Summary: there was fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s request for a review of her priority band on the Home Choice Plus scheme. But the evidence does not indicate it would have awarded a higher priority band before October 2023 if this fault had not occurred. The injustice is limited to Mrs X’s frustration with the Council’s failure to make a written decision when she first requested a review and its delay in responding to her complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that the Council did not properly consider all the medical and other supporting evidence she provided when it reviewed her priority band on Home Choice Plus in September 2023. She says her current accommodation is unsuitable due to her medical needs and mobility difficulties. It is also in a poor state of repair and has hazards.

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 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 spoken to Mrs X on the telephone. I considered all the evidence she sent and the Council’s comments and housing records. I also considered the relevant parts of the Council’s published housing allocations scheme which explains the criteria it uses to determine an applicant’s priority band.
5. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

What I found

The published housing allocations scheme
 

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 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))
   

8. Housing applicants have a legal right to ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
9. 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 who is 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;

• applicants must be notified in writing of the outcome of the review. The notification must set out the reasons for the decision. This will assist the applicant and the authority if, for example, the applicant is not satisfied with the outcome and decides to seek a judicial review or to take their case to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Council’s allocations scheme

10. The Council is a partner with other councils in a choice-based lettings scheme called Home Choice Plus. Applicants who are accepted on the scheme can bid for available properties which are advertised online every week. Bidders are shortlisted in order of their priority band and their time in the band.
11. Accepted applicants are prioritised by placing them in one of eight priority bands following an assessment of their housing needs.
12. The highest band – Priority – is only for applicants who are statutorily homeless and owed the main housing duty or owed the relief duty and likely to be accepted for the main housing duty.
13. The second highest priority band – Gold Plus – includes applicants who:
• occupy a property in a serious state of disrepair, including where the council could have served an Improvement Notice for a Category 1 hazard ; or
• have a verified high medical need/disability that is directly affected by the current housing situation and which would be immediately improved by moving.

To qualify for Gold Plus, applicants who live outside the Council’s area must have a local connection because they work there or have close family members who have lived in the Council’s area for at least five years.

14. The seventh priority band – Bronze Plus – is for households who do not meet any of the reasonable preference criteria but who have a local connection. This includes households with a low housing need such as:
• low level medical or welfare issues;
• suffering financial hardship;
• already in social housing and seeking a transfer.
15. The lowest band – Bronze – is for households with no reasonable preference and no local connection.
16. The council’s allocation policy only allows pensioner or households with a disabled person to bid on accommodation reserved for older people, such as bungalows. To qualify, the applicant must either be aged 60 or over or receive Disability Living Allowance or Personal Independence Payment (PIP). The policy also includes households with a disabled member.

The key events

17. Mrs X is a Housing Association tenant. At the time of these events, she lived in a one bedroom bungalow in another Council’s area which I shall refer to as Council C.
18. Mrs X has medical conditions which affect her physical and mental health and limit her mobility. She has experienced domestic abuse.
19. Mrs X has lived at three different properties since she first applied to join Wyre Forest Council’s Housing Register in February 2022. When she first applied, she was living in a one bedroom bungalow in Council D’s area which I call Property 1.
20. In early April 2022 she completed a health and disability assessment form to request medical priority. She listed her medical conditions and medication and gave contact details for her GP and a specialist. On the form she said the bungalow was suitable for her medical needs. But she felt socially isolated in the area and wished to move to a bungalow with a garden in the Council’s area to be closer to her children and reduce her travelling time and costs. She said they could also provide her with care and support.
21. Mrs X provided supporting letters from her GP and specialist. She also provided medical records and a letter of support from an independent domestic abuse adviser. Mrs X was not living with her husband at the time.
22. In mid-May 2022 Mrs X told the Council she would like her husband to be added to her housing application because they were living together again. She said they required separate bedrooms due to one of her medical conditions and her husband’s work patterns. Mrs X said she slept on a sofa in the living room. She also reported that they were victims of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour from a neighbour. She wanted to move to the Council’s area to be near her adult children and help care for her grandchildren.
23. A housing advice officer, whom I shall call Officer A, advised Mrs X to log on to her account to update her application to include her husband. She asked for details of her children’s addresses to check whether Mrs X had a local connection. Officer A advised her to submit medical evidence to support her request for a two bedroom property.
24. In late May 2022 Mrs X amended her housing application online. She said she would forward letters from her doctor separately. Officer A told Mrs X she would consider her need for two bedroom accommodation when she received the medical evidence. Until then, she had the correct priority band and would remain registered for a one bedroom property.
25. The Council reassessed her application and increased her priority band from Bronze to Bronze Plus in May 2022 because it was satisfied Mrs X had a local connection to its area.
26. On 1 September 2022 Mrs X sent new medical evidence to the housing advice team and asked for a review of her banding. Four days later, she moved to Property 2 which was private rented accommodation. She says this property was in a serious state of disrepair and had a rodent infestation. Mrs X stayed in this property for six months before she moved to Property 3.
27. In February 2023 Mrs X moved to her current home, a one bedroom Housing Association bungalow. I shall call this Property 3. She completed a new housing application form in March 2023 to notify this change in circumstances.
28. On 9 June Mrs X completed the Council’s online complaint form. She complained that the Council had ignored all the medical evidence she had submitted and her request for a review of her priority band. She said a female officer, whom she did not name, had been rude and spoken over her during a telephone call. She said her health was deteriorating but the Council would not allow her to bid for suitable properties (bungalows). The Customer Service team acknowledged her complaint and forwarded it to a manager in the service on the same day.
29. In late June, following a reminder from Mrs X, the Council’s Customer Service team confirmed that all the documents she had submitted had been received. Mrs X responded to say the Council had still not replied to her complaint.
30. The Council says an officer telephoned Mrs X on 4 July. She explained her priority band and “household type” categorisation. When it replied to our enquiries, the Council said this call was a response to Mrs X’s complaint and request for a review. At the time, the complaints procedure did not require officers to send a written response to a complaint.
31. In August 2023 Mrs X again requested a review of her priority band. She sent a copy of her physiotherapy records. She referred to her June complaint. She said the Council should assess the latest evidence, review her priority band and allow her to bid for bungalows. She referred to the July telephone call when the officer told her she was adequately housed. She asked the Council to provide a written response to her complaint explaining why it would not increase her priority band. She also asked why she was not allowed to bid for bungalows.
32. In late August 2023 Mrs X informed the Council she had sustained an injury on the steep hill outside her bungalow. She had also tripped on the slabs and steps outside her bungalow which were crumbling and dangerous. She said she was waiting for Adult Social Care to visit to assess her needs.
33. In mid-September 2023 Mrs X completed a new health and disability assessment form. She included details of her medical conditions and said she had tripped and fallen on the steps. She said a tribunal was due to consider her appeal against the decision she was not entitled to a Personal Independence Payment.
34. In late September 2023 Officer A sent a written response to Mrs X’s request for a review of her priority band. She said she had considered all the medical evidence submitted, including the evidence from the physiotherapist. She considered Mrs X was suitably housed in her current one bedroom bungalow. She said the landlord should address any defects with the safety of the external steps and access to the bungalow. He said the landlord may need an Occupational Therapy report to decide whether Mrs X required adaptations to the property. She said Mrs X’s circumstances did not meet the high threshold for Gold Plus priority.
35. She also said Mrs X was not entitled to bid for bungalows because neither she nor her husband met the age threshold or received a qualifying disability benefit.
36. In early October 2023 Mrs X’s GP wrote a letter to support her need for rehousing. She explained Mrs X found it very difficult to manage the flight of steep steps down to the property due to her mobility difficulties. She also said her records showed Mrs X had separated from Mr X earlier that year.
37. In early October 2023 an Occupational Therapist based in Council C’s adult social care service wrote a report after assessing Mrs X’s housing needs. She said the current bungalow did not meet Mrs X’s needs and could not be adapted. She said Mrs X needed to move to a one bedroom bungalow with level access and accessible showering facilities. She said Mrs X was at high risk of falls when negotiating the many deep concrete steps to access the bungalow due to her mobility issues. Her photographs show a steep flight of concrete steps with handrails going down a steep grassy bank at the front of the property.
38. A few days later an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) from Council C inspected the property. She found the steps at the rear of the property to the garden were in extremely poor condition and were a Category 1 hazard. She also said the step from the back door to the rear patio was unsafe. The uneven patio slabs in the rear garden were a Category 2 hazard. The EHO wrote to the Housing Association to ask them to contact her within 14 days with their proposals to remove or reduce the hazards.
39. The Council says these reports were uploaded to Mrs X’s housing account on 15 October.
40. After considering these reports, a team leader decided to award Gold Plus priority backdated to 15 October 2023 when the Council received the two reports. In mid-November the Council replied to an enquiry made by Mrs X’s MP and informed him of this recent change to the priority band. The MP forwarded the Council’s email to Mrs X about one week later.
41. Mrs X says the Council did not inform her directly that her priority had changed. She found out when she logged on to her Home Choice Plus account. The Council told us there is no record that a letter was sent to Mrs X via the Home Choice Plus account. As the team leader left the council in late November 2023, it cannot say if, or how, the change in priority was communicated to Mrs X. But it says Mrs X regularly logged on to her account so she would have seen the new priority. It offered to write to Mrs X to confirm her banding and the change from a two person to a one person household.
42. The Council says it was not until it received the reports from the Occupational Therapist and Environmental Health Officer that it had evidence her health conditions could be improved by moving to alternative accommodation. She was then awarded Gold Plus priority from the date it received these reports. It does not consider Mrs X met the threshold to be considered homeless and says it has advised her of this.
43. Mrs X is under the age of 60. The Department for Work and Pensions refused to award PIP and Mrs X appealed to the tribunal. She did not meet the Council’s criteria to bid for bungalows. In late November 2023 Mrs X provided evidence she was entitled to the “limited capacity for work or work related activity” status for Universal Credit. On that basis, the Council accepted she was disabled and amended her account to allow her to bid for older people’s accommodation, including bungalows.
44. When it replied to my enquiries in March 2024, the Council commented that there are a significant number of households on its Housing Register and a limited supply of housing. The property Mrs X had bid for most recently was allocated to someone in a higher priority band who was statutorily homeless. The household in the same priority band as Mrs X that came highest on the shortlist was awarded Gold Plus priority in 2015. So it does not consider Mrs X has suffered any injustice in terms of missing opportunities to be rehoused.
45. In late October 2023 Mrs X asked the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to make a homelessness referral to the Council under the “duty to refer” provisions. She said she was homeless, sofa-surfing and mentioned the Category 1 hazard in her home. The Council has checked its records, and a national database which registers referrals, but found no trace of receiving a referral from DWP.
46. In response to an enquiry from Mrs X’s MP in late November 2023, the Council said it did not consider Mrs X’s current home was so unsuitable that she was homeless as it was not reasonable for her to continue occupying it. It said it understood the Housing Association was taking action to remedy the category 1 hazard. Mrs X says the Housing Association did several inspections but did not start remedial works.
47. Mrs X complained to us in early November 2023 before she found out the Council had awarded Gold Plus priority. She considers the Council should have awarded this priority sooner based on the medical evidence she had submitted since April 2022.

My analysis

48. It is important to note that medical priority for housing is not awarded simply because the applicant has one or more medical conditions. It is only awarded when the applicant’s current accommodation has an adverse impact on their health or disability and a move would improve their situation. In this case, Mrs X has lived in three different properties since she applied to the Council for housing. So her needs had to be reassessed each time she moved.
49. The Council correctly assessed the priority band when Mrs X was living in Property 1. This was a one bedroom bungalow. On the April 2022 health and disability assessment form Mrs X said it was suitable for her medical needs. She had applied for housing because she wanted to move closer to her adult children who lived in the Council’s area. The decision to award Bronze priority, and then upgrade it to Bronze Plus priority when the Council confirmed her local connection, was made correctly in line with the criteria set out in the housing allocations policy. There was no fault at this stage.
50. It is not clear whether the Council reassessed Mrs X’s needs and priority when she moved to Property 2. But I cannot say, on the available evidence, whether the Council would have increased Mrs X’s priority band if it had reassessed her application then. The uncertainty about the outcome of a reassessment is in itself an injustice. Mrs X lived in this property for six months before Council C arranged for her to move to Property 3.
51. After Mrs X moved to Property 3, she submitted a web complaint form to the Council in early June 2023. Having read the complaint form, it was partly a complaint about the service provided but also a request for a review of her priority band. An officer responded informally by telephoning Mrs X in early July. But she did not issue a review decision in writing then.
52. As the statutory guidance says review decisions must be notified in writing, and give reasons, it was fault not to send a written review decision.
53. The Council later sent a written review decision in late September 2023 after Mrs X persisted and made a further review request in August. But it should not have been necessary to make a repeat request to get a written decision.
54. The crucial evidence which led the Council to award Gold Plus priority was the Occupational Therapist’s report confirming that Property 3 was not suitable for Mrs X and could not be adapted. The Council did not receive this evidence until mid-October 2023, after the review decision was made. The Council then promptly reassessed Mrs X’s priority when it received this report. I do not consider Mrs X’s circumstances met the criteria for Gold Plus priority until the Occupational Therapy report confirmed Property 3 was unsuitable and could not be adapted. I say this because the published criteria say there must be a verified high medical need. The Occupational Therapist’s report provided that confirmation.
55. It was fault not to have informed Mrs X directly when Gold Plus priority was awarded. But she found out shortly after when the MP forwarded the Council’s reply to his enquiry and she logged on to her Home Choice Plus account. So I do not consider the failure to directly inform Mrs X caused any significant injustice because she found out about the change in priority reasonably soon.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• Apologise in writing to Mrs X for the frustration caused by the way it handled her June 2023 request for a review of her priority band and its delay in responding to her complaint;
• Issue a written briefing to officers in the housing advice team to remind them that review decisions must always be communicated in writing to the applicant;
• Pay Mrs X £250 to recognise the frustration and time and trouble caused by the faults in the way it handled her case.
57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have completed the investigation and made a finding of fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman