Summary: There was some fault by the Council in how it considered Ms X’s application for re-housing, however this did not cause Ms X any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council decided not to award her health and independence points on its housing register.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
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 this investigation I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I send a draft of this decision to Ms X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

6. 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))
7. 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))
8. 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.
9. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s allocations policy

11. The Council can award applicants on its housing register Health and Independence (H&I) priority. To receive this priority an applicant must show they:
• Have a disability or long-term health condition that has a substantial impact on their independence; AND
• The person is unable to access essential facilities in their current accommodation, AND
• A move to a more suitable property would enable independence or access to essential facilities within their home.
12. The allocations policy says most of the Health and Independence assessments are completed by the Council’s Housing Health and Disability Assessment Team. The Housing Health and Disability Assessment Team consists of healthcare professionals who are experienced in housing issues.

What happened

13. There has been extensive correspondence between Ms X, and the Council since 2021. In this section of the statement I summarise key events but I do not refer to every single contact and communication.
14. In late 2020, Ms X asked the Council to consider her for Health and Independence priority on its housing register. Ms X said her mental and physical health was worsening from living in her property due to the behaviour of two separate neighbours.
15. Ms X provided the Council with a letter from her GP and her GP patient records. She also completed a Health and Disability form and sent this to the Council.
16. In February 2021, the Council decided Ms X did not qualify for Health and Independence priority and therefore had no points so could not join the housing register. The Council said the issues Ms X experienced at the property were not medical related as they related to behaviour from other residents in the building.
17. Ms X asked for a review of the decision in March 2021. Ms X said she had spent time away from the property in 2020 and her health had improved. When she returned to the property her health worsened. Ms X said she tried to address the issues with her neighbours by installing alternative flooring and reporting the behaviour but nothing had improved. Ms X said her medication had increased since she returned to the property and she did not believe the Council assessed her case properly as it did not consider the whole context of her health needs.
18. The Council received a further letter from Ms X’s GP from March 2021 and a letter from an organisation helping Ms X with mental health support to consider as part of the review.
19. In May 2021, the Council sent Ms X its review decision. This upheld the decision that Ms X did not qualify for Health and Independence points. The review officer discussed the evidence relied on to make the decision and explained why Ms X did not meet the criteria for Health and Independence points. The review officer did recognise Ms X had some difficulties in the property but did not consider this to have a substantial impact on her independence.
20. In August 2021, Ms X contacted the Council about the review decision. Ms X said she did not think her mental health concerns were being taken seriously or that she had to manage chronic pain. The Council agreed to carry out a new assessment of Ms X to see if she qualified for Health and Independence points. It is not clear why the Council decided to do this.
21. The Council also received a further letter from Ms X’s GP, dated August 2021. The Council sent Ms X’s case to an independent medical adviser to consider.
22. In September 2021, the Council sent Ms X a decision which said she did not qualify for Health and Independence priority. In the decision letter, the Council copied the advice it received from the independent medical adviser and referred to this as the independent medical adviser’s decision.
23. In October 2021, Ms X asked the Council to review the decision.
24. In December 2021, the Council provided its review decision. The Council decided Ms X did not meet the criteria for Health and Independence priority. The review officer considered the representations Ms X made in support of her case and the medical evidence provided. The review officer decided there was no evidence to show Ms X’s health conditions prevented her from accessing her property, maintaining independence, or accessing the facilities in the property. The review officer decided the property itself did not have a negative impact on Ms X’s health but it was the behaviour of others in her building.
25. Ms X later raised a formal complaint about how the Council had considered her application for Health and Independence priority. The Council considered this through its complaints procedure. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint and said it was satisfied with the way it handled Ms X’s application.

Analysis

26. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body. We cannot offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made.
27. This means I cannot decide whether Ms X should have received Health and Independence priority or offer any opinion on this. My role is to consider whether there was any fault with the Council’s decision making and if so consider whether this caused any injustice.
28. When the Council re-assessed Ms X in September 2021, it just sent her the recommendation it received from its independent medical adviser. The decision letter also referred to the decision as the independent medical adviser’s decision rather than the Council’s. This was fault.
29. It is for the Council to make a decision on medical priority and not the independent medical adviser. The Council should consider the independent medical adviser’s recommendation, but it should be the Council who makes the decision on an applicant’s medical priority.
30. While this was fault, I do not consider this caused Ms X any injustice. This is because Ms X had this decision reviewed and I am satisfied the review officer adequately considered the case.
31. The records showed they considered the criteria in the Council’s allocations policy and medical evidence provided. They also considered Ms X’s living situation and the concerns she raised about the impact this was having on her health. The review officer also provided reasons and rationale for their decision.
32. While I recognise Ms X disagrees with the review officers decision, this was a decision they were entitled to make. Without procedural fault in the decision making process, I cannot criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation and found there was some fault by the Council when it considered Ms X’s application for Health and Independence priority on its housing register, however this caused no injustice. Therefore no remedy is recommended.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman