Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council decided what priority she should have on its housing register. The Council was at fault. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration and uncertainty for which the Council will apologise and pay her £250. It will also review the information it gives to staff and medical advisors about medical assessments.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council decided what priority she should have on its housing register. Miss X said this meant she was unable to bid on suitable housing.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 have considered:
• all the information Miss 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.
6. Miss X and the organisation 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

7. 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))
8. 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

9. The Council’s allocation scheme places applicants in one of four priority bands. Band 1 has the greatest priority and band 4 the least.
10. Band 2 applicants include people who have a severe medical need or disability which means their current accommodation is unsuitable. Band 3 applicants include people whose illness or disability is made worse by their current home or where moving to a new home would improve their health.
11. The Council sorts social housing into one of four categories; A, B, E+ and F. B properties have part wheelchair access without an adapted kitchen. E+ properties have easy access and possibly a special adaptation like a level access shower. Homes in category F do not have any adaptations to make them more accessible.
12. The Council assigns an applicant a category alongside their priority banding. Category F applicants can only bid on F homes. Category E+ applicants can bid on E+ and B homes.
13. Applicants can request a review of the Council’s decision on their application if they do not agree with the outcome.

What happened

14. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
15. Miss X lives in a flat with her children. She is overcrowded and applied to the Council to join its housing register. The Council placed Miss X in band 2 and property category F. In December 2023 Miss X made a new application. She said she and one of her children had medical needs.
16. In early March 2024, the Council asked Miss X for more information about her circumstances. The information was not related to Miss X’s medical needs.
17. Miss X sent the Council the information it had asked for and submitted a new housing application a few days later. She said she and three of her children had medical needs and submitted a number of documents as evidence. In particular, Miss X said she needed a level access shower and could not use stairs, including those leading up to her flat.
18. The Council passed Miss X’s application to a medical advisory service. A medical advisor considered Miss X’s application in early April 2024 and noted “While I appreciate the current accommodation may not be ideal, the evidence supplied does not provide compelling indicators for a change of accommodation on medical grounds. The applicant’s condition does not necessarily preclude the use of some stairs”. The advisor ticked a box to say Miss X’s next home did not need any specific features as a result of her medical needs.
19. The Council issued its decision in mid-April 2024. It said Miss X would stay in band 3 and in explaining its decision, used the same wording as the medical advisor. The Council did not explain how it had decided Miss X could move into a home without any specific features (property category F).
20. Miss X asked for a review the same day. She later submitted a change of circumstances form setting out more detail on the medical needs of the household and in early May 2024, she sent in another housing application. Miss X enclosed a cover letter detailing her conditions and needs, her GP history, a school report and speech and language therapy assessment for one of her children and a school letter about another child.
21. The Council sent all of Miss X’s evidence to its medical advice service. A medical advisor considered Miss X’s case in June 2024 and their assessment used the same wording quoted in paragraph 18. The advisor also ticked the box to mark that Miss X’s next home did not need any specific features to meet her medical needs.
22. The Council sent its decision letter in late June. It said Miss X would stay in band 3 and again used the same wording as the medical advisor. It did not explain how the Council had decided Miss X should stay in category F.
23. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman. During the course of our involvement, the Council decided Miss X should move to band 2 and category E+.

Findings

24. Miss X submitted a housing application in December 2023, but the Council did not contact her for more information until March 2024, three months later. This delay was fault and caused Miss X avoidable frustration.
25. The Council made a decision on Miss X’s application in April 2024. That decision was flawed because it only quoted the medical advisor’s findings and confirmed Miss X would remain on band 3 category F. However, it is for the Council to decide what band and property category an applicant should have, not its medical advisors. The letter does not show how the Council considered the criteria for band 2 and 3 and property categories F and E+ against the information Miss X submitted and the medical advice.
26. Miss X asked for a review but then submitted a change of circumstances form and a new housing application in quick succession. The Council decided to treat all these communications as a new housing application. It issued its decision in June 2024, but it again just repeated the medical advisor’s findings and failed to explain the Council’s decision making adequately.
27. The flaws in the Council’s April and June 2024 decisions were fault. The Council has now decided Miss X should be in band 2 category E+. However, I cannot say, even on balance, that the Council would have come to the same conclusion had it considered Miss X’s December 2023 and May 2024 applications properly. Therefore, the fault caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty about what decision the Council might have come to without the fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
• Apologise to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty she experienced because of its delay responding to her December 2023 application and because of its flawed April and June 2024 priority decisions. 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 Miss X £250 in recognition of her injustice.
29. 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’.
30. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. 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