Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council assessed her application to move property on medical priority grounds. We have not found fault with how the Council assessed the application at both the initial and review stages.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has not properly considered her application to be added to its housing register and re-housed on medical grounds.
2. Miss X says this has caused her distress and frustration. She also says it has affected her mental health and ability to work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 considered all the information Miss X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
5. Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The published 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))

Reasonable preference

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))

Decisions and review rights

8. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

9. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Review procedures

11. 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 housing allocation policy

12. The Council’s policy states that:
• rehousing on medical grounds normally arises when the housing situation seriously adversely affects health;
• this situation usually arises when there is a housing factor which directly adversely affects a medical condition; and
• that to consider severe psychiatric conditions, supporting information would be required from a consultant psychiatrist and that evidence would need to show that a move would significantly improve the quality of life for the applicant.

What happened

13. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.

Background information

14. Miss X is a tenant in a property owned by the Council.
15. In mid-October 2023, Miss X complained to the Council about how it had dealt with her concerns regarding noise she said was coming from a neighbouring property. She said the Council had not done enough to help her or stop the noise. Miss X said this and the continued noise was affecting her ability to work and also her mental health.
16. At the beginning of November 2023, the Council sent Miss X its stage one complaint response. In this, it:
• listed the reports of noise Miss X had made and the action the Council had taken each time;
• said that everyday noises were not classed as a statutory noise nuisance; and
• advised Miss X she could send in any further evidence of a noise nuisance which the Council would review at the time and act on if necessary.
17. The Council advised Miss X on how she could escalate her complaint.

Housing allocation

18. In mid-December 2023, Miss X submitted forms to the Council to see if she could transfer to a different property on medical grounds. She included a letter from her GP that explained some of her medical needs. The GP supported Miss X’s wish to be moved.
19. At the beginning of January 2024, the Council reviewed her application and rejected it. It said the information Miss X provided did not qualify her to move. It acknowledged her health conditions and that she was being treated for these by her GP.
20. The Council said she had not provided recent reports or any evidence from a psychologist or psychiatrist which stated the property affected her mental health to the point it should award her medical priority. It said the information did not show she had ‘a severe medical condition that is being severely and adversely affected by (her) current accommodation’.
21. The Council advised Miss X she could submit further evidence for a non-statutory review or contact it again if her health got worse.
22. In mid-January 2024, Miss X submitted a selection of sound recordings she had made, so the Council could review her application to move on medical grounds.
23. In mid-February 2024, the Council sent its decision to Miss X. In this letter, it;
• set out how it had considered her application to move in line with its housing allocation scheme;
• confirmed it had considered what she had said about her medical needs and health conditions; and
• said there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate there was excessive noise in her home that was adversely affecting her mental health.
24. The Council said it was not satisfied she met with criteria to be given medical priority to move.
25. Miss X then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

26. 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. A difference of opinion in what the outcome should be is not evidence of fault.
27. In response to my enquiries, the Council repeated that whilst it acknowledged Miss X’s health conditions, there was nothing to indicate the property itself was adversely affecting her health. It also said that as there are people living directly above her, some noise would inevitably be heard.
28. Having reviewed the evidence on file, I am satisfied the Council has demonstrated it considered the evidence Miss X provided at both the initial and review stages. I am also satisfied it did so in line with its housing allocations policy relating to medical priority.
29. The Council completed the initial and review stages within reasonable timescales.
30. On this basis, I am satisfied the Council has properly considered Miss X’s request to move on medical grounds at both stages. I therefore find no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have now completed my investigation. I do not uphold this complaint. I consider there is no fault in how the Council determined Miss X’s application to move.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman