Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly consider medical information when assessing his request for housing priority, delayed making and reviewing its decision, and caused confusion. He said it caused unnecessary distress, impacted on his mental health, and impacted on his family. Largely we do not find the Council at fault. However, we find the Council at fault for a delay sending its review decision. This caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council’s apology has already remedied this injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained about the way the Council handled his housing register application. Specifically, he complained that the Council:
1. failed to properly consider medical information when assessing his request for medical priority;
2. delayed making its initial decision and reviewing its decision; and,
3. gave him confusing information when it initially said he would lose his place on the bidding list if he bid for flats, but later said that would not affect his bidding position.
2. Mr X said this caused unnecessary distress, anxiety, and had an impact on his mental health. He said it impacted on his family. He also said he missed opportunities to bid on flats for 18 months.

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. 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. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
7. I considered the relevant legislation and policies, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Housing allocations

8. Councils must have an allocation scheme to determine priorities and set out the procedure it will follow when allocating housing. Each council’s allocations scheme will be different but in general most will award ‘reasonable preference’ to allocations by awarding points or placing an applicant in a certain priority band.
9. Applicants have a right to request a review of a council’s decision about the number of points or band they have been awarded. When a council tells an applicant its decision, it must tell the applicant in writing of their right to request a review of the council’s decision.

The Council’s housing allocations policy

10. The Council’s housing allocations policy says:

“Applicants whose housing is unsuitable for severe medical reasons, or due to a disability, but who are not housebound, or whose health, or safety is not at such a risk level to require immediate urgent re-housing will be awarded reasonable preference and placed into Priority Band Two if they meet the criteria.”

11. The policy says the Council’s assessment will not be of the person’s health but how their accommodation affects their health. It says for some cases, the Council may need evidence from a doctor or consultant.
12. The policy gives examples that may qualify for reasonable preference priority on medical grounds. The relevant example given in the policy says:

“A person with a long term medical debilitating condition whose current accommodation is having a significant impact on their condition and where their quality of life would be improved by moving to alternative settled accommodation.”

What happened

13. Mr X lives with his partner and their young child in a one-bedroom flat. In April 2022, Mr X asked the Council to award him medical priority, and therefore increase his band on the housing register. The Council asked Mr X to provide medical evidence.
14. In mid-May, Mr X provided a letter from his doctor, evidence of his medication, and other supporting information.
15. In June, the Council’s medical panel assessed Mr X’s application. The panel did not award Mr X medical priority. The panel’s reason for this decision was that medical priority is only to be applied when the person’s accommodation adversely affects their medical condition, and a move to alternative accommodation would significantly improve the condition. The panel found this was not the case for Mr X.
16. The Council’s independent medical advisor also assessed Mr X’s application. They agreed with the panel, that Mr X’s medical needs were not significant enough to meet the Council’s policy to increase his band and award him medical priority.
17. In July, the Council sent Mr X its decision: that he did not qualify for an increase in band on the basis of medical priority. This letter told Mr X how to appeal the Council’s decision. The letter said if he appealed, the Council would tell him the outcome of the review within five weeks of receiving his request.
18. At the end of July, Mr X complained the Council and asked to appeal its decision.
19. In its complaint response, the Council explained how it made its decision.
20. In November, the Council sent Mr X the outcome of its review. It upheld its decision that he was not eligible for medical priority. The Council apologised for the delay in sending Mr X the outcome of the review.

Analysis

Assessing for medical priority

21. Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly consider medical information when assessing his request for medical priority (part a of the complaint). He said his doctor’s letter said his accommodation was affecting his mental and physical health, but the Council disagreed.
22. I have seen the medical information Mr X sent the Council. I have seen the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s medical information, and the Council’s policy on housing allocations (see above).
23. I find the Council considered all the information Mr X provided, as it should have. The Council decided that Mr X did not meet its criteria to be given additional priority on medical grounds. I have seen no evidence which persuades me the Council was wrong to make this decision.
24. I do not find the Council at fault for the way it considered Mr X’s medical information. Therefore, I cannot question the outcome of that decision. The Council was entitled to make the decision it made.

Delays making and reviewing the decision

25. Mr X complained that the Council delayed making its initial decision and reviewing its decision (part b of the complaint).
26. Mr X applied to the Council for medical priority in April. Very shortly after, the Council asked Mr X to provide evidence. Mr X provided this evidence in mid-May. The Council considered Mr X’s evidence, took his application to its medical panel, and also took his application to its independent medical advisor. The Council told Mr X its decision in late July, nine weeks after he provided evidence.
27. I do not consider there was a significant delay here that constitutes fault.
28. The Council’s decision letter told Mr X that if he appealed the decision, it would tell him the outcome of a review within five weeks of the Council receiving his request.
29. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision at the end of July. Five weeks after this would have been the beginning of September. The Council sent its review decision in early November, two months after it should have. This is fault.
30. I find this fault caused Mr X injustice in that it caused uncertainty. The Council apologised to Mr X for this delay in its review decision letter. I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. I am satisfied that this apology is a suitable remedy for the level of injustice caused by this delay.
31. In response to Ombudsman enquiries, the Council said the delay was due to staff shortages. It said it has now addressed these shortages. I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate action to address the cause of this fault.

Causing confusion

32. Mr X complained that the Council gave him confusing information when it initially said, in an email, he would lose his place on the bidding list if he bid for flats. He said the Council later said this would not affect his bidding position (part c of the complaint).
33. Mr X has not provided a copy of the email which he says gave misleading information and caused confusion.
34. The Council says an officer spoke to Mr X and advised him what types of properties he could bid on. I have seen Council records which show the officer apologised to Mr X “if he was given incorrect information previously”.
35. I have seen no evidence that the Council told Mr X he would lose his place on the bidding list if he bid for flats. Without this evidence, I cannot find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation. Largely I do not find the Council at fault. However, I find the Council at fault for a delay sending Mr X its review decision letter. This caused Mr X injustice. I am satisfied the Council’s apology has already remedied this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman