Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council has dealt with his application to join the housing register. We find the Council was at fault for a delay in replying to a review request, but this did not cause any injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council said it did not receive two housing application forms he sent. When it responded, he says the Council misstated his information, and took a week longer to respond than it said it would. Mr X says that, the Council has wrongly said he did not have a medical condition that is severely and adversely affected by his accommodation. Mr X would like the Council to approve his application to move to a different area nearer his family, and put him on the 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 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. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he and the Council provided to us; and
• considered the relevant law and policy to the complaint.
• Considered the comments provided on my draft decision.

Back to top

The Law and Council Policy

Housing allocations

5. Every council 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. 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.
8. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
9. The Council’s Housing Allocations scheme includes provision for people who need to move on medical, disability, welfare or hardship grounds. This states that rehousing will arise on these grounds where the housing situation seriously adversely affects health and the property cannot reasonably be adapted to meet needs.
10. When appropriate, the Council will request an assessment of medical priority applicants from a medical advisor.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

11. Mr X applied to the Council to join its housing register on medical grounds. He completed a medical assessment form in support of his application.
12. Mr X also included a letter from a support service, and evidence he had applied for universal credit. Mr X explained the health difficulties he was suffering with and the reasons he wished to move to be nearer to his family.
13. The Council decided Mr X did not meet its requirements for medical priority for housing. It explained that this was because Mr X’s application and supporting information did not show he had a severe medical condition that was being severely and adversely affected by his current accommodation.
14. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision and asked for a review. The Council acknowledged this request and said a review decision would be provided within 56 days.
15. Nine weeks later, the Council provided a review decision, which upheld its view Mr X was not eligible to be added to the housing register.

Analysis and Findings

16. Mr X has complained the Council lost his applications, misstated his medical needs, and delayed in providing a review response.
17. Mr X said he made two previous applications to the Council. However, without evidence of the completed applications, I cannot find the Council at fault for failing to consider these. Also, I am not satisfied this caused Mr X a significant injustice as soon after this the Council considered his housing register application and decided he was not entitled to join the housing register on medical grounds.
18. Mr X complained the Council misstated information in his medical assessment form. The form asked “How far can you walk before needing a rest? Mr X’s response is “Between 50-100 metres”. It also asked “Can you climb or manage 14 stairs?” Mr X responded “yes”.
19. In its decision letter, the Council said “As you have answered yes to managing 14 steps (stairs) and walking 50 – 100 metres without needing a rest…”. This is not a misstatement of Mr X’s responses.
20. The Council’s review decision letter states Mr X would have to walk only seven minutes to bus stops to visit his family. While it is correct the Transport for London site shows a seven-minute walk, it may be more relevant to consider the distances. There are two walks to bus stops in this journey. The first is 136 metres and the second is 146 metres.
21. This journey planner does not consider any further travel needed from the relevant stop to Mr X’s family member’s homes.
22. I have considered the times Mr X stated he could walk without needing a rest against the distances he needs to walk to make this trip. It is likely that Mr X would need to stop to rest during this journey. However, this does not mean make him eligible for priority medical need.
23. I have seen that both the Council’s decision letter and its review request decision make specific reference to Mr X’s supporting evidence, which makes it clear the Council has considered everything Mr X said. The Council considered all relevant considerations, did not consider any irrelevant considerations, and its conclusions were rational. So I cannot consider the merits of the decision it made.
24. The Council’s provided its review request decision a week later than the 56 days it told Mr X it would take. This is fault. However, even if the Council had provided the decision a week sooner, it would have made no difference to the outcome. Mr X has not suffered the loss of any opportunity or any other injustice as a result of the slight delay.

Back to top

Final decision

25. There was fault in the way the Council dealt with the application, but this did not cause Mr X any injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman