Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council’s decision on a families housing priority was made without an assessment that a piece of medical equipment could fit in a room for its use. Carrying out an assessment and backdating any resulting increase in priority remedies the injustice to the family.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms X, complains the Council did not take account of the size of a room when making a decision on medical priority. Ms X says this has meant that her priority for housing is lower than it should be and so it will take her longer to be rehoused to somewhere more suitable for her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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 read the papers put in by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her.
5. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
6. Ms X and the organisation 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

7. Ms X complains the Council’s decision on her medical priority did not take in account all the relevant factors. Ms X seeks rehousing as the separate bathroom and toilet means it is difficult to meet her child’s medical needs.
8. The Council’s review letter specifically says in point 16 that ‘a commode could be utilised if needed, a higher medical priority is not therefore recommended’.
9. Ms X says that her, her daughter and a commode cannot fit in the bathroom so the decision is flawed.
10. I made enquiries of the Council. The Council said ‘the Council's decision was on the basis that the commode could be accommodated in the bathroom rather than toilet room’.
11. I find fault in the Council’s decision making. The Council has provided no evidence that a commode, along with Ms X and her daughter can fit in the bathroom. However, its decision was made on the basis that this was possible. To remedy this fault, the Council should appoint an Occupational Therapist to decide if a suitable commode can fit in the bathroom along with Ms X and her daughter to carry out the procedure needed. If it cannot, the Council should reassess Ms X’s medical priority and backdate any increased priority banding to when Ms X first complained. The Council should also decide if Ms X has missed any offers of housing and if so, ensure that Ms X is allocated the next suitable property and a payment made towards the time spent in unsuitable housing.
12. Further evidence from the OT was supplied to the Council in August 2024. The Council has said that it accepts this report which says the bathroom is not big enough to fit a commode.

Back to top

Agreed action

13. Within two months of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council should:
• Assess whether Ms X’s housing priority should increase and if so, backdate it to when Ms X first applied for medical priority.
• If Ms X’s priority is increased, the Council should decide if Ms X has missed any offers of housing and if so, ensure that Ms X is allocated the next suitable property and make a payment to the family for the time spent in unsuitable housing. (The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies can be used to calculate a suitable payment amount.)
14. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld, as there was fault by the Council. The actions described above, remedy the injustice to the family.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman