Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council decided what priority she should have on its housing register. The Council was at fault. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty. To remedy her injustice, the Council will apologise and pay Mrs X £200. The Council should also review the information it gives staff and medical advisors about medical assessments.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council decided what priority she should have on its housing register. Mrs X said this meant she has to live in unsuitable accommodation.

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. 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 Mrs X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the Council’s policies, relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
5. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Housing allocations

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))
7. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

The Council’s allocations scheme

8. The Council’s allocation scheme gives applicants points based on their circumstances. The more points an applicant has, the higher priority they have. Points are awarded for the following situations, among others.
• 100 points for living in the Council’s area.
• 20 points where the applicant needs an additional bedroom, above what they have in their current property.
• 30 points when the applicant is lacking two or more bedrooms. This is because the household is classed as severely overcrowded.
• 40, 80 or 200 points for applicants with medical needs. Medical points are awarded when the current housing is unsuitable for the applicant or someone in their household because of their medical needs. The Council’s scheme sets out what circumstances would justify 40, 80 or 200 points.
• 40, 80 or 200 points for applicants with welfare needs. Welfare points are given when the current housing affects the welfare of the applicant or someone in their household.
• Additional points for the time the applicant has spent on the housing register.

What happened

9. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
10. Mrs X lives with her partner and two children (W and Y) in a first floor flat with two bedrooms. She applied to join the Council’s housing register in 2019. Between then and February 2024, Mrs X requested several reassessments of her points allocation, when she had new information for the Council to consider.
11. In November 2022, the Council decided Mrs X was entitled to 255 points. This was made up of:
• 100 points for living in its area;
• 80 points for welfare reasons because the property was not entirely safe for W, given their medical needs;
• 20 points because the property had two bedrooms and the family needed three. This was because W’s medical needs meant they and Y needed their own rooms, plus another room for Mrs X and her partner;
• 15 points to reflect their time on the waiting list; and
• 40 points because W struggled using the stairs to and from the flat when their mobility was reduced. The Council decided 40 points were appropriate because W did not always have mobility issues.
12. In February 2024, Y turned 16. This prompted the Council’s automatic system to increase Mrs X’s points to 328 and decide she had a four-bed need. It appears the additional 73 points were made up of 20 points for the additional bedroom the automated system had decided Mrs X needed and 30 points because with a four-bed needs, Mrs X was now classed as being severely overcrowded. The remaining 23 extra points were for the length of time she had been on the waiting list.
13. In mid-March 2024, Mrs X’s case worker emailed her to say she had reviewed Mrs X’s case. The officer’s email was confusingly worded but appeared to state Mrs X no longer qualified for the extra 20 points she had previously received because W’s medical needs meant they needed their own bedroom. This was because that only applied while W and Y were both under 16. However, now Y was over 16 they needed their own room anyway, so Mrs X still needed a three-bed property and still received 20 points for having one too few bedrooms. The officer did not address the changes to Mrs X’s application in February 2024 other than to tell her she should not be bidding on four-bedroom properties when she had a three-bed need. The officer said Mrs X had 278 total points, made up of:
• 100 points for living in its area
• 80 points for welfare reasons;
• 20 points because they lacked one bedroom;
• 38 points for their wait; and
• 40 points for medical reasons.
14. Mrs X questioned the points total and noted the Council’s housing app stated she had 268 points. The Council responded to say it had made a mistake but had now reduced her wait time by 10 points to 28 points.
15. In late April 2024, Mrs X submitted a change of circumstances form to the Council. She explained why she felt she should have more medical points and enclosed the following evidence:
• medical forms setting out the conditions she and W had and their impact. Mrs X said she had chronic headaches and sharing a bed with W made them hard to manage, particularly when W’s conditions significantly affected their sleep too;
• a 2021 assessment of her house by an Occupational Therapist (OT);
• a 2020 letter from the children’s sleep medicine department of a local hospital;
• a letter from W’s school;
• a hospital letter from 2022 confirming Mrs X had a diagnosis of high pressure in her brain which was causing three or four migraine type headaches per week; and
• an email from a Council social worker which noted there is no lift in Mrs X’s building, meaning Mrs X had hurt herself carrying W’s wheelchair downstairs. The social worker said they were worried about the family’s safety.
16. In mid-May, a medical advisor working for a company on behalf of the Council considered whether Mrs X should have more medical points. Their advice notes they considered:
• Mrs X’s view of why she should have more medical points;
• the letter from the children’s sleep medicine department;
• the OT’s assessment; and
• the letter from W’s school.
17. The advisor summarised Mrs X’s and W’s needs and noted the issue with Mrs X’s property was that there is a lack of space meaning Mrs X has to share a bed with W and that Mrs X has difficulties carrying W’s wheelchair up and downstairs when needed. The advisor noted “I would agree with previous recommendations that medical priority does apply- [40 points]”.
18. The Council sent its decision in late May. It quoted the medical advisor’s report and confirmed Mrs X was not eligible for more medical priority points.
19. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman in June 2024 and later asked the Council to reconsider its priority decision. The Council decided to increase Mrs X’s medical points to 80.

Findings

20. The Council accepts it wrongly increased Mrs X’s points allocation and room need in February 2024, after Y turned 16. This was fault and raised Mrs X’s hopes.
21. The Council updated Mrs X’s application in March 2024, to remove 63 of the 73 extra points she should not have received and to reduce her to a three-bed need. The housing officer told Mrs X of this in March 2024. However, the officer’s email was difficult to understand was primarily focused on explaining Mrs X no longer had a three bed need for medical reasons, but because Y had turned 16. It did not explain why the Council had given her an extra 73 points in February. The officer told Mrs X she should not be bidding on four bed properties without acknowledging it was the Council which had wrongly recorded Mrs X had a four-bed need. This poor information was fault and caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty.
22. In addition, the update reduced Mrs X’s points total to 278 because it still had the wrong waiting time points. The Council did not resolve this until Mrs X questioned why its housing app showed she had 268 points. This was further fault and caused Mrs X frustration.
23. The Council made a new points decision in May 2024. That decision was flawed for the following reasons.
• The medical advisor did not consider two pieces of evidence Mrs X supplied; the hospital letter about the high pressure in her brain and the email from the Council social worker.
• The medical advisor summarised Mrs X’s circumstances but the only evidence of their consideration of that evidence was the sentence “I would agree with previous recommendations”. The advice does not show how the advisor considered the criteria for 40, 800 and 200 medical points against the information Mrs X submitted.
• The Council’s decision letter only quoted the medical advisor’s report and confirmed Mrs X would remain on 40 medical points. However, it is for the Council to decide what points an applicant should have, not its medical advisor. The Council should be able to show how it considered the medical advice alongside other information and how it came to its own decision. The Council’s decision letter does not do this.
24. The flaws in the Council’s May 2024 decision was fault and caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty about what decision the Council might have come to without the fault.
25. Since Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council reconsidered its decision and increased her priority points so she now has 80 medical points. If Mrs X feels the Council should have given her more points it is open to her to complain to it and then to the Ombudsman if she remains unhappy.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
• Apologise to Mrs X for the frustration, uncertainty and raised hopes she experienced because of its flawed May 2024 priority decision, the changes to her application in February 2024 and the information it gave her about those changes. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.
• Pay £200 in recognition of her injustice.
27. Within two months of the date of my final decision, the Council will review the information it gives staff and medical advisors about how to complete medical assessments to ensure it meets the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s focus report ‘Medical assessments for housing applications’.
28. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman