Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to rehouse her to a larger property on medical grounds and failed to properly respond to her complaint. The Council was not at fault when it decided Miss X did not have a medical need for an extra bedroom. It accepted it was at fault for placing Miss X on a shortlist for an unsuitable property and for a delay in responding to her complaint. It apologised and offered to make a payment to Miss X. We consider this a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to rehouse her to a larger property on medical grounds and failed to properly respond to her complaint. She says she struggles to leave the property and needs extra space for medical equipment. She wants the Council to allow her to bid on three-bedroom properties and compensate her for the distress she has suffered.

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)
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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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

6. I have not investigated events before March 2023. Miss X could have complained to us sooner about the Council’s actions before this date.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered the information she provided. I have also considered information provided by the Council.
8. Miss X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

9. 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))
10. 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))

11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
12. The Council’s scheme has two levels of medical priority. The highest priority is Emergency medical priority – group A. This applies if the applicant has a medical condition that is so severe it makes it impossible for them to live in their current home.
13. When deciding how many bedrooms to allocate an applicant, the Council expects adult siblings of the same sex, who are children of the applicant, to share a bedroom regardless of age. Applicants can apply for an extra bedroom on medical grounds.
14. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

What happened

15. Miss X lives with her two adult children in a two-bedroom housing association property on the second floor of a block of flats. Her two children share a bedroom.
16. In March 2023 Miss X applied for emergency medical priority. She said her home was unsuitable because of her medical needs. The Council awarded Miss X emergency medical (group A) priority for a ground floor or lift accessible property, its highest priority. It said Miss X should bid on two-bedroom properties as her two adult children could share a bedroom.
17. Miss X told the Council her doctors had recommended she move to a bigger property. The Council then assessed whether Miss X had a medical need for an extra bedroom. It refused her application. It said the lack of an extra bedroom did not impact Miss X’s health. It offered Miss X a right of review which she did not use.
18. In November 2023 the Council placed Miss X on a shortlist for a two-bedroom housing association property. However, it had to remove Miss X from the shortlist as the housing association had a policy of not allowing adult siblings to share bedrooms.
19. Soon after, the Council’s occupational therapist emailed Miss X and other potential applicants with details of a three-bedroom property the Council had classified as a two-bedroom property because of its configuration. Miss X did not bid on the property.
20. Miss X queried why she could not bid on other three-bedroom properties. The occupational therapist explained that under the Council’s allocation scheme Miss X was eligible to bid for two-bedroom properties. However, because of the make up of her household she would not be eligible to bid on some two-bedroom housing association properties. This was because some housing association rules did not allow adult siblings to share bedrooms. They added that the Council had assessed Miss X as having no medical need for a third bedroom.
21. Miss X complained to the Council in December 2023. She said the occupational therapist was emailing her unsuitable properties and the Council was wrong to remove her from the housing association property shortlist.
22. The Council partially upheld the complaint. It accepted it had mistakenly placed Miss X on the shortlist for the housing association property. It explained it had no control of housing association rules. It reiterated Miss X had no medical need for an extra bedroom. It explained the emails from its occupational therapist were not property offers, but properties applicants may be interested in bidding on. It apologised for the confusion and advised Miss X she could ignore these emails if not relevant.
23. Miss X escalated her complaint. The Council responded at stage two of its complaint policy. Its response was one month outside its published timescales. The Council repeated its apology and explanation of the situation. It offered Miss X £150 to recognise her distress and the delay in its complaint handling. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman.
24. In response to our enquiries the Council said it had allocated eight properties since January 2024 that met Miss X’s needs, but she had not bid on. The Council said Miss X would have been ranked number one for seven of these properties.

My findings

25. Miss X has an emergency medical need to move property and the Council has assigned her that priority. Under its allocations scheme Miss X’s household qualifies for a two-bedroom property. The Council assessed whether Miss X had a medical need for an extra bedroom and decided she did not. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make.
26. 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 an organisation 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 a person disagrees with the decision the Council made.
27. In making its decision, the Council took account of its allocations policy and information from Miss X. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making its decision and I cannot therefore criticise it. The Council was not at fault.
28. In its complaint response to Miss X, the Council accepted it was at fault for placing Miss X on the shortlist for a property her family could not occupy. It explained the difference between its own policy and the policy of some housing associations. It also accepted there was a delay in responding to her complaint. It apologised and offered Miss X £150 to recognise the impact on Miss X of its mistake and of the delay. I consider this an appropriate remedy.
29. The Council has also explained the emails from its occupational therapist were general emails to several applicants and not property offers. It is open to Miss X to opt out of these emails. The Council is not at fault.
30. While Miss X remains unhappy with her bedroom allocation the Council’s records show suitable properties have become available which she could have bid on. Miss X has the Council’s highest housing priority, and it remains open to her to bid on future properties as they become available.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council which caused injustice which it has already remedied.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman