Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her medical evidence when reviewing her application for medical priority on its housing register. The Council was at fault. It delayed and later failed to consider Miss X’s requests for reviews. This caused Miss X avoidable distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and carry out a new review.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her medical evidence when reviewing her application for medical priority on its housing register. She says her priority is wrong and her property is impacting her health. She wants the Council to carry out a new review based on all the relevant information.

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. I have discussed the complaint with Miss X’s representative and considered the information they provided. I also considered information provided by the Council.
5. Miss 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

6. 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))
7. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
8. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process.
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable.
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker.
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

9. The Council’s scheme has three levels of medical priority:
• Band 1 (Emergency): A person has an exceptionally urgent need to move.
• Band 2 (High Priority): A person needs to move urgently as their physical and mental health is severely adversely affected by their current housing situation.
• Band 3 (Medium Priority Plus): A person has a non-urgent need to move due to overcrowding or their physical or mental health is being significantly adversely affected by their current housing situation.
10. The Council says it aims to carry out medical assessments within 10 working days.
11. The scheme says applicants have a statutory right to request a review where there is a decision not to make an allocation. Applicants must make the request within 21 days of the letter telling them of the decision.
12. The Council will let the applicant know the outcome of the review within 8 weeks of the request. The review will be carried out by an officer who was not involved in the original decision and who is senior to the officer who made the original decision.

What happened

13. Miss X joined the Council’s housing register in 2022. Miss X has two children and applied for medical priority. The Council placed Miss X in band 3 of its allocations scheme due to her family needing an extra bedroom but said her medical needs did not meet the threshold for a higher priority.
14. A representative acting on behalf of Miss X asked for a review of the decision in December 2022. In January 2023 the representative emailed the Council saying they were having difficulty submitting medical evidence via its website. The Council did not respond.
15. In March 2023 the representative complained on behalf of Miss X, asking for a new review. The Council responded in April 2023. It said it had reviewed Miss X’s application and she still did not meet the threshold for a higher priority. It apologised for the delay in carrying out the review and provided the representative with an online link to escalate Miss X’s complaint to stage two of its complaint process.
16. The representative replied by email asking to escalate the complaint to stage two. When the Council did not reply, they filled in an online request in July 2023. They said they did not believe the Council had properly considered all the medical evidence.
17. The Council responded to the stage two complaint in September 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding and in carrying out its review of Miss X’s medical evidence. It also acknowledged that a review had not been carried out by someone more senior who was not involved in the original decision. It offered Miss X £100 for the inconvenience caused by its delays and said it would ask a senior manager to carry out another review of Miss X’s priority. It told the representative to send any further evidence by email within 14 days.
18. The representative tried to email the evidence but because of a mistake in the email address, the Council did not receive the email. The representative emailed the correct address in November 2023 asking for an update on the review and a time frame to send more evidence. The Council did not reply to this email.
19. The representative then complained to us on behalf of Miss X. They said they could not send Miss X’s medical evidence and the Council had not carried out a proper review of her housing priority. They said Miss X’s health was worsening and she was living in unsuitable accommodation. The representative wanted the Council to carry out a new medical review based on up-to-date medical evidence.

My findings

20. The Council has accepted it took too long to review Miss X’s medical evidence on two occasions and delayed in responding to her complaint. It also failed to ensure a more senior officer carried out the review, in line with its allocations scheme. This was fault. The Council has apologised and offered Miss X £100. I consider this an appropriate remedy for the impact of the delay on Miss X.
21. The Council said it would carry out a new review. While Miss X’s representative initially sent the medical evidence to an incorrect email address, they did email the correct address in November 2023. The Council failed to carry out the review or respond to the representative’s email. This was fault.
22. As a result Miss X has faced a prolonged period of avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty over whether she was eligible for a higher banding under medical priority.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. Within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to carry out the following:
1. Apologise to Miss X for not carrying out the new review it promised in September 2023 and if it has not already done so, pay her £100 to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused.
2. Carry out a new review of Miss X’s medical priority, providing Miss X and her representative with an opportunity to send any new medical evidence for consideration at this review.
3. If Miss X’s banding changes following the new review, backdate the award of Miss X’s new priority to 14 September 2023. This is the date by which it should have completed the July 2023 review request.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council which caused injustice, which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman