Summary: The Council’s decision Mrs X was not in housing need failed properly to consider an OT report about the impact of her current home on her physical health. The Council was also at fault for delays progressing Mrs X’s application and completing a review of its decision. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X, review its decision, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her application to transfer to a new home. In particular, that:
1. the Council’s decision she was not in housing need failed properly to consider the impact of her current home on her physical health; and
2. the Council delayed progressing her application.
2. As a result, Mrs X says she remains in unsuitable accommodation which she is unable to leave for months at a time.

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. I considered the complaint and the information the Council provided.
6. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
7. Mrs X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

8. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
9. 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))
10. 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.
11. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
12. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 3 (lowest priority). Applicants with no housing need are not allowed to join the housing register.
13. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 1 to applicants who:
• Are housebound, or unable to go out without help
• Are unable to move around their current home, and cannot access kitchen or bathing facilities.
14. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 3 to applicants who:
• Are disabled or have restricted mobility and need to move to suitable housing
• Need adaptations that cannot be carried out in their current property.

What happened

15. Mrs X has a medical condition which affects her mobility. She uses a walking stick and sometimes a wheelchair. Mrs X lives in a third floor flat. There is no lift in the building. She is a tenant of a housing association.
16. In October 2021, Mrs X contacted the Council to say she needed to move. She said living in a top floor flat with no lift was increasingly difficult.
17. Mrs X contacted the Council again in December for an update. The Council said it had recently registered her application. It said its medical assessment team would look at the application. If it needed more information, it would contact Mrs X.
18. Mrs X contacted the Council for updates in December, January and February.
19. In late February 2022, the Council told Mrs X it needed more information about how her current home affected her medical condition. Mrs X replied to say that because of the stairs, she did not leave the house for months at a time. She relied on her grandchildren to help her.
20. In March, the Council said it needed information from a health professional to confirm Mrs X’s description of her housing needs.
21. Mrs X sent the Council a medical summary from her doctor in April. She then sent several requests for an update over the following months.
22. In June, the Council told Mrs X that the information she had provided so far was not enough for it to make a decision about her medical priority for a move. A few days later, Mrs X sent the Council a report from an Occupational Therapist (OT). The OT, who assessed Mrs X at home, said:
• Mrs X had “severe difficulty” getting up and down the 28 stairs to her flat
• Mrs X could not access the bath or shower
• Even with major adaptations to the bathroom, the property would not be suitable because of the stairs
• They recommended a move to a ground floor flat or one with a lift.
23. The OT report concluded “failure to address the current situation may have an impact on [Mrs X’s] future health and wellbeing as she becomes increasingly house bound.
24. In July, the Council told Mrs X it would sent the information she provided to its medical assessor.
25. In August, the Council wrote to Mrs X to say it had decided she had no housing need and so would not be included on the housing register. Its decision letter said Mrs X had not “provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the condition/s is/are caused or made worse by your present accommodation.”
26. In September, Mrs X’s grandchild contacted the Council on her behalf to ask about the outcome of her application. Mrs X had not received the Council’s decision in August. The Council explained the decision over the phone and said it would send out a letter by post.
27. The Council’s records say it treated this as a request for a review.
28. In October, Mrs X said she had not received the letter but wanted to ask for a review of the decision. She provided copies of the medical summary and OT report already provided. She also provided a letter from a specialist service about her treatment.
29. In November, Mrs X asked the Council for an update. The Council said the information Mrs X had provided was the same as it had already considered.
30. In January 2023, the Council apologised to Mrs X for its delay reviewing the decision she was not in housing need. It completed the review in late January. It said its medical advisor was “unable to recommend rehousing” and therefore Mrs X had no housing need.
31. Following a complaint from Mrs X and contact from her MP, the Council decided in March to withdraw its previous decision and reassess Mrs X’s housing need.

My findings

Housing need

32. I can see no basis for the Council’s decision that Mrs X has no housing need. The Occupational Therapist’s report says Mrs X cannot access bathing facilities and has severe difficulty managing the stairs. Meanwhile, the report from the Council’s medical advisor says Mrs X has “no priority”. It does not say why or what information it considered.
33. The decision about housing priority is for the Council to make. It should not simply adopt the opinion of a third-party medical assessor. It should consider all the evidence and arrive at its own decision. There is nothing in the Council’s decision or review decision to explain why it preferred the medical advisor’s opinion to that of the OT service. This is particularly important when the OT had met with and assessed Mrs X in her home. I would expect the review decision to engage with the evidence and explain why the OT’s assessment did not meet the criteria for priority on the housing register. In the absence of such an explanation, I find the Council failed properly to consider the OT’s report in deciding Mrs X has no housing need. This was fault.
34. The Council has already agreed to complete a new assessment of Mrs X’s housing need. This is welcome. Should this new assessment conclude that Mrs X does have a housing need, the Council should backdate her priority to 1 July 2022.

Delay

35. Mrs X applied to join the Council’s housing register in October 2021. It took the Council until February 2022 to tell her it needed more medical information from her. This was a delay of three months and was fault.
36. Mrs X provided medical information in April 2022. It took the Council until June to tell her the information she provided was insufficient. This was a delay of three months and was fault.
37. Mrs X asked for a review of the Council’s decision in mid-September 2022. It took the Council until late January 2023 to complete its review. The Council’s scheme says it will complete reviews within 56 days. This was a delay of two months and was fault.
38. These faults caused Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty, which is an injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X from the faults I have identified the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mrs X in writing
• Tell Mrs X the outcome of its assessment of her housing need and, if the decision is that she can join the housing register, backdate her application to 1 July 2022
• Pay Mrs X £250 in recognition of her avoidable distress.
40. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
41. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Provide guidance or training to staff conducting reviews of medical assessment decisions to ensure decisions explain how the Council has reached its decision, with reference to the evidence and the allocations scheme.
• Remind relevant staff that if the Council will not be able to meet its 56-day timescale for responding to review requests, it should tell the applicant this before 56 days have passed.
42. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman