Summary: Miss D complains the Council did not properly process her housing register application and bids for housing. We have not found any evidence of fault by the Council and have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council failed to deal with her housing register application in line with procedures. She refers to the Council incorrectly assessing her medical priority, failing to allocate her a property at a new development and missing out on successfully bidding for a home whilst waiting for the Council to backdate her housing register account in 2023.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

What I have and have not investigated

3. Miss D referred, in her complaints, to the Council not reviewing an updated assessment. I am not looking at this because Miss D would need to formally pursue this issue through the Council’s complaints process. I am also not investigating whether the Council backdated the housing register application. It has carried out that task and already confirmed the action to Miss D.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information provided by Miss D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response. That included details of the successful applicants who bid on the same properties as Miss D in 2023. I have not included details of those applications/ applicants as they are confidential, but I am satisfied I have seen all the evidence I require to reach a fully informed view on the case.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered Miss D’s comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. On 19 March 2023 the Council received a housing register application from Miss D. It assessed the information she provided and awarded her band D on 27 March. That day Miss D asked the Council why she had previously been a band C but had now dropped to a band D. The Council replied on 28 March that Miss D had previously stated she worked for employer within the local area, but this had now changed, hence the change in banding. Miss D replied with a clarification about her working situation. On 29 March the Council advised that she needed to fill out the relevant section on the housing register application about employment. If she did this, it would reassess her banding. It also explained how the Council assesses a request for medical priority. At the end of March Miss D updated the work section of the housing register application and the Council awarded her band C and emailed her to confirm the action.
7. Between the end of April and 18 May the Council received information about Miss D’s medical conditions and medication. Miss D asked the Council to assess if she was eligible for medical priority. On 23 May the Council told Miss D it needed specific evidence confirming a direct link between medical conditions and her current home from a medical professional in order to carry out an assessment. The evidence it had received did not provide that. At the start of June Miss D told the Council she was unclear what evidence it needed. On 6 June the Council reiterated to Miss D how medical priority was awarded and that if an applicant had a significant medical condition not directly affected by their housing, they would not receive any additional priority. The evidence Miss D had provided only referred to affordability issues with the property and this was not a basis on which medical priority could be awarded. Miss D complained to the Council.
8. On 9 June an Officer carried out a medical banding assessment, they considered the information provided by Miss D and found there was no basis to award a medical priority. A second Officer also reviewed the case and reached the same conclusion that Miss D had not shown her medical conditions were caused or exacerbated by her current housing. On 14 June the Council received a letter from Miss D’s GP. This did not refer to a direct link to Miss D’s housing causing or making worse her conditions. The Council decided it did not contain new evidence to reassess the medical banding. On 15 June the Council replied to Miss D's complaint stating that financial difficulties were not part of the medical banding assessment. Subsequently Miss D came to the Ombudsman with a complaint about the Council not backdating her housing register application. This does not form part of this investigation as it has previously been considered by the Ombudsman. However, as a result on 26 October the Council backdated Miss D’s application.
9. In January 2024 Miss D complained to the Council about how properties at a new development were being allocated. The Council replied two days later that allocations at the new development were exceptions to the usual allocations policy. Miss D queried why this was the case and continued to dispute the medical banding decision. On 25 January the Council sent a reply stating the new development required a local connection in the immediate area alongside other criteria. In respect of the medical banding, it gave examples of where an applicant would be awarded medical priority and how this would show a direct link that their home was affecting or causing the medical condition. It said that in Miss D’s case there was no evidence to support that link. It also confirmed her application was backdated in October 2023.

What should have happened

10. The Council considers applications to join its housing register. It will assess the information and evidence provided by an applicant to assess their eligibility and housing need. It awards a housing band; band A is the highest level.
11. The Council can also consider if an applicant should be in a higher band because of medical need. The applicant should apply to the Council and provide evidence from medical professionals that shows a direct link with their housing causing or exacerbating their medical conditions. Financial difficulties are not a factor in awarding additional priority for medical need. A Council Officer will assess the evidence and determine if the applicant should be placed in a higher band. They can also have a colleague review the evidence and give their view. They should notify the applicant of the decision.
12. The Council’s allocations policy sets out the usual process for allocating properties. The Council advertises available homes and applicants must bid for them. The Council will usually consider who has the highest priority when awarding a property. However, the allocations policy says that a property can be labelled in accordance with a local lettings policy. That means where a local lettings policy is in place, different allocations criteria can apply. For example, the housing provider for a new build site can specify they will give priority to applicants from the immediate local area who also meet additional advertised criteria. In a rural exception site, the housing provider can give priority to applicants from the immediate locality even if they have a lower banding level than other applicants who live further away.

Was there fault by the Council

13. Miss D complains the Council did not properly assess her application for medical priority. I have not found any evidence of fault by the Council. The Council adhered to its procedures in this matter. It considered the information provided by Miss D and her medical professionals. It explained its decisions to her and why financial issues did not form part of the assessment for medical priority. The Ombudsman is 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 the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Miss D disagrees with the decision.
14. As I set out above, I have looked at the evidence about who was successful in bidding for the same properties as Miss D. Miss D was concerned her bids for a new development had not been properly assessed by the Council. I have not found any fault by the Council. It has previously explained to Miss D the process used for allocations at the new development and why it differed from the usual allocations process. The Council has the right to depart from its allocations scheme where there is a local lettings policy in place and that applies in this case. Miss D bid for two properties at the new development. One property had the advertisement subsequently withdrawn because the incumbent tenant remained in place. The second property was allocated to an applicant who met the allocations criteria for the development better than Miss D.

15. I also looked at whether Miss D missed out successfully bidding for a property whilst waiting for her application to be backdated during June to October. There was no fault by the Council. The evidence I have seen shows Miss D bid for 12 properties (in addition to the two homes at the new development referred to above). All those properties were allocated to applicants with a higher banding except for one home that was in a rural exception site. That property was allocated to an applicant with a lower banding than Miss D but who met the local connection requirement which was prioritized under the local lettings plan. I am satisfied the allocations I have seen were carried out in line with procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman