circumstances. He explained when his daughter stays with him, he has to sleep on the floor which causes him pain. He told the Council it could contact his GP for further medical information.
19. The Council considered Mr C’s request and acknowledged he had new medical circumstances. It asked its medical adviser to consider whether medical priority should be awarded based on the information it had received.
20. The medical adviser found Mr C’s bedsit was suitable to meet his needs and on medical grounds. He recommended no medical priority should be awarded. The Council agreed with its medical adviser and shared its decision with Mr C.
21. In Spring 2022, Mr C provided further medical information relating to his heart condition for the Council to consider.
22. The Council sought further information from Mr C’s GP. However, the Council’s medical adviser did not change his view based on the information it received from Mr C or his GP.
23. The Council considered Mr C’s request as a review of its decision and its Housing Case Review Panel reviewed his case. This included his medical information and its medical adviser’s recommendation. It found Mr C did not fulfil the criteria for medical priority under its Housing Allocations Scheme as the accommodation was suitable for him, and it did not impact negatively on his health conditions.

Mr C’s complaint

24. Mr C complained to the Council about its decision not to award him medical priority on his housing register application. He said:
• he was eligible for a one-bedroom property but with his current award of Band C he would not be successful in bidding for such a property; and
• he should have medical priority due to his circumstances as his daughter was staying with him 2-3 days each week, as per the court order. He explained he had to sleep on the floor during these days, which caused him pain and discomfort.
25. In its complaint responses the Council did not change its view on Mr C’s request for medical priority. It told him he had correctly been assessed as set out in its Allocations Policy, and he did not meet the criteria as his health conditions were not impacted by his bedsit. It also provided some advice on how he may be able to move through mutual exchange schemes.
26. Mr D was not satisfied with the Council’s response, he asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.

Analysis and findings

27. Mr C and the Council shared the court order from 2017 which sets out when Mr C’s daughter should stay with him. This ranges from 2 to 3 days per week depending on school term times. The Order makes it clear her main residence is with her mother.
28. I understand Mr C’s difficulties due to the sleeping arrangements when his daughter stays with him. However, I can only consider whether the Council properly considered whether his daughter should be registered on his application.
29. I found the Council correctly applied its Housing Allocation Scheme. This is because the Court Order and ongoing arrangement shows Mr C’s daughter does not reside equally between Mr C and her mother. Her main residence is with her mother, and the Council was therefore entitled to find she should not be included in his application, and to reach its view on whether Mr C’s bedsit was suitable to meet his needs.
30. The Council also considered Mr C’s request for medical priority based on his new medical conditions. This included the evidence he provided, and it obtained information from his GP. It sought the view of its medical adviser and agreed with the recommendation it received. It also arranged for its review panel to reconsider his request.
31. I found the Council followed the process set out in its Housing Allocation Scheme. As I have not found fault in the process the Council followed, it was therefore entitled to reach its views, and I cannot criticise the merits of its decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault in the process the Council followed. I cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman