Summary: Ms C complained that the Council failed to properly consider her medical conditions in refusing her request to bid on bungalows or houses. We found that the Council had not properly considered Ms C’s mental health condition or explained its reasons for discounting the medical evidence provided by her doctors. The Council has agreed to reconsider these points in a further review of her medical needs.

The complaint

1. Ms C complained that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) in respect of her housing application, has:
• failed to properly consider her medical conditions, particularly her mental health needs, in refusing her request to bid on two bedroom bungalows, insisting she can only bid on flats; and
• failed to consider whether her accessibility needs mean her current accommodation is unreasonable to occupy.
2. This has caused, and continues to cause, Ms C significant distress and inconvenience as she has to stay at her mother’s property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s 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. 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 evidence provided by Ms C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The published scheme

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))

Reasonable preference

8. 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))

Council’s allocations policy

9. The Council operates a banding system to prioritise housing applicants. There are five bands with band one being for those in the most urgent housing need. Applicants who want to move to a smaller property due to under-occupation (at least two bedrooms too big) will qualify for band one priority.
10. Single people under the age of 60 are eligible to bid on one or two bedroom flats or maisonettes. Bungalows are restricted to applicants over the age of 60.

What happened

11. Ms C was living in a three bedroom council property. She is under the age of 60 and has physical and mental health needs. She struggled to use the stairs and needed to mobilise with sticks and sometimes a wheelchair. She wanted to move to a smaller more accessible property. In January 2024 the Council placed her in band one due to under-occupation.
12. Ms C applied for a medical assessment of her needs. The outcome was that she needed ground floor level access accommodation but was not eligible to bid on bungalows or houses.
13. In February 2024, Ms C appealed against the decision that she could not bid on bungalows or houses. She said her mental health condition prevented her from living in flats.
14. In May 2024 Ms C complained about the delay in reviewing the medical assessment. The Council sent a stage one complaint response apologising for the delay.
15. In June 2024 the Council completed the review. It acknowledged she had a downstairs toilet and rails on the stairs, but she wanted a downstairs shower room. Her GP had sent letters explaining that she needed to move as the neighbours were too close to her, the house was too big to manage, and it was not advisable to offer her a flat or maisonette due to her anxieties.
16. In October 2024 Ms C complained again. The Council said an occupational therapist had reviewed the case and concluded Ms C’s priority was correct. There were no exceptional circumstances to allow her to bid on bungalows or houses.
17. Ms C complained to us. In early 2025 Ms C’s health worsened. She now uses a wheelchair and lives with her mother as she cannot access her property at all.
18. In response to my enquiries the Council says the Occupational Therapist (OT) was involved in the review panel that considered her case in June 2024 and any notes from the panel were destroyed once the decision letter was sent. It also said it had to consider whether there were alternative measures that could be taken such as therapy to assist with the medical needs rather than a move. The Council did not contact the GP for more information and relied on the information provided.
19. It said Ms C had recently provided more information since her health deterioration and a medical adviser would look at the case again.

Analysis

20. I understand it is for the Council to make decisions on housing priority in accordance with its allocations policy. However, we expect the Council to provide reasons for its decisions so a person can understand why a decision has been made. I do not consider the Council has adequately explained to Ms C why it has discounted her mental health needs, supported by evidence from her own GP or properly considered if there are treatments available for her particular condition which would materially improve her anxiety about living in flats/close to people.
21. It said to me that it has to consider therapy as an alternative to a move. That is a reasonable consideration but there is no evidence that it assessed whether this was an available or appropriate treatment in Ms C’s case. It has not provided any notes of the assessment or the review process showing that a person with experience of treating mental health conditions was involved in making the decision and it did not contact Ms C’s medical professionals to obtain this information. It has not provided evidence that the OT or any other panel member has experience of mental health treatments to counter the professional view of the GP. Neither did it explain in its decision letter that it considered therapy to be a reasonable alternative or explain what kind of ‘alternative therapies’ may be appropriate. This has caused Ms C frustration and distress as she perceives she is stuck in unsuitable housing with no viable alternatives.
22. Given that the Council needs to review Ms C’s case following the deterioration in her physical health, it could include further consideration of her mental health condition, including its impact and available treatment.

Back to top

Action

23. I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision:
• asks Ms C’s doctors to provide comment on whether viable alternative treatments are available for her mental health condition which would improve her tolerance of living near to people; and
• on receipt of the response complete the review of her physical and mental health needs in respect of the type of properties she can bid on.
24. The Council has refused to agree to this recommendation, saying it is for Ms C to provide the evidence. I do not consider this is a very helpful response given that the Council made its decision without obtaining any alternative expert evidence of mental health treatments and given that Ms C’s health has significantly worsened affecting her mobility and speech. I also note that with some assistance and flexibility from the Council, Mrs C would be freeing up a three bedroom social housing property.
25. However, given that Ms C is sleeping on her mother’s sofa and not wishing to prolong this impasse even more, I have amended the recommendations:
26. I recommend the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision:
• asks Ms C to provide further evidence from her doctors to clarify whether viable alternative treatments are available for her mental health condition which would improve her tolerance of living near to people; and
• on receipt of the response complete the review of her physical and mental health needs in respect of the type of properties she can bid on.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman