Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly decided he was not eligible for medical priority on the housing register. Mr X says this meant he is living in unsuitable accommodation which impacted his mental health. We find the Council at fault which caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a fresh decision considering all relevant information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly decided he is not eligible for medical priority on the housing register.
2. Mr X says this has meant he is living in unsuitable accommodation which impacts his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered all comments received before making this final decision.
6. I also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. The regulations governing housing allocations in England are set out in the Housing Act 1996. The law says 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. 
8. The Housing Act 1996 says 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))

9. The Council’s allocations scheme details the different priority banding and how it makes its decisions on priority.
10. It says applicants who have a medical condition or disability will be asked to complete a medical self-assessment form. It says this form will be considered by a Housing Officer and may be referred to an Independent Medical Adviser if the Officer needs more advice or guidance.
11. It says the Independent Medical Adviser may also advise on any other re-housing need such as need for ground floor accommodation or adaptions.
12. It says the Council will review all advice and information provided from the customer or other professional involved in their care. It says it is the Housing Officer’s final decision whether to award priority on medical grounds.
13. It is the Council’s responsibility to consider all relevant information in its decision whether to award priority. Council’s should not rely solely on the view of a medical assessor.

What happened

14. Mr X has several mental health conditions.
15. In spring 2024, Mr X made a housing application for priority banding on medical grounds.
16. In April 2024, the Council referred Mr X for a medical assessment. It had the option to refer Mr X to a general medical advisor or a psychiatric advisor. It referred Mr X to be assessed by a general medical advisor.
17. The general medical advisor assessed Mr X’s current accommodation was suitable.
18. In May 2024, the Council told Mr X the general medical advisor had decided his medical issues did not warrant additional priority or an increase in banding.
19. The Council also told Mr X it would not accept any further medical requests from him.

Analysis

20. The Council says it refers cases to a psychiatric advisor if the applicant is receiving support from specialist mental health services. It says from the information provided by Mr X, the Council is not aware of any specialist advice or services Mr X is receiving for his mental health issues.
21. Mr X provided a supporting letter from a specialist mental health service in his application which details the length of time it has been providing Mr X with support. In addition, the general medical advisor did not consider all of Mr X’s mental health conditions in their assessment. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the Council has considered his application properly.
22. The Council says it did not rely solely on the general medical advisor’s assessment in making its decision not to award Mr X with additional priority or an increase in banding. It says the assessor stated it was the decision of general medical advisor in error. It says it also considered Mr X’s current accommodation, his historical health issues, the medical evidence submitted by Mr X, and its policy. However, given the Council overlooked some of Mr X’s medical evidence, I am not satisfied the Council properly considered his application.
23. The Ombudsman may find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has not carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. On the information seen, there is evidence of fault in how the Council assessed Mr X’s application for medical priority. This is because the Council did not properly consider the information it had available at the time it made its decisions. Mr X experienced uncertainty about whether the Council might have made a different decision if it had considered all the evidence, which is injustice.
24. The Council says it told Mr X it would not accept future applications from him in error. It says it should have said it would accept future applications if there were a change in his circumstances. I am satisfied it has actioned this appropriately with the staff member to avoid future recurrence.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to make a fresh decision of Mr X’s application for additional priority or an increase in banding with consideration to all factors including input from a psychiatric advisor.
26. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has also agreed to apologise in writing to Mr X for the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by not properly considering his application and wrongly informing him he cannot make applications in future.
27. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. I find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a fresh decision.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman