Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly consider her medical condition and housing needs when assessing her priority on the housing register and property entitlement. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Miss X’s housing needs. However the delay in responding to Miss X’s review request is fault, for which the Council should apologise.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly consider her medical condition and housing needs when assessing her priority on the housing register and property entitlement.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Miss X; and
• Miss X and the Council 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

5. 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))
6. 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))
7. The Council’s allocation policy places applicants into one of five bands based on their level of urgency and housing need. Band one have the most urgent housing need and those with no identified specific housing need are placed in Band five.
8. The policy confirms it will award a reasonable preference on medical or disability grounds to

“Applicants whose housing is unsuitable for medical reasons, or due to a disability, but who are not housebound, or whose health or safety is not as such risk to require immediate re housing.”

9. These applicants will be placed in priority Band 2.
10. The policy also sets out the type of property that different households can express an interest in/ bid on. It specifies that a single person can bid on bedsits and one-bedroom flats. Households with one to four people can also bid on two-bedroom flats and maisonettes. But only households with one or two children can bid on two-bedroom houses.

What happened here

11. In April 2022 Miss X applied to join the housing register, asking to be rehoused for health reasons. Miss X’s current property is a one-bedroom, first floor flat with steep steps to the front door. She also completed a medical form and explained she needed a property with a flat entrance or ramp, but not steps and a second room for her carer to stay in.
12. The Council considered Miss X’s application but did not award medical priority. It noted it could only award a medical priority when the medical condition was adversely affected by the current property and a move to alternative accommodation would significantly improve the condition. It said this had not been established here.
13. Ms X requested a review of this decision. The Council sought advice from its medical adviser who recommended Miss X have Band 2 priority. They considered Miss X’s mobility issues and her mental health and advised her needs could reasonably be met by visiting carers and care service in the usual way. They advised the Council an extra bedroom for a live-in carer was not medically essential in this case.
14. The medical adviser identified Miss X’s housing needs as ground floor if the property did not have a lift, and any floor if there was a lift, with minimal internal stairs.
15. The Council wrote to Miss X confirming it had awarded medical priority for properties that met the medical advisors recommendations. Miss X requested a further review in August 2022. Although she now had Band 2 priority Miss X felt the Council had not taken account of the fact she needed a carer on a near permanent basis. She was currently unable to receive this care as she did not have space for the carer to stay at her property.
16. Miss X was also concerned about bidding on properties in high rise flats as if the lift did not work she would be unable to use the stairs to leave the property. She also told the Council living in a high rise flat would worsen her PTSD. Miss X asked to be allowed to bid on 2 bedroom houses.
17. As she did not receive a response, Miss X chased the Council in November and December 2022. The Council wrote to Miss X in January 2023 and advised that having considered all of the information available it had decided to uphold the original decision. That is, to award an urgent medical priority, and the recommendation made for a property with ground floor maximum if not served by a lift, any floor served by a lift and a property with minimal internal stairs.
18. It noted Miss X wanted to move to a two-bedroom property and confirmed that in line with the Council’s policy she could express an interest in any available property that meets the recommendation. The Council advised Miss X of her right to appeal to the High Court if she disagreed with the decision.
19. The Council sent Miss X a further copy of this letter in May 2023.
20. Miss X continues to dispute the Council’s decision and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. Miss X is happy she has Band 2 priority but feels she should be eligible to bid on all two-bedroom properties, including houses. She says her carer stayed with her a least four times a week to support her but had to leave as there was no room for them in her current property. Miss X says she struggles to manage on her own.
21. Miss X has not bid on any properties to date as she is concerned she would be successful and she does not want to be offered another unsuitable property. She considers a two-bedroom house would be the most suitable option and would like to be able to bid on them.
22. In response to my enquires the Council says its panel considered the supporting information Miss X had provided, including the letter from her GP who stated she may benefit from a carer. It also took advice from its medical adviser who considered Miss X’s needs could be met by visiting carers.
23. It acknowledges that at the time of Miss X’s review request there was a backlog of applications to be considered. It has put measures in place to address this.
24. The Council says Miss X is able to express her interest in two-bedroom properties in line with its housing allocations policy. It is required to adhere to the policy and would not consider allowing Miss X to express an interest in two-bedroom houses.

Analysis

25. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether Miss X should have medical priority or to specify the type of property she can express an interest in/ bid on; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council assessed her application correctly. We cannot find fault with a council's assessment of a housing applicant's priority or housing need if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
26. I am satisfied the Council has taken account of all of the relevant evidence and followed proper procedure in awarding Miss X medical priority and placing her in Band 2. In making this decision the Council sought medical advice regarding Miss X’s housing needs and suitable properties. This recommended a ground floor property where there is no lift, or a property on any floor where there is a lift, with minimal internal stairs.
27. Miss X would like a two-bedroom property so that her carer can stay with her. Although the medical adviser did not consider this was medically essential, it is open to Miss X to bid on two-bedroom properties. The housing allocations policy allows Miss X to express an interest in two-bedroom flats and maisonettes.
28. I recognise that Miss X would like to be able to bid on two-bedroom houses but this is not an option for single people or people without children. The Council’s decision not to allow Miss X to bid on two-bedroom houses is in line with its published allocation scheme. We would not find fault with the way it has reached this decision.
29. The Council delayed in considering Miss X’s review request of August 2022. The Council should have completed this review within eight weeks but took almost three times that long. Such a delay is unacceptable and amounts to fault. The Council should apologise to Miss X for this delay.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X for the significant delay in considering and responding to her review request.
31. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. Subject to further comments by Miss X and the Council, I intend to complete my investigation on the basis there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Miss X's housing needs. However the delay in responding to Miss X's review request is fault, for which the Council should apologise.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman