Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision that she was not entitled to additional priority on its housing register. We found the Council to be at fault because it could not demonstrate how it made its decision. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X. It should also review her application and take action to improve its service in future.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s failure to award additional priority on medical and welfare grounds when her permanent home was being repaired.
2. She says this caused significant distress and affected the health and well-being of both herself and her young child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s the role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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

7. Miss X complained to the Housing Ombudsman about the Council’s (in its capacity as a social landlord) handling of the disrepair to her home and its failure move her to suitable accommodation while repairs were being undertaken.
8. The Housing Ombudsman decided it could not investigate these matters because Miss X had started court action about the disrepair issue. This meant her complaint was outside of its jurisdiction.
9. The Housing Ombudsman referred Miss X’s complaint about priority banding to us because this matter falls within this Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
10. I investigated Miss X’s complaint about the request she made for additional priority on medical and welfare grounds in August 2023. I have referred to Miss X’s previous application for additional priority banding in 2021 and her complaints about disrepair and suitability of temporary accommodation for contextual reasons only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I reviewed the documentation provided by the Housing Ombudsman.
12. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
13. I considered the relevant law, guidance and Council policy, as set out below.
14. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and Council policy

Housing allocations

15. 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))
16. 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))

The Council’s allocations scheme

17. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. The Council places housing applicants into one of four bands according to their housing need. Band 1 is the highest priority and Band 4 is the lowest. It can also award a priority star to recognise severe medical or welfare need.
18. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

What happened

19. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.

Background information

20. Miss X is a secure council tenant. She has lived in a two-bedroom flat (“the Flat”) since 2019 with her young child, Z. Miss X says the condition of the Flat was poor from the outset. It was affected by mould, damp and frequent leaks. She says the condition of the Flat was detrimental to their physical and mental health.
21. In 2021, the ceiling of the Flat collapsed due to heavy rainfall. Miss X was moved to temporary accommodation, whilst the Flat was repaired. There was significant delay in carrying out this work. Miss X instructed solicitors to start court action. The Council agreed a settlement in August 2022. Miss X returned to the Flat in November 2023. Prior to this, she was living with either her mother or in temporary accommodation provided by the Council.

Miss X’s request for additional priority

22. Miss X had Band 4 priority. She made a previous, unsuccessful application for additional priority on medical/welfare grounds in September 2021.
23. In August 2023, Miss X’s priority banding was reassessed by the Council. This was based on a “change of circumstances” form completed by Miss X in July 2022. The Council referred her case to its medical adviser (Now Medical) for an assessment on:

• “future property requirements”, and
• “if there is a need to move on based mental health”.

24. The Council advised Miss X of the outcome of the medical assessment in September 2023. She was told:

• whilst her current property may not be ideal, the household does not have a medical reason for a move; and
• disrepair issues should be addressed to the landlord and leaks should be “definitively repaired”.

25. Miss X was advised of her right to either submit more evidence in support of her claim for additional priority, or request a review of the decision.
26. Miss X did not do either. We would normally expect someone to exercise this review right. However, because her complaint about this and other issues had already been accepted by the Housing Ombudsman, I would not have expected her to do so.

Analysis

27. The Council’s decision letter inadequately explained the Council’s rationale for its decision. We expect councils to be able to demonstrate how it reached its decision and explain this to the applicant.
28. The Council did not do so in this case and was fault. I say this for the following reasons.

• Neither the decision letter, nor Now Medical’s recommendation, includes any information about what evidence was considered. The case records show the Council sent an email to Now Medical that attached a “change of circumstances” form dated July 2022. It is unclear whether Now Medical had sight of evidence, for example photographs of her medication, previously provided by Miss X in 2021.
• It was unable to evidence how it considered the recommendation by Now Medical. The Council, not Now Medical, is the decision maker. In this case the decision letter repeated the comments made by Now Medical, verbatim. These comments do not reflect the fact the fact the Council is Miss X’s landlord, and the disrepair issue was not solely about “leaks”. In my view, this shows there was no analysis by the Council. If it had, the letter would have accurately reflected Miss X’s specific circumstances.
• It failed to provide Miss X with any meaningful explanation as to how the Council made its decision. Just saying that, “she did not have a medical requirement for a move” is not sufficient. It was only in response to a question by the Housing Ombudsman, that the Council has provided some retrospective insight into the possible rationale for its decision in this case. It said that whilst Miss X provided evidence of a cardiac condition and depression, this did not confirm a diagnosis. This is the sort of explanation the Ombudsman expects to see in the decision letter itself.

29. I am satisfied this fault caused Miss X an injustice that requires a remedy. The lack of records and explanation about how the Council made its decision creates uncertainty about whether the right decision was made. For this reason, the Council should carry out a review of its initial decision. It is possible the outcome will be the same, but I cannot say this will any degree of certainty based in the evidence available.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. To remedy the injustice caused by the above fault and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise to Miss X. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. Carry out a review of its decision about Miss X’s banding priority. It should give her the opportunity to submit any additional evidence and provide her with a proper explanation as to how it made its decision.
3. Pay Miss X £100, as a symbolic payment top acknowledge her frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble.
4. Remind officers of the Council’s role as final decision maker where cases are referred for medical advice.
5. Remind officers of the need to give adequate reasons for all decisions, specific to the applicant.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. I found the Council to be at fault and the Council has agreed to action recommendations to remedy the injustice to Miss X and improve its service.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman