Summary: Miss Y and Ms Z complained the Council failed to secure suitable accommodation for them despite accepting they had a priority need to move. We do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Miss Y and Ms Z complain the Council has failed to secure suitable accommodation for them. Miss Y and Ms Z say the Council accepted they have a priority need and agreed to make a direct offer when a property becomes available, but this is likely to take years. Miss Y and Ms Z feel the Council has wrongly declined them for a community care nomination.

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 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)
4. 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

5. I considered all the information Miss Y and Ms Z provided about this complaint. I also considered information received from the Council.
6. Miss Y and Ms Z, 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

7. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Councils must make all allocations in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, Section 166A(1) & (14))
8. Councils must tell applicants in writing whether they are eligible for an allocation and any reasonable preference, with its reasons.
9. Councils must also tell applicants of their right to request a review of these allocations decisions. (Housing Act 1996, Section 166A(9))
10. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• Homeless people.
• People in unsanitary, 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))
11. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s allocations policy

12. The Council places successful applicants to its housing register into priority groups and awards points according to their priority need. How the Council decides which priority group and points to award is defined in its allocations policy.
13. Where an applicant has mobility issues, the Council places them in one of four mobility categories according to the severity of their issues and the type of property they need. The Council’s policy defines the criteria for each category.
14. The Council’s policy says the Council will consider making a direct offer of a property to an applicant where it considers it would be inappropriate for them to participate in its usual choice based lettings process. This includes where the Council wants to ensure best use is made of its housing stock for those who need specific adaptations.
15. The Council’s policy also sets out its duty to consider and, where possible, meet accommodation needs as part of a care package. It explains “Community Care Nominations” are to assist people who are not eligible for re-housing through a different route.
16. The Council’s policy explains care managers can nominate applicants who require accommodation as part of their care package or who have other general needs. Approved applicants are then allocated points based on the Council’s usual policy and may join the choice based lettings scheme or be made a direct offer where appropriate.
17. Where the Council decides direct offers are appropriate, applicants are made offers according to their date of referral to the list, except in extenuating circumstances when a social services officer has the discretion to request a particular case be expedited.

What happened

18. Miss Y and Ms Z are social housing tenants. Ms Z applied to the Council for a medical priority transfer to be awarded as a medical condition meant her current property was no longer suitable for her needs.
19. Ms Z submitted supporting medical information which the Council considered and agreed she met the criteria for a medical priority. The Council wrote to Ms Z to confirm it had placed her in mobility category 3 for a one-bedroom property and provide information about its choice based lettings process.
20. A support worker then wrote to the Council on Ms Z’s behalf explaining why they believed she should be registered for a mobility category 1. They also pointed out Ms Z required 24-hour care, from Miss Y. The Council requested and received evidence to support this from Ms Z’s doctor.
21. The Council wrote to Ms Z to confirm that, on review of the recent evidence, it had assigned her mobility category 1 and would make her a direct offer of one-bedroom accommodation.
22. Miss Y contacted the Council to explain Ms Z needed 24-hour care so a one-bedroom property would not be suitable.
23. The Council reviewed Ms Z’s care assessment from adult social care, which confirmed she received 24-hour care from Miss Y at home and supported their request for a two-bed, level access property. It then wrote to Ms Z to confirm it had reviewed her application again and had assigned her mobility category 1, with 250 points, and would look to make her a direct offer for a 2-bedroom property. The Council also added Miss Y onto the application and applied a further 50 points in recognition of ongoing residence in its area.
24. Miss Y complained to the Council as she said it knew Ms Z was living in unsuitable accommodation but had not done enough to find her a new home. Miss Y said Ms Z’s health was deteriorating and she worried she would not live long enough for a transfer to take place.
25. The Council responded to Miss Y’s complaint and acknowledged there was some delay in assigning Ms Z mobility category 1 for a two-bedroom home but said it did so once it had the relevant evidence. The Council explained it would contact Miss Y and Ms Z as soon as an appropriate property became available for them.
26. Miss Y asked the Council to review her complaint. Miss Y reiterated that the Council knew Ms Z’s health was deteriorating and she was in unsuitable accommodation but did not do enough to help her. Miss Y said she felt Ms Z’s life was at risk while she remained in her current property and asked the Council to move her as soon as possible.
27. The Council responded to Miss Y, explaining it had correctly assessed all the evidence relating to her and Ms Z’s application as soon as it became available. The Council explained demand for housing meant it could not advise when a direct offer would be made, but it would contact Miss Y and Ms Z as soon as a property became available.
28. A support worker emailed the Council on behalf of Ms Z to ask if she would be eligible for a community care nomination. The Council responded to explain that route was only open to people who were not eligible for re-housing through any other priority route but Ms Z was already on its list for a direct offer.
29. Miss Y then contacted the Council to ask if it could make adaptations to Ms Z’s property while she was waiting to be re-housed. The Council referred this request to an Occupational Therapist for assessment and they made recommendations for adaptations which the Council agreed to carry out.
30. In response to our enquiries, the Council said:
• Miss Y and Ms Z are currently 16th on the list for a direct offer for a two-bedroom mobility category one property and offers were currently out on the four applicants at the top off the list. It explained everyone on the list ahead of Miss Y and Ms Z is also living in unsuitable accommodation and are recorded as having an urgent need to move.
• Miss Y and Ms Z would not have greater priority if they had been nominated to receive a direct offer through a community care nomination. This is because all households are registered on the list in date order and a community care nomination does not afford the applicant any additional priority, it is just another mechanism by which an applicant can join the list.
• Adapted properties are extremely scarce, but the Council has a dedicated Disability Officer who, as part of their role, identifies properties that have the potential to be adapted.
• The Council has agreed to carry out some adaptations to Ms Z’s current property and is waiting for her to agree a time for its Aids and Adaptations Team to come and check the property prior to work starting.

Analysis

31. Ms Z applied to the Council for a medical priority transfer. The Council reviewed all the available evidence at that time and assigned her a mobility category 3 need for a one-bedroom property in line with its usual policy. Once it was provided with further evidence, the Council amended this to a mobility category 1 need for a two-bedroom property. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision-making process as it appears to have followed its usual policy when deciding Ms Z’s application. The Council reconsidered Ms Z’s application when new evidence became available, and I do not find fault with its decision-making process when reviewing previous decisions.
32. Miss Y has said she feels the Council ought to consider Ms Z for a community care nomination as this may increase her chances of moving sooner. However, the Council’s policy says community care nominations are considered where an applicant would not otherwise be eligible to join its housing register and, as Ms Z is already awaiting a direct offer, this would not be relevant to her. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision-making process as it appears to have correctly followed its usual policy. In any case, the Council has explained a community care nomination would not have meant Ms Z’s application was awarded any additional priority beyond what it already has.
33. Miss Y has said she is unhappy with the length of time Ms Z has already had to wait and potentially will still have to wait until she is made a direct offer of a suitable property. I appreciate Miss Y’s frustration here, but the shortage of social housing, and particularly adapted properties, means even applicants with high priority may have to wait several years before they receive an offer. The Council has explained it is making direct offers based on priority groups in date order in line with its usual policy, and I cannot find it at fault here.
34. The Council’s policy does allow for applications to be expedited only in exceptional circumstances such as where a social services officer has requested this. I have seen no evidence that a social services officer has asked for Ms Z’s application to be expedited so I could not say the Council is at fault for not considering this.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I do not find the Council at fault and I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman