Summary: Mr X complained about his housing allocations priority banding and priority date. We did not find fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s housing priority. The Council considered Mr X’s evidence and made its decision about his priority banding and date in line with its allocations scheme.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about his housing allocations priority banding and priority date.
2. He said the Council did not award enough medical priority that reflects his medical conditions, care and support needs, and the harmful effect his current housing has on his mental health and wellbeing.
3. Mr X also said the Council failed to backdate his priority to March 2021, the date he first made a housing application. He said his needs have not changed since then, but the Council failed to properly assess his medical evidence.
4. Mr X said the Council’s failure to properly assess his priority caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated events dating back to early 2023, around the time when the Council considered new evidence from Mr X’s occupational therapist.
8. I have not investigated the Council’s earlier assessment of Mr X’s housing application in 2021. That element of Mr X’s complaint was previously the subject of an investigation by the Ombudsman, and I will not revisit it.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
10. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
11. Mr 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

12. 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))
13. 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 allocations scheme

14. When the Council accepts a housing application it places applicants into one of four Priority Bands and assigns a priority date.
15. Priority Band A is for emergency or urgent priority, such as an applicant with high needs or high medical priority.
16. Priority Band B is for high priority, such as a household lacking two or more bedrooms, or where an applicant has a medium medical priority.
17. Priority Band C is for medium priority, such as homeless applicants, applicants lacking one bedroom, or an applicant with low medical priority.
18. Priority Band D is low priority. This is for applicants who do not have a housing need identified in Bands A to C.
19. The priority date is the date the applicant made a housing application, or the date the Council placed an application into the applicant’s current Priority Band.
20. If the Council moves an applicant up a Band after reassessing their application because of a change in their circumstances, the Council will give them a new priority date. This will be the date the Council was made aware of the change in circumstances.
21. The Council will only award medical priority where the applicant has a significant medical need to be rehoused. For example, a significant medical condition that is directly affected by an applicant’s current housing circumstances and is likely to be relieved by rehousing them.
22. The Council will award low medical priority where someone has a significant medical condition which is likely to be improved by rehousing.
23. The Council will award medium medical priority where an applicant’s current housing has a significant detrimental effect on their medical condition and their health is likely to seriously deteriorate unless early rehousing occurs.
24. The Council will award high medical priority where an applicant has an emergency medical condition needing immediate rehousing, such as a severe or acute disability.

What happened

25. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
26. Mr X has several medical conditions, including chronic back pain, generalised anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. He also has a history of self-harm and suicidal thoughts. He receives benefits to help both his physical and mental health, and uses some of this benefit to employ an overnight carer. He lives in a one-bedroom home and asked the Council for a second bedroom, so his carer does not have to sleep on the sofa.
27. Following an earlier investigation by the Ombudsman, the Council carried out a review of Mr X’s housing priority in late 2022. It decided it made its previous decision in line with its allocations scheme and confirmed it would not award Mr X added priority for a second bedroom.
28. Mr X’s mother contacted the Council in October 2022. She said the Council’s social care team would support a second bedroom due to Mr X’s psychiatrist’s recommendations. She said Mr X cannot maintain a property on his own and it is unreasonable for a carer to stay on the sofa.
29. The Council said it needed an assessment or something in writing stating Mr X needs two bedrooms on medical grounds.
30. Mr X sent medical evidence about lower back pain. The Council reviewed his evidence and confirmed it allocated priority for a ground floor home, due to his mobility problems. However, it made no changes to Mr X’s Priority Banding or bedroom eligibility.
31. An occupational therapist completed a new report for Mr X on 24 March 2023. Their report includes states:
32. “Mr X has the support of a carer including overnight. This is to support him with physical tasks when required including personal care, bowel care and to monitor and support mental health needs.”
33. “Mr X advises he does not sleep well. Carer stays overnight and sleeps on sofa. Carer will assist with toileting and monitor mental health needs overnight. Carer advised she needs to check home environment for implements that Mr X could use to self-harm.”
34. “Mr X advises although he would like to come out of his bedroom at night when he cannot sleep, he is not able to do this as the carer is asleep on the sofa, he feels confined to bedroom, which exacerbates his anxiety and risk of self-harm.”
35. “Additional bedroom is required as Mr X always needs carer in attendance including overnight.”
36. The Council received Mr X’s new occupational therapy report on 4 May 2023 and agreed to award priority for an additional bedroom for a carer. It placed Mr X’s housing application in Priority Band C with eligibility for two bedrooms.
37. Mr X wanted the Council to increase his medical priority, so he sent a supporting letter from his doctor which included his care plan.
38. The Council noted Mr X’s medical conditions and medication, but confirmed there were no changes to his priority.

My investigation

39. Mr X told me he does not consider his home is suitable, because his carer cannot give the level of care he needs. This affects Mrs X’s mental wellbeing.
40. Mr X said he had difficulty finding a carer willing to sleep on a sofa. His housing causes him distress and worry about what will happen if no carer will provide care due to the lack of extra bedroom. This in turn results in mental health episodes.
41. Mr X said he has complex medical conditions which he should have medical priority for. He also said the Council should backdate his priority to March 2021 when he first applied to join the housing register. He considers the Council did not properly assess his medical evidence then.
42. The Council told me, when Mr X first applied to join the housing register in November 2021, he asked for a second bedroom for an overnight carer. The Council considered Mr X’s medical evidence and determined his accommodation was not impacting on his health. It decided an overnight carer was not a requirement or an assessed need. He needed occasional help during the night, for which the Council determined a carer could stay on a temporary bed or sofa.
43. The Council said Mr X sent a new report from his occupational therapist in May 2023, confirming he needed an overnight carer. The Council reassessed Mr X’s application and decided he needed an extra bedroom.
44. The Council said it considered all Mr X’s evidence, and awarded priority accordingly. While Mr X feels his situation has not changed since November 2021, his occupational therapist did not confirm the need for an extra bedroom until May 2023. The Council backdated Mr X’s priority to March 2023, which is the date Mr X’s occupational therapist completed the new assessment.
45. The Council confirmed it is aware of Mr X’s medical conditions. However, it does not consider Mr X’s accommodation in itself has a negative impact on his health.
46. The Council is satisfied Mr X has a significant medical condition likely to be improved by rehousing. It said it awarded him low medical priority in line with its allocations policy.

Analysis

47. The Council increased Mr X’s housing priority in May 2023 after seeing new evidence from his occupational therapist.
48. The Council placed Mr X into Priority Band C, based on his level of medical need and his need for a second bedroom.
49. Mr X argued his home is not suitable for his needs and worsens his medical conditions. He would therefore like increased medical priority. The Council recognised Mr X’s medical conditions and need for a two-bedroom home. It gave him priority to reflect this. I found the Council considered the views of Mr X’s occupational therapist and the medical professionals involved in Mr X’s care. However, it decided his home is not having a harmful impact on his health.
50. For Mr X to move to Priority Band B, he would need to show his home has a significant harmful impact on his medical condition causing his health to seriously worsen unless early rehousing occurs. The Council does not consider Mr X meets these criteria.
51. I found the Council made its decision about Mr X’s Priority Banding in line with its housing allocations scheme. The Council is therefore not at fault.
52. The Council backdated Mr X’s priority to March 2023, which is the date when his occupational therapist completed their new report. Again, I found that decision was in line with the Council’s allocations scheme. The scheme clearly states the priority date will change if the Council moves someone up a Band after reassessing their application because of a change in circumstances. I therefore found no fault by the Council.
53. I appreciate Mr X considers his medical conditions and housing needs have not changed since he first applied to join the housing register. However, I found there was a material change in the recommendations made by his occupational therapist in their March 2023 report. This was the first time the occupational therapist definitively said Mr X needs a second bedroom for a carer.
54. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have completed my investigation. I did not find fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s housing priority. The Council considered Mr X’s evidence and made its decision about his priority banding and date in line with its allocations scheme.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman