Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decisions regarding her housing application and how it considered her medical evidence. We found some fault with how the Council did not demonstrate its own decision making. However, we do not consider it caused Miss X a significant injustice. The Council delayed with a reassessment and has agreed to remedy the injustice this caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains she and her son are living in accommodation that is not suitable for his needs. She says the Council has not properly considered her medical evidence supporting a need to move and it has made an error with additional points it has given her housing register application. She says her accommodation is having a significant impact on their daily lives, affecting their physical health and mental wellbeing, and it is not meeting her son’s needs.

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 discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
6. Miss 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

Law and administrative background

7. 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)). Applicants have a right to request a review of a council’s decision about the priority band they have been awarded.
8. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the several categories, including people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

The Council’s allocation scheme

9. The Council’s scheme says all eligible and qualifying applicants are placed within one of four bands. Band A is the highest priority and D is the lowest. Housing offers are made to cases in date order, from the date of entry into the band.
10. Additional points may be awarded to applicants due to general housing needs or other factors. Relevant to this complaint, this could include:
• 50 points for overcrowding (lacking one bedroom);
• 75 points for medical need for “diagnosed ill health or disability, with moderate relevance to current or future housing needs”;
• 150 points for medical need for “diagnosed ill health or disability, with major relevance to current or future housing needs”; or
• 50 points for a working household, where one member works over 24 hours per week in paid employment.
11. Band A includes those with 300 plus points. Band B includes those with 150-299 points. Band C includes those with 50-149 points.

Background

12. Miss X lives in a one bedroom flat with her son. She has been on the Council’s housing register for several years. The Council initially assessed her as a two bedroom need on Band C with 50 points as she lacked one bedroom.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

13. In early 2023, Miss X contacted the Council a few times about the stress of living in small flat and her son’s need for his own space. She also sent the Council some medical letters in support of her case. This included one confirming her son’s diagnosis of ADHD, dated November 2022. This letter also mentioned Miss X’s employment at the time.

First reassessment

14. In late April 2023, Miss X completed a medical assessment form. She requested a two bedroom property with a garden for her son to de-stress when needed. She attached a further GP letter; this said he had no private space to deal with his sensory needs and they were struggling to cope. The Council sent her request to its external Medical Advisor (“MA”).
15. In late May 2023, the Council resent its request to the MA along with additional supporting evidence Miss X had sent.
16. In early June 2023, the MA responded to the Council. It recommended Miss X’s son could have his own room. It recommended 75 medical points for “diagnosed ill health, with moderate relevance to current or future housing needs”.
17. Two days later, the Council sent Miss X a letter with the outcome of her reassessment. It awarded her an extra 75 points for medical need, in addition to the 50 she already had. She remained on Band C with 125 points altogether; she was around position 30 on the list.

Second reassessment

18. In late June 2023, Miss X sent the Council further supporting evidence from her GP and a letter from her son’s school to consider. The Council acknowledged this and said another reassessment could take up to eight weeks.
19. At the start of September 2023, Miss X made a formal complaint. She said she had sent evidence of her son’s disabilities and what type of accommodation he needed. She wanted to be rehoused in a suitable two bedroomed property.
20. The next day, the Council sent a request to the MA with the further evidence. Two weeks later, the MA responded. It said its previous advice remained applicable.
21. In early October 2023, the Council sent Miss X a letter with the outcome of her second reassessment. It confirmed no additional medical points were awarded. Miss X asked for a review of the decision.
22. The following week, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at Stage One. During its review of her case, it noted a supporting letter on her file dated November 2022 mentioned her employment. In line with its allocations scheme for working households, it added 50 additional points to Miss X’s application. This increased it to 175 points in total and her application moved to Band B; she was now around position 10 on the list.
23. The Council could not find any records of Miss X updating it of her employment status before this. It decided to use its discretion to backdate her new banding date to November 2022 (the date of the letter). Miss X escalated her complaint. She said she would have been in a higher position if the 50 points for her job had been added five years previously. She said she had updated the Council at the time.
24. At the end of November, the Council responded at Stage Two. It said even if it knew about her employment before the date of the letter, her points would still have been in Band C with 100 points (50 points for overcrowding and 50 for working household). Miss X would not have moved to Band B until she sent the medical information in April 2023, after which it awarded her the additional 75 points for medical need in June 2023. It concluded her application was in the correct banding with the correct banding date. It did not uphold her complaint. In December, Miss X complained to us.
25. Since Miss X’s complaint to us, she has submitted further medical evidence to the Council in early 2024, which it has considered.
26. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted a period of delay in assessing Miss X’s further medical information between June and October 2023. It offered a £100 payment to recognise this.

Analysis

Delay

27. The Council accepted it delayed in its second reassessment of her medical information over the summer of 2023. Government guidance says eight weeks is a reasonble timescale for completing reviews. It took 16 weeks. I agree this is fault. This caused injustice to Miss X with avoidable frustration in waiting longer than necessary for a decision. I consider the Council’s proposed remedy to this proportionate and in line with our published Guidance on Remedies.

Medical reassessments - decision making

28. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we find fault, we have to consider if any significant injustice was caused.
29. The Council can ask the advice of third party medical advisors who should advise on the impact of an applicant’s housing on their medical circumstances. But we expect the Council to make its own decisions on the priority it gives to housing applications.
30. In my view, the Council has not sufficiently evidenced this. The MA wrote very brief recommendations, and the Council has not provided records of its own decision making to these at the time. The Council said it agreed with the MA’s recommendation to award points for moderate medical need but did not explain why. The Council’s reassessment outcome letters either just quoted what the MA said or did not offer further explanation to how it came to its decisions. This is fault.
31. However, there is no significant injustice to Miss X as it is likely the outcome would not have changed. Even without this fault, on the balance of probabilities, I consider the Council would have reached the same decision itself. Based on the evidence provided at the time, the Council did award some additional points for medical need. But considering its allocation scheme, it is unlikely she would have met the points threshold to move into the next band up, based on medical need.

Working household points and backdating

32. I do not find fault with the Council’s actions after Miss X raised a formal complaint. It appropriately added additional points for a working household after recognising her entitlement to them. This moved her total points to meet Band B. This is the Council’s second highest banding for high housing need. The Council made a decision to backdate her priority into Band B based on the first record it could find of Miss X’s employment (November 2022). This benefitted Miss X as this was an earlier date, rather than the later date of when it gave her the additional medical points in June 2023. Given the circumstances, in my view these are practical and fair steps it took. As offers are based in date order of entry into a priority band, not number of points, I am satisfied this has not disadvantaged Miss X’s position.
33. I recognise Miss X wants to be rehoused as soon as possible as she is frustrated with her current living situation and she says her flat does not meet her son’s medical needs. I do not doubt the impact on her and her son. However, the Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
34. I understand the Council has considered further evidence from Miss X since her complaint to us. My investigation does not consider these new events. It is open to Miss X to make a separate complaint to the Council on any new decisions it has made since.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
36. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X and pay her the £100 symbolic payment it offered to recognise the injustice caused by its delay in carrying out its second assessment of her application.
37. Within two months of the final decision:
• Send written reminders to relevant housing staff that responsibility lies with the Council to make decisions on whether to award priority for applications, not medical advisors. It should also remind them this should be evidenced on file and in decision letters to clearly explain how the Council has reached its decision and what account it has taken of evidence provided, as well as the views of its medical advisors.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I found some fault with the Council which caused injustice to Miss X. The Council has agreed with the recommendations to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman