Summary: Mr C complained the Council delayed dealing with his medical information. We find the Council was at fault because it delayed assessing Mr C’s medical assessment form and it also delayed responding to his review request. The Council apologised to Mr C and offered a payment for the inconvenience caused. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained the Council delayed dealing with his medical information. He says the Council’s delays have caused him significant stress and anxiety.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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 information from Mr C and the Council.
6. Mr C 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

Temporary accommodation

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Housing allocations

9. 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))
10. The Council’s housing allocation scheme says homeless applicants with medical grounds for a move will be assessed to see whether they fall into a mobility category. Applicants with severe mobility problems who require a ground floor or lifted property with level access and no internal stairs will be placed in category 3. All other applicants will be placed in category 4.
11. All homeless households will be registered for the correct size property they are entitled to in line with the Council’s bedroom standard. A single person is entitled to a studio property.
12. For those requiring a larger property on medical grounds, the Council’s medical advisor will provide advice on whether the person’s medical conditions mean they would benefit from having a separate bedroom. In circumstances where a homeless household requires a carer, an additional bedroom may be considered if a household member has been assessed by social services as requiring 24 hours of care seven days a week.
13. Housing applicants can ask councils to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. The Council aims to carry out reviews within eight weeks.

What happened

14. After Mr C made a homeless application, the Council accepted its main housing duty towards him on 31 July 2020. He moved into temporary accommodation. The Council placed him in mobility category 4 and said he would be eligible to bid for studio properties.
15. Mr C completed a medical assessment form and sent it to the Council on 24 August. He asked it to re-assess his mobility because of the difficulties he has going up the stairs. He also said he wanted to be eligible to bid for one-bedroom properties because of his mental health needs.
16. Mr C’s support worker complained to the Council on his behalf on 17 December. She said Mr C had not received a response to the medical assessment form he submitted on 24 August.
17. The Council responded to the complaint on 18 January 2021. It said it had not referred to matter to its medical advisor. It apologised for the unacceptable delay and said it would deal with his file as a matter of urgency. It also offered £150 for his inconvenience.
18. Mr C referred his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. He said his mental health and other health conditions had worsened. He also said it had not confirmed when it would review his file.
19. The Council issued its stage two response on 22 February. It said it did not refer the matter to its medical advisor until 29 January, despite the commitment it had made in its stage one response. It apologised for the further delay and increased its offer to £200.
20. The Council wrote to Mr C with its decision on 16 March. It said while it recognised his health needs, there was no evidence to suggest he needed a separate sleeping/living space.
21. Mr C’s support worker wrote to the Council on 27 April and asked for a review of its initial decision. She said Mr C needed a one-bedroom property because of his severe mental health conditions. She also said the Council had not commented on why Mr C did not meet the criteria for mobility category 3. She said a ground floor property was more suitable for him because of his severe mobility problems. She provided the Council with further medical evidence.
22. Mr C continued to bid for studio properties while he was waiting for the Council’s response. He accepted a studio property and entered into an introductory tenancy agreement with the Council on 19 July. The tenancy will last for 12 months. He is no longer registered on the Council’s homeless priority register.
23. The Council issued its review decision on 26 July and apologised for the delay. It said there was no evidence to show that Mr C has a care package with mental health services or that he needs any property adaptations. It also said there was no reason why a one-bedroom property was more suitable than a studio property on mental health grounds.
24. The Council also said that while Mr C experiences difficulties managing steps/stairs, there was no evidence to show he could not manage them at his own pace.
25. Mr C remains unhappy with the Council’s response.

Back to top

Analysis

26. The Council has accepted it unreasonably delayed reviewing Mr C’s medical assessment form. Mr C sent the Council the form on 24 August 2020, and it did not issue its decision until 16 March 2021.
27. Mr C experienced further delays after this. He submitted his review request on 27 April 2021. The Council says it aims to complete reviews within eight weeks. The Council issued its review on 26 July 2021, which represents a four-week delay.
28. When the Council responded to Mr C’s complaint, it apologised unreservedly, and offered him £200 for his inconvenience. It also subsequently apologised for the delay in responding to his review request. My role is to consider whether the remedy is suitable for the injustice Mr C has suffered.
29. I am satisfied the Council fully considered Mr C’s medical evidence when it issued its review decision on 26 July 2021. It explained why having considered that evidence, it did not deem he was eligible for a one-bedroom property or that he needed to be in mobility category 3. That was a decision it was entitled to make based on the information it had received.
30. The delays Mr C experienced caused him frustration and uncertainty. However, it has not affected his housing priority or eligibility. This is because the Council has not changed its decision that he does not qualify for a one-bedroom property or that he needs to be in mobility category 3. Therefore, I consider the Council’s offer of £200 and the apologies it has made are suitable to address Mr C’s injustice and it is in line with our guidance on remedies. I do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for its delays in dealing with Mr C’s medical assessment form and responding to his review request. I am satisfied the Council has already offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman