Summary: Miss X complains that the Council did not properly consider her requests for higher health and wellbeing priority. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s health and wellbeing priority in August and October 2022.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council has failed to give proper consideration to medical and other evidence submitted when she applied for health and wellbeing priority. As a result, Miss X is unable to bid on properties and move from her current property which she considers has a detrimental impact on her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have:

• considered the complaint and the information provided by Miss X;
• discussed the issues with Miss X;
• considered the information provided by the Council, including relevant housing records and the Council’s decisions on Miss X’s applications for health and wellbeing priority.
• invited Miss X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

5. 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))
6. 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))
   

7. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

Health and wellbeing priority

8. The Council has a points-based allocations scheme to decide on the priority of applicants who qualify to join the Housing Register. This includes points for applicants who need to move for health and wellbeing reasons. There are three levels of priority:

High (1000 points) – where there is an urgent need to move and:

1. There is a risk to life without a move; or
2. The applicant is housebound, or a wheelchair user, and would become more independent with a move to alternative accommodation; or
3. There is a risk to the life of others unless the applicant moves (e.g delay in evacuating the person from the building in the event of a fire).

Medium (150 points) where the applicant’s need to move is less urgent, and not life-threatening, but living conditions are unsuitable and if left unresolved their quality of life will deteriorate.

Low (50 points) where the applicant’s living conditions cause them difficulty in carrying out daily activities but this is not life-threatening and it would not cause them greater harm or progress their illness if they did not move.

9. The Council’s scheme only allows applicants with 100 points or more to bid due to the high demand for social housing and short supply.

What happened

10. Miss X is a Council tenant and lives in a one bedroom ground floor flat. In 2021 a Neighbourhood housing officer completed a housing application form on Miss X’s behalf. Miss X wanted to move as she considered her housing made her anxiety and depression worse. She also considered damp and mould in the property exacerbated her asthma.
11. The Council initially rejected Miss X’s application as it considered she was suitably housed. Miss X requested a review of this decision. The Council carried out a review and awarded 50 points – low health and wellbeing. Applicants cannot bid for properties until they have 100 points.
12. Miss X made a complaint to the Ombudsman as she considered the Council had not properly considered the evidence submitted in support of her application. We found the Council to be at fault as it did not consider the impact of mould on Miss X’s asthma. The Council agreed to carry out a further review of Miss X’s health and wellbeing priority.

This complaint

13. In March 2022, Miss X’s GP sent a letter to the Council setting out the impact of Miss X’s housing on her mental health. The Council’s medical advisor considered the GP’s letter and Miss X’s health and wellbeing priority in June 2022. They noted the previous medical information and that of Miss X’s social worker. The medical advisor considered Miss X had low health and wellbeing need. The Council considered the medical advisor’s recommendations and decided Miss X’s priority was unchanged.
14. Miss X requested a review of her priority. The Council issued its decision in August 2022. The evidence provided by the Council shows the reviewing officer sought information from Miss X’s social worker and made enquiries to check whether the Council had addressed the mould issues in Miss X’s property. The Council considered Miss X had low health and wellbeing priority. The Council’s decision letter set out the information considered by the Council including Miss X’s housing history, medical advisor’s health and wellbeing assessment, Miss X’s additional submissions, Miss X’s GP letters and the information from her social worker and explained the reasons for its decision.
15. In October 2022, the Council carried out a further review of Miss X’s health and wellbeing priority in response to our recommendation and Miss X’s further request. The Council considered Miss X had low health and wellbeing priority.
16. The Council wrote to Miss X to notify her of the decision. It set out the information it had considered which included Miss X’s review request, the medical assessor’s recommendation, Miss X’s medical information and GP letters, police report about an incident at Miss X’s property, information from Miss X’s social worker and Miss X’s housing file. The Council set out how it had considered all the information and the reasons why it did not consider the evidence warranted a higher health and wellbeing priority.
17. Miss X remains unhappy with the Council’s consideration of her application for health and wellbeing priority. She is concerned the Council took into account her housing history and has not accepted her GP’s views that she needs to move due to the significant impact of her housing on her mental health and wellbeing.

Analysis

18. Our role is to examine how the Council made its decision on Miss X’s health and wellbeing priority. We do not come to our own view on whether Miss X should be awarded higher priority.
19. On balance, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s health and wellbeing priority in August and October 2022. The evidence shows the Council considered Miss X’s reasons for wanting to move and a range of evidence when making its decisions on whether to award higher health and wellbeing priority. This included Miss X’s GP letters, letter and further information from Miss X’s social worker, information about the action taken to deal with mould in Miss X’s no fault, information about the incident at Miss X’s property and the medical advisor’s comments and recommendations. The Council explained its reasons for its decisions. I am therefore satisfied the Council considered Miss X’s reasons for wanting greater priority and the evidence.
20. Miss X considers the Council should not have considered her past housing history. She also considers the Council should have placed greater weight on her GP’s and social worker’s letters setting out their concerns for her mental health. On balance, I do not consider the Council to be at fault in considering Miss X’s housing history as it is relevant to her concerns about her current housing. It is also a matter for the Council to decide what weight it places on Miss X’s GP’s and social worker’s letters. The Council’s decision letters demonstrate it considered all the evidence, including the GP and social worker’s letters and what it made of that evidence. I am therefore satisfied there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s request for greater health and wellbeing priority.

Back to top

Final decision

21. There is no evidence of fault by the Council so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman