London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (22 010 421)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council has failed to properly review his son’s housing application. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the Council’s actions.
The complaint
- The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council have failed to properly review his son’s housing application. He said because of this his son remains in unsuitable accommodation which has had a negative impact on his mental health.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I spoke with Mr X about his complaint. I considered all the information provided by him and the Council.
- Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.
What I found
What should have happened?
The Council’s housing allocations scheme
- The Council will not allow applicants to join its housing register where it assesses them as not being eligible.
- The Council has a housing banding system which determines who will be prioritised for housing in the borough. The Council will only register eligible applicants who qualify to meet at least one of the reasonable preference criteria.
- Criteria under band three for medical grounds is where an applicant’s housing is unsuitable for moderate or severe medical reasons or due to their disability, but who are not housebound or whose life is not at risk due to their current housing, but whose housing conditions directly contribute to causing serious ill-health. Such applicants (or applicants with a household member) may include a person with a learning disability. Housing officers will only consider applications where officers from the Council’s adult social care department consider the applicant is capable of independent living, taking account of any necessary and funded package of care and support.
- Criteria under band three for applicants living in unsatisfactory housing lacking basic facilities is applicants without access at all to any of the following facilities:
- A bathroom or kitchen
- An inside WC
- Hot or cold water supplies, electricity, gas or adequate heating
- Applicants who occupy a private property which is in disrepair or is unfit for occupation and is subject to a Prohibition Order and recovery of the premises is required in order to comply with the Order as defined by S.33 of the Housing Act 2004.
- The scheme states applicants who only have access to shared facilities in shared accommodation will not qualify under these criteria.
- The Council recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances where the only way an exceptional housing need can be resolved is through the use of discretion. In the interests of fairness to all these applicants these circumstances are kept to a minimum. Examples of exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to:
- Threat to life in the area in which they are residing.
- Emergency cases whose homes are damaged by fire, floor or other disaster may be provided with other accommodation if it is not possible to repair the existing home, or if any work to repair is to take such a long period of time that there will be serious disruption to family life.
- Households who, on police advise, must be moved immediately due to serious threats to one or more members of the household, or whose continuing occupation would pose a threat to the community.
- Cases nominated under the Police Witness Protection Scheme or other similar schemes that the council has agreed to be part of.
What did happen?
- This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a details chronology.
- Mr X’s son, Mr Z, who currently lives in private accommodation, applied to join the Council’s housing register in 2021. This was supported by a GP letter which stated Mr Z was seeking alternative accommodation as he found his room claustrophobic and finds the surrounding environment to be exacerbating his mental health issues.
- Following a medical assessment form being completed, the Council sought advice from its medical advisor in January 2022. It advised Mr X the following month that it did not consider that Mr Z’s current housing conditions directly contributed to causing serious ill-health as per its housing allocations scheme. It advised Mr X of his right to request a review of the Council’s decision.
- Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision in March 2022 which the Council agreed to.
- In April and May 2022, two GP letters provided to the Council stated Mr Z had a history of psychosis. It said there had been no relapse in his mental health for at least 10 years. But it said living at his property worsens his social anxiety. This was because Mr Z lives near a park. The letters also noted that Mr Z’s property was lacking facilities as it only had a microwave, which it said impacts on his well-being.
- In May 2022, Mr X provided the Council with pictures of Mr Z’s property as requested. He also stated Mr Z had been verbally abused in the park and said the property was unfit for someone with mental health problems.
- The Council checked in June 2022 whether there were any anti-social behaviour cases open at Mr Z’s current property which there wasn’t.
- In June 2022, the Council advised Mr X of the outcome of the review. As part of the review, it considered the following:
- Information held on the housing file and information provided by Mr X
- relevant laws and guidance
- GP letters and medical assessment form
- Observations from the Council’s medical and psychiatric advisor
- Information from environmental health and anti-social behaviour teams
- Photos and measurements from the property
- But the Council said there was no medical or psychiatric evidence to confirm that Mr Z’s home was unsuitable due to his health and/or disability; nor is he housebound and his life is not at risk; nor do the conditions or location of his home directly contribute towards causing ill-health. It therefore upheld the previous decision.
Analysis
- The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and it is not our role to decide whether someone can join the Council’s housing register; that is the Council’s responsibility. We do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. We investigate the processes the Council followed in reviewing the application, to assess whether it made its decision properly.
- In this case, as part of the review, the Council considered all of the information detailed in paragraph 20. It sought medical guidance, but it said Mr Z did not meet its criteria. Regarding the facilities at the property, the Council said it did not have evidence Mr Z was in receipt of current medical treatment for any substantive gastroenterological condition. It also said it could not find any confirmed medical condition to preclude the use of a microwave. After considering measurements of Mr Z’s property, it said Mr Z was not statutorily overcrowded. It also said there were no issues that would trigger band three inclusion due to unsatisfactory housing that is lacking in basic facilities. Where a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information and given clear reasons for its decision, we cannot criticise it. In this case the Council has followed the correct process, therefore there is no fault.
- The Council’s policy recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances where the only way an exceptional housing need can be resolved is through the use of discretion. Examples of exceptional circumstances are noted in paragraph 12. Regarding the verbal abuse directed at Mr Z in the park, the Council said it did not consider Mr Z’s situation to be an exceptional circumstance as he did not meet its criteria. It said he has the option of accessing a different park in terms of the benefits of using outdoor space for his social anxiety. The Council considered all relevant considerations; therefore I cannot consider the merits of the decision it made.
Final decision
- I have completed my investigation on the basis there was no fault in the Council’s actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman