Summary: We found fault on Ms Y’s complaint about the Council’s delay dealing with the information submitted in support of her request for a higher banding under its housing allocation scheme. It failed to show officers reached their own decisions after considering Medical Advisors’ recommendations. It also failed to action her request for a statutory review following a Social Welfare Panel decision. The Council agreed to send her an apology, pay £100 for her distress, remind officers about recording their decisions, review why two forms and a request for a review were not actioned, and ensure these failures cannot be repeated. It also agreed to review the panel decision. There was no fault on her remaining complaints.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council failing to:
1. properly consider her request for a higher banding under its housing allocation scheme;
2. consider her banding and transfer application without delay; and
3. transfer her to more suitable accommodation.
2. As a result, her and her daughter continue to live in a one bedroom flat which is unsuitable for their needs which has impacted on the health, including the mental health, of them both.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated Ms Y’s complaint about the Council from December 2023 and not any earlier. This was because she complained to us in December 2024 and the law says 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) I saw no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate any earlier part of her complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms Y, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of the draft decision to Ms Y and the Council. I considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

Council Housing Allocation Scheme (January 2023)

9. This sets out who can apply to join the housing register and how it prioritises applications to ensure those in the highest need have an opportunity to be housed. Properties are mainly allocated by its choice-based lettings online system.
10. The assessed housing need includes the priority band and date, along with the bedroom size criteria. It has three priority bands:

• Band A: Emergency and Top Priority. Medical priority is given where an applicant or household member has a life-threatening condition which is seriously affected by their current accommodation, for example. Social Welfare priority is given to those with exceptional circumstances and/or multiple needs. This is assessed by the Social Welfare Panel as justifying emergency priority and where rehousing would alleviate that effect. It may include, for example, extreme violence or exceptional problems where the accommodation is unsuitable.
• Band B: Urgent need to move. Medical priority is awarded where household circumstances are not suitable and is having a major adverse impact on a medical condition which could be alleviated by rehousing. It assesses the number of bedrooms an applicant needs according to the number and make-up of the household which is set out in its Bedroom Size eligibility table. Social Welfare priority is given to those with an urgent need to move which could include evidence of persistent harassment/violence of a serious but not life-threatening nature. It could also include significant problems where the property is unsuitable and/or there is a need to move to provide/receive care, for example.
• Band C: Identified housing need. Medical priority is awarded where an applicant or household member’s housing circumstances is not suitable and has a moderate impact on their medical condition which could be alleviated by rehousing. Social Welfare priority is given to those who can show harassment and/or violence of a serious non-life-threatening nature.

11. Medical online assessment forms need completing by those who have a medical illness or disability which is affected by their home, or who may be vulnerable due to physical or mental health grounds. The information is assessed by its Medical Adviser (external) who provides a recommendation to the Council. A relevant Council officer then considers the recommendation, and information used by the Medical Adviser, and considers what medical priority band, if any, should be awarded.
12. Bedroom eligibility stated a parent with a child under 18 is entitled to bid, and be allocated, a two bedroom property.

What happened

13. Ms Y has lived in her current accommodation since November 2020. It is a one bedroom flat on the second floor. Her young daughter is autistic, and Ms Y said under the Council’s allocation policy, those with autism should not live beyond the first floor. There is no lift in the building and her daughter will sometimes refuse to climb the stairs because of mood swings. This means Ms Y has to then carry her up to the flat which is increasingly difficult as she grows.
14. Ms Y wants to transfer to a two bedroom property as her daughter needs her own bedroom as she also has sleeping issues as she wakes every couple of hours throughout the night. The open plan kitchen is a danger to her daughter as she has no safety awareness. She believed she should have a higher banding under its housing allocation policy. She is currently in Band C. Ms Y also complained she waited almost a year for the Council to respond to her review request about her banding.
15. In December 2023, she sent the Council a transfer application form with a medical assessment form. This was referred to the Medical Advisor used by the Council. At the time, the Council had placed her in Band C (overcrowding) as she was overcrowded by one bedroom.
16. The Medical Advisor recommended Band C (medical) but said her daughter did not need her own bedroom on medical grounds. Ms Y’s priority date was 4 December 2023. The recommendation included accommodation up to the first floor maximum due to her daughter’s autism.
17. She asked for additional priority, and it was referred to the Social Welfare Panel which considered it in February 2024. The panel considered her medical assessment form and its outcome. They decided not to award higher priority banding. She was advised certain Council decisions have a right to a statutory review by a senior officer. The report to the panel noted what the Medical Advisor had recommended.
18. The Council accepted it failed to act on her request for a statutory review of the Panel’s decision. I have not seen a copy of this request.
19. In June, Ms Y completed an online medical assessment form. She referred to antisocial behaviour in the block, living on the second floor with no lift, and physically having to carry her daughter up the stairs as she has no sense of danger. Nor did her daughter sleep properly which is causing problems.
20. In her September form, she said a Council officer previously told her that someone with autism should be given a maximum first floor property.
21. The Council failed to action either the June or September form.
22. In November, the Council apologised for these failures and its failure to action her request for a statutory review. It asked her to provide medical evidence in support of her forms. When she sent it the same month, the Council referred her information to a Medical Advisor.
23. The following month, the Medical Advisor recommended she remain in Band C (Medical) for a two-bedroom property. The medical priority was about her daughter’s autism (first floor maximum or with a lift). The Council told her of this decision in December. The Council could not provide a copy of the Medical Advisor’s recommendation.
24. The Council accepted the letter sent following this assessment was contradictory. This was because it told her she was not assessed as having a medical priority band, or any other priority band, which meant she did not qualify to join the housing register for a transfer. Despite this, the letter also went on to tell her she was in Band C (Medical).
25. The Council provided details of the bids Ms Y made for accommodation. This showed her ranking for each one.

My findings

Complaint a): failing to consider her request for higher banding

26. I found no fault on this complaint because there was no evidence of the Council failing to consider her requests for higher banding. I am satisfied her requests were considered.

Complaint b): delay considering her banding and transfer application

27. I found the following on this complaint:
1. I have not seen evidence showing how, when the Council received the Medical Advisor’s recommendation following her December transfer application, it assessed and considered it. The Council needed to do this to show it had reached its own decision rather than merely accepting the Medical Advisor’s recommendation on an application as its own. Without evidence to show it had considered the recommendation, along with all the other submitted information, the Council was vulnerable to the claim it fettered its own discretion by simply accepting the recommendation. This failure was fault.
2. I am not satisfied this fault caused Ms Y an outstanding injustice. This was because within several weeks, the Social Welfare Panel considered her request for additional priority. This included looking at all the information Ms Y sent, along with the Medical Advisor’s recommendation.
3. The Council accepted the information set out in the decision letter to Ms Y following the medical assessment at the end of 2024 was contradictory. This was because it told her she had no priority and so did not qualify to join the housing register. Confusingly, it also told her she was in Band C (Medical). While fault, I am not satisfied it significantly impacted on Ms Y. This was because she was aware she was in Band C (Medical). It did not stop her from bidding for properties.
4. The Council accepted it delayed acting on the medical assessment form she completed in June. This was fault.
5. The Council also accepted it delayed acting on another medical assessment form she completed in September. This was also fault.
6. I am satisfied the delay caused Ms Y some injustice. This was because she had the frustration of sending a further application to the Council. In addition, she was unaware of whether the Council was acting on them or not.
7. The Council also accepted it failed to act on her request of a statutory review of the Panel’s decision. This was fault.
8. I am satisfied this caused Ms Y some injustice in the form of frustration and a lost opportunity to have the decision reviewed.
9. The supporting information she later sent was again passed to the Medical Advisor who recommended no change to her banding. Again, there was no evidence of the Council assessing and considering her information and reaching its own decision rather than seemingly just accepting the recommendation. This again left it vulnerable to the claim it fettered its discretion. I am satisfied this caused some injustice to Ms Y as she lost opportunity to have the Council make its own decision as required by its own policy.

Complaint c): failing to transfer her to more suitable accommodation

28. On balance, I am not satisfied there was fault on this complaint. This was because Ms Y had to bid for properties through the Council’s choice based lettings scheme.
29. I am satisfied the Council properly considered her applications when awarding her banding under it. I am also satisfied the evidence showed she was not ranked highly enough for any of her bids to succeed.

Back to top

Action

30. I considered our guidance on remedies. I also considered the Council’s response to my draft decision in which it accepted it failed to properly document the process if an officer considering the Medical Advisor’s recommendation and reaching their own decision. It will introduce a new procedure to show this has happened on future cases.
31. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. The Council will send a written apology to Ms Y for its failure to: show it considered and assessed the Medical Advisor’s recommendations, along with all other submitted evidence, before making a decision; deal with her two online medical assessment forms promptly; carry out a statutory review of the Panel’s decision following her request.
2. Pay £100 to Ms Y for the injustice caused by the identified fault.
3. Remind relevant officers of the need to ensure there is a record of their decision on a medical assessment request from an applicant following a Medical Advisor’s recommendation.
4. Establish why two online completed medical assessment forms were not actioned promptly when submitted and act to ensure the failures cannot be repeated on future cases.
5. Establish why the statutory review request was not actioned and take steps to ensure this failing cannot be repeated on future cases.
6. Carry out a review of the Panel’s decision.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I found the following on Ms Y’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): no fault;
• Complaint b): fault causing injustice; and
• Complaint c): no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman