Summary: Mrs X complained the Council caused delay and failed to correctly assess her request for medical priority in her housing application. We found the Council caused delay and failed to provide a detailed letter explaining the reasons for its decision following its review of the application. The Council will apologise for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed assessing her medical priority and failed to correctly assess her housing application.
2. She says this has resulted in her and her children staying in unsuitable housing for longer than necessary.

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 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)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

6. I have considered:
• The information provided by Mrs X and discussed the complaint with her;
• The Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• Relevant law and guidance.
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

Law and guidance

8. 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))
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))

The Council’s allocation policy

10. The Council’s allocation policy awards bands for various reasonable preferences.
11. The policy places applicants into either band one, band two, band three or band four. Applicants and household members can declare a medical need which will impact the priority banding given.
12. For band one, applicants must show they have a life-threatening medical condition, which is seriously affected by their current housing. For band two, applicants must have a high need to move for medical reasons as they are experiencing considerable difficulty. For band three, applicants must have a moderate need to move where a move is not essential but would enhance the person’s ability to cope. Band four has no medical priority.
13. The policy states assessors should consider the degree of difficulty the person has managing in their present home and how much worse the home makes their medical condition. It says these decisions should be made within 28 working days of receiving all information.
14. The policy states that if the environmental factors can be removed or managed then no medical priority will be awarded.

Key events

15. Mrs X made a housing application to the Council in late September 2019. In August 2020 the Council reviewed her application and she was placed in band two.
16. In early June 2022 Mrs X submitted a medical assessment form. She asked the Council to consider awarding her medical points. She explained this was due to her son’s asthma.
17. The Council carried out damp treatment in mid-June 2022 to address the mould issues in Mrs X’s property.
18. In mid-July 2022 Mrs X called the Council to say she had been able to obtain some additional evidence about her son’s medical needs. It advised her to send these in by email. Mrs X sent these the same day.
19. In early August the Council arranged for an advanced ventilation unit to be fitted in the bedroom.
20. The Council decided in mid-August 2022 not to award medical priority. During the assessment the Council noted that a referral needed to be made to the property management about the issues with mould she had raised. It also wrote to Mrs X to tell her that she would remain in band two.
21. Mrs X chased the Council for an outcome in mid-August noting that it had now been 11 weeks since she had submitted her application. The Council denied it had delayed the assessment of her application.
22. Unhappy with the response Mrs X returned to the Council in early October to express her concerns. The Council responded stating it believed it had made the correct assessment as it had considered all the medical evidence submitted and its policy. It offered to arrange independent medical advice to review the medical priority.
23. In late October 2022 the Council’s appointed doctor reviewed Mrs X’s case. It provided the medical expert with a copy of all supporting medical documents. It also specifically asked them to consider if the home environment was affecting health. The medical expert concluded that while her son had asthma this was not significant enough to warrant medical priority. The doctor considered the issue of mould in their review.
24. The Council wrote to Mrs X in December 2022 to tell her of the outcome.
25. In July 2023 Mrs X was offered accommodation. She accepted the offer and moved in in mid-August 2023.

Findings

26. The medical evidence provided by Mrs X was considered when deciding what priority to award. The initial application in August was considered by a case officer. On appeal the documents were referred to a relevant medical expert. The Council’s decision is in line with its policy and the medical advice received. There is not fault in the Council’s consideration of Mrs X’s medical points.
27. When the Council wrote to Mrs X in August 2022 it provided no information as to why it had concluded that she should not be awarded medical points. This is not in line with the Council’s policy on the registration details it sends to applicants. It should have included reasons for the decision. The Council’s failure to provide this information clearly left Mrs X confused, and this is fault.
28. The Council’s policy is to complete a review within 28 working days of receipt of documents in support of an application. Shortly before the deadline passed Mrs X provided further information in support of her application. The Council carried out its review within 28 working days of receiving this information. This is in line with the Council’s policy.
29. When Mrs X complained to the Council it agreed to review her application for medical priority in mid-October 2022. The Council notified Mrs X of its decision in early December. The decision was issued outside the 28 working day deadline of late November. This is fault and has caused Mrs X frustration.
30. I recognise Mrs X says the delay was longer because she was offered a response by mid-November, but I have not seen any evidence to confirm this.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the delay in carrying out its assessment of her application and for its failure to provide her with a detailed letter explaining the reasons for its decision.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman