Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council considered her application until its housing allocation scheme. There was fault in how the Council assessed Mrs X’s priority for social housing. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay her a financial remedy. The Council also agreed to remind relevant staff about the need to fully consider all the evidence they have and properly record the reasons for their decisions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the priority and number of allowable bedrooms the Council assigned to her under its housing allocation scheme. She says the Council:
• failed to properly consider the evidence she provided of her health and social needs;
• wrongly refused to allow her to bid on two-bedroom properties with the same priority as one-bedroom properties, even though she and her husband cannot share a bedroom because of her health conditions; and
• communicated with her poorly, including failing to return her phone calls after it agreed to do so.
2. As a result, she says that her move to a more suitable property has been delayed, her husband must sleep in their living room and that this caused Mrs and Mr X significant upset and distress.
3. She wants the Council to allow her to apply for two-bedroom properties with her higher priority.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered:
• the information Mrs X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• relevant Council policy.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

9. 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))
10. 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))
11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
12. The Council’s allocations scheme says:
• applicants can include, in their applications, their spouse, civil partners or co-habiting partners where the relationship has lasted for 12 months or more; (section 2.2)
• applicants are placed into one of four priority bands with Band One being those most in need and Band Four being those least in need; (section 2.5)
• where a member of the applicant’s household has a ‘high’ need to move because of medical or social reasons, the Council places applicants in Band Two; (section 3.1)
• where a member of an applicant’s household has a ‘moderate; need to move for the same reasons, the Council places applicants in Band Three; (section 3.1)
• applications for medical priority are considered by a senior Council officer who can ask for medical evidence from an applicants GP, other medical professionals or the Council’s independent medical advisers; (section 3.2)
• where a member of an applicant’s household have a disability or need an adapter property and their current property causes them ‘considerable difficulty’ the Council places applicants in Band Two; (section 3.3)
• the Council also decides what level of adapted property someone can bid on, based on their disability and needs; (section 3.3)
• the Council decides how many bedrooms an applicant needs based on the size of their household and the number of people included in the application. For a couple (an applicant and their long-term partner) the Council says applicants need one bedroom; (section 4.1)
• where an applicant needs more bedrooms because of a medical or social need, the Council can allow applicants to bid on larger properties if a senior officer decides this is necessary; (section 4.2.1)
• when deciding between competing bids, the Council allocates properties to the bidder which has held the highest priority for the longest time.
13. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
14. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

What happened

15. Mrs X lives with her husband, Mr X, in a one-bedroom property. Mrs X has several serious medical conditions which affect her mobility and mean she needs to use a wheelchair. Mrs X also needs a special, medical grade bed to sleep in. This bed means Mrs X and her husband cannot sleep in the same bedroom, so Mr X sleeps in their living room. Mrs X’s current property is not accessible for her wheelchair.
16. Mrs X applied to join the Council’s housing register in late September 2022. In her application Mrs X explained her medical conditions, why she needed to move and that her husband had to sleep in their living room.
17. The Council asked Mrs X to complete a medical questionnaire and to send it evidence of her medical conditions and needs. Mrs X returned the form in early November 2022. With her form, Mrs X provided evidence of her medical conditions, including a report from an occupational therapist working for the county council. This report set out Mrs X’s needs in detail, including that she and her husband needed separate spaces to sleep in.
18. In early January 2023, the Council made its decision on Mrs X’s application. It decided Mrs X had a ‘high’ medical need to move and she needed an adapted property. However, it decided Mrs X needed only one bedroom.
19. Mrs X replied to the Council, questioning its decision that she needed only one bedroom. She explained she could not share a bedroom with Mr X due to her medical needs and her specialist bed.
20. The Council referred Mrs X’s case to its medical advisers for advice at the beginning of February 2023. The medical advisers replied around two weeks later and advised that Mrs X did not need two bedrooms but should have a large enough between for two single beds. Two days later the Council confirmed its existing decision that Mrs X needed only one bedroom.
21. Again, Mrs X queried the Council’s decision and whether it had considered the evidence she had provided, especially the occupational therapy report. In response to this, the Council asked Mr X to complete a medical questionnaire which he returned in the following weeks.
22. The Council reassessed Mrs and Mr X’s priority in early March 2023. It decided Mrs and Mr X needed a second bedroom, but that they should only have Band Three priority when bidding on two-bedroom homes.
23. Mrs X complained to the Council about its decision, which the Council confirmed in its response to her complaint in early April 2023. Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s response, so she complained to the Ombudsman.
24. In mid-June 2023, during my investigation, the Council reviewed Mrs X’s application and changed its decision. It decided Mrs X can bid on two-bedroom properties adapted properties with Band Two priority. It backdated Mrs X’s priority to early November 2022, when it first had full details of Mrs X’s medical conditions.

My findings

25. In its first assessment of Mrs X’s housing need, there is no evidence the Council properly considered the medical evidence Mrs X provided with her medical questionnaire. While the Council’s very brief notes of its decision making refer to that it received the occupational therapy report, there is no detail of how the officer considered this or why they disagreed with the recommendations in that report. The failure to properly consider the evidence available and to record the reasons for the decision was fault.
26. When the Council asked its medical advisers for an opinion in February 2023, the advice it received did not consider whether Mrs and Mr X needed two bedrooms. The Council asked for further advice about this point and the Council’s medical advisers sent a short reply recommending one bedroom large enough for two single beds.
27. My view is the Council simply adopted the recommendation of its medical advisers, rather than weighing this advice with the other evidence it had. There is no evidence of how the Council resolved the conflicting advice from its medical provided with the occupational therapy report saying Mrs and Mr X needed separate spaces to sleep. The Council did not record why it preferred the brief advice from its medical advisers, who had not spoken to or assessed Mrs X, over the detailed report from an occupational therapist who had assessed Mrs X in person and in her current home. There is also no evidence the Council considered whether it would be possible to fit Mrs X’s specialist bed and a second single bed in the same room, whether finding a large enough bedroom would delay Mrs X being rehoused or whether large enough bedrooms exist in the local housing stock. This failure to properly consider the evidence was also fault.
28. The Council’s allocation policy makes no provision for different priorities based on different numbers of bedrooms, or different priorities for different people included in one application. Mrs X’s application included Mr X, as her husband. Therefore, the Council should have assessed their combined needs and assigned them a single status. If Mr X needed two bedrooms, so did Mrs X, as they lived in the same household. If Mrs X had a high priority to move, so did Mr X, because they lived in the same household. Therefore, when the Council decided Mrs and Mr X needed a second bedroom in March 2023, it should have updated Mrs X’s status to allow her to bid on two-bedroom properties with her Band Two status. Its decision to give Mrs and Mr X two different priorities was not in line with the Council’s allocation policy and was therefore fault.
29. As a result of these failures, Mrs and Mr X had the incorrect priority between November 2022 until the end of June 2023.
30. Although Mrs X had the wrong priority until July 2023, it is unlikely she would have been the successful bidder on eligible properties in that time. Records of properties let by the Council between November 2022 and the end of June 2023 show the successful bidders on adapted properties Mrs X would have been eligible for all had either higher priority than Mrs X, or held the same priority as Mrs X for longer than she would have.
31. Mrs X said the Council communicated with her poorly and failed to return her phone calls. The evidence shows the Council did keep Mrs X informed about her application through email, relatively regularly. I am not satisfied the evidence shows the Council’s communication with Mrs X fell to an unacceptable level such as to constitute fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• apologise to Mrs X for the distress caused by its failure to properly consider housing register application; and
• pay Mrs X £400 to recognise the distress caused to her in having to make repeated approaches to the Council to correct her housing priority.
33. Within three months of my final decision, the Council will remind relevant housing staff of the need to properly consider all the evidence available to them, resolve any conflicts of evidence and adequately record the reasons for their decisions.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. There was fault in how the Council assessed Mrs X’s priority for social housing. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay her a financial remedy. The Council also agreed to remind relevant staff about the need to fully consider all the evidence they have and properly record the reasons for their decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman