Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to rehouse her, despite her home being unsuitable for her family’s needs. We find the Council at fault for delays in dealing with Ms X’s medical assessment. We have not asked the Council to provide a remedy as there is no significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to rehouse her, despite an occupational therapist’s (OT) report which suggests that her home does not meet her family’s needs. Ms X says that this has caused stress, uncertainty and impacted her child’s safety and wellbeing. Ms X would like the Council to reconsider her application and allocate suitable housing.

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)W
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 spoke with Ms X and considered information she provided about her complaint.
6. I also considered information provided by the Council.
7. Ms 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

Relevant Law and Policy

Housing allocations

8. 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))
• 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))
9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
10. 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 policy

11. The Council’s policy says medical priority will be awarded:
• where an applicant suffers with a moderate medical condition which is adversely affected by their current housing situation to a more than minor degree; or
• where an applicant or member of their household suffers from a serious medical condition which is seriously affected by their current housing situation, and would be improved by moving.
12. However, applicants will not be awarded medical priority if their current housing is not having an adverse impact on their health or is suitable for their needs.
13. It states that applicants can ask the Council to consider whether they are eligible for medical priority by completing an online form and providing supporting evidence. The policy specifies that the Council will not routinely make its own enquiries, so the applicant must provide supporting evidence. The Policy states the Council will make a decision within eight weeks.
14. The applicant can ask for a review within 21 days of the decision if they are unhappy. The Council will then make a review decision within 56 days.

Summary of key events

15. Ms X lives in a Council flat with her young child.
16. In July 2023 Ms X contacted the Council as her child had been diagnosed with Autism. She said her property was not suitable for her family, because of her daughter’s needs.
17. The Council responded in September 2023, apologising for the delay in responding. It explained she needed to reapply for housing as her circumstances had changed. Ms X then completed an online application.
18. In November 2023 the Council told Ms X it had considered her application and concluded she was adequately housed. Ms X replied and explained she disagreed with the Council’s decision. She felt it had not properly considered important aspects of her situation.
19. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s response and said it would complete a review within 56 days. It asked her to provide any supporting information by early December 2023.
20. In January 2024 Ms X provided the Council with an OT report to support her review request. This stated:
• Ms X lives in a one bedroom flat and shares the small bedroom with her child.
• There were broken window locks which posed a danger to Ms X’s child.
• Ms X’s flat is on the second floor, and there is no lift. Ms X’s child refuses to use the stairs, having fallen previously. This means Ms X has to carry her child, which is affecting her back.
• Ms X’s child needs a permanent property.
• A garden would be helpful, as this would help with Ms X’s child’s medical condition.
• There were with issues showering and bathing, as Ms X has to supervise her child.
21. At the end of January, the Council responded to Ms X’s review request. It decided she was not eligible for help as her current property was suitable for her family’s needs. It addressed the issues raised by the OT:
• It explained that under relevant legislation and policy Ms X could use her living room as a second bedroom.
• It arranged for the window locks to be repaired.
• It concluded that Ms X had not provided evidence to show the use of stairs was impacting her medical condition.
• It confirmed that Ms X’s property was permanent.
• It considered Ms X’s family’s need for a garden and found, although this was desirable, it was not necessary. It said there were nearby parks and green spaces which could be used.
• It considered the issues Ms X was having with bathing and showering child. It concluded this would be an issue in any property that Ms X lived in.
22. Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s decision and asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.

Analysis

23. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a Council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
24. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide what banding priority councils should award to applicants. Our role is to decide whether the Council followed guidance and considered relevant information when it made decisions in relation to Ms X’s application. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
25. The Council considered Ms X’s concerns about the effect of the property on her health and the OT’s report. It gave explanations behind its decisions and why it determined she did not meet the criteria for medical priority or overcrowding. I do not find fault in the decision making process and it is a decision it is entitled to make, based on the professional judgement of the Council. Therefore, I cannot question the merits of the decisions it made.
26. If Ms X was to provide further medical evidence, I would expect the Council to complete a further medical assessment, considering the suitability of Ms X’s home.
27. Ms X asked for a medical assessment in July 2023, and the Council did not acknowledge or deal with her request for nine weeks. This is fault and would have caused uncertainty for Ms X, which is injustice. However, I find the injustice to be minimal. This is because even if the Council had responded sooner, there is no evidence to suggest that the outcome would have been any different, or that Ms X would not have continued to remain in her home. We only recommend remedies where fault has caused significant personal injustice. In this case, I am satisfied the injustice to Ms X does not require a remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I find the Council is at fault, however I find the resulting injustice does not require a remedy, and I will conclude my investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman