Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not fully consider her circumstances when refusing to award medical priority in 2021 causing further health issues for the family. There is no fault in how the Council reached its decision not to award medical priority. However, there was delay by the Council is delaying with Miss X’s review request, which has been remedied by the Council apologising.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not fully consider her circumstances when refusing to award medical priority in 2021.
2. Miss X says the resulting overcrowding is adding to health issues for all the family.

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 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 the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss X moved into her current accommodation, a one bedroom property, in November 2013. She now has three children, with the third born in November 2021 and is struggling to cope in her current accommodation.
7. In May 2020, Miss X provided information to the Council about health issues for the family. She asked the Council to assess her medical needs and to award medical priority points. She explained she suffered from depression, anxiety and panic attacks. She said her daughter had eczema and her son had asthma.
8. The Council assessed her application and wrote to her on 20 June saying it had not awarded any medical points. It also said Miss X could request a review of the decision within 21 days.
9. Ms X provided supporting evidence dated October 2020, which included a letter from her GP and from the deputy headteacher of the children’s school. The review was carried out in January 2021. Notes provided show it was considered by a doctor. The notes say the family has access to normal facilities and considers the medical issues are related to overcrowding. The doctor says they can’t find evidence of serious adverse impact by the current accommodation that would necessitate rehousing and that the threshold for medical priority is not met.
10. The Council wrote to Miss X on 25 January saying that no medical points had been awarded and that she could request a review within 21 days. Miss X requested a review and the Council sent the stage one review decision to Miss X on 16 February 2021.
11. The review decision took account of Miss X’s submission and supporting letters from her GP and the children’s school. The Council noted the health issues of the family members and medication. The Council concluded that medical points would not be awarded. It said the decision did not mean the family did not have medical issues but that it did not consider there was a serious impact caused by the current housing. It advised Miss X could request a further review within 21 days.
12. Miss X contacted the Council within 21 days saying she wanted to appeal. Miss X contacted the Council in September explaining she had appealed but had heard nothing. The Council contacted her on 17 September to apologise for the lack of response.
13. The Council wrote to Miss X on 7 December. It explained this was the second stage of the review and so the decision would be final. It noted Miss X’s claim that the mental health of herself and her daughter was impacted by their housing situation and that her daughter had no place to do her learning which was affecting her education and overall development. It said that while their current living circumstances were not ideal, it did not consider housing points should be awarded.
14. The Council’s response included comments on the particular issues facing Miss X and her family and made some suggestions on how to manage. It acknowledged the home is overcrowded and that they had one bedroom less than their assessed need. It said its policy allowed a living room to be used for sleeping in at night and so this is why the family of four was assessed as having one bedroom less than required. It said it had awarded a further 50 overcrowding points taking her total to 190. The Council explained that currently three bedroom properties were being awarded to applicants with around 778 points and so Miss X may not have enough points to get a move. It provided some advice on how to increase her chances when placing bids on available properties. It also apologised for the time taken to carry out this review, saying it was delayed due to demands on the service.
15. In July 2022, Miss X again updated her housing application. She was not awarded any medical points and requested a review. The Council says this review was requested outside the 21 day timescale for review requests, however it has agreed to carry out a late review which is still under consideration.

Analysis

16. Miss X complains the Council did not fully consider her circumstances when it refused to add medical priority points. This complaint concerns the decision made in 2020. I note Miss X has since made a further application for medical points but that matter is still ongoing after the Council agreed to conduct a review even though Miss X’s request was late.
17. The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme awards points for health and housing related needs. It includes two levels of priority. 500 points are awarded if the applicant’s medical condition and housing circumstances are having a serious impact on their health and wellbeing and they are in urgent need of rehousing. The Council will award 150 points if the applicant’s medical condition and housing circumstances are having a serious impact on their health and wellbeing and rehousing would be desirable.
18. I am satisfied the Council has considered Miss X’s circumstances when taking the view medical points should not be awarded. The notes show the doctor assessing her application considered Miss X’s submission and the supporting information from the school and GP. It recognised the problems but considered the issues reported were more a response to the overcrowding than medical issues. It did not consider the problems experienced by Miss X and her family met the threshold for medical priority.
19. The Council has further explained that in law it must give “reasonable preference” to certain groups when allocating housing. This includes people living in overcrowded or unsanitary conditions; people who need to move due to a medical condition or disability; people who need to move for health or welfare reasons including care leavers and people with significant support needs; those who need to move due to hardship and those who are at risk of homelessness.
20. The Council says that in order to ensure it offers people in each of the above groups reasonable preference, it has to ensure the priority is not diluted in any way. It says that many housing issues such as overcrowding, disrepair and homelessness, result in some impact on health and wellbeing. Stress and anxiety are particularly associated with overcrowding. It says that if it awarded medical priority to all overcrowded families reporting stress and anxiety then none would be better off and it would unfairly impact on those families who need to move specifically on medical grounds.
21. I take this to mean that the Council does not award medical and overcrowding points in circumstances where it considers the cause of the medical conditions is the overcrowding. It believes this will amount to a double award for the same issue which would be to the detriment of other groups who are required to receive reasonable preference. I do not consider this approach to be fault.
22. It is clear Miss X and her family struggle to manage with four people in a one bedroom property and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic when families were in lockdown. However, the evidence shows the Council did fully consider her circumstances and took the view that she did not reach the threshold for medical priority. While I appreciate Miss X does not agree with the decision made by the Council, there is no basis for me to criticise it as there is no evidence of fault in how the decision was reached.
23. It is clear that there was considerable delay by the Council in dealing with Miss X’s request for a stage two review. Miss X made this request in February 2021 and the stage two review decision was not made until December 2021. This is significant delay which is fault and the Council has apologised. As the decision did not change, I consider the apology a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman