Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application and priority. The Council was responsible for significant delays in considering Miss X’s medical needs. The Council agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy. The Council has also now rehomed Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application and priority. Specifically, she complained:
• The Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation (TA).
• There were significant delays by the Council in its consideration of her medical needs.
• There was also a delay adding her grandson to her housing application.
2. Miss X said her physical and mental health were affected by the delays and by living in unsuitable TA.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Housing Act 1996.
• The Council’s housing allocations scheme (November 2013).
6. Miss 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

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. 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))
9. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• That the applicant is not eligible for an allocation.
• That the applicant is not a qualifying person.
• A decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
10. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
12. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

13. The Council has adopted a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
14. The Council will assess an applicant’s circumstances and place them in a priority band from 1 to 4.
15. Band 1 is for situations such as applicants who are under occupying their property or applicants whose properties need urgent major works.
16. Band 2 is for applicant with severe medical or welfare needs, or a disability, where their current accommodation is unsuitable, or it is unreasonable for them to remain there.
17. Band 3 is for homeless applicants or applicants with moderate medical priority who need to move because their condition is made worse by their current living conditions.
18. Band 4 is awarded where an applicant’s priority has been reduced due to their conduct.
19. Within each priority band, the Council may award a priority star for things like statutory homelessness, overcrowding, and severe medical or welfare needs.
20. The Council will also give applicants a priority date. This is the date their application was registered, or the date of any change in their circumstances which led to a change in their priority.
21. Where the Council needs to make enquiries into an applicant’s medical condition it will refer the case to an independent medical advisor.
22. If the medical advisor advises the Council to give reasonable preference to an applicant, the Council will award either moderate or severe priority.
23. The medical advisor may also recommend the type of property suitable for the applicant’s medical needs.
24. In situations where a person requests a review of a housing decision, the Council will appoint an officer who was not involved in the original decision to carry out the review. The Council will carry out the review, and provide a decision with reasons, within 28 days of receiving the request.

What happened

25. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
26. Miss X and her daughter, Miss Y, became homeless after a house fire in 2021.
27. The Council first placed Miss X in TA alone at Property 1, as Miss Y could stay with friends.
28. Miss X asked for alternative TA in March 2021 on medical grounds. Internal Council correspondence confirms the Council was urgently looking for alternative TA for Miss X.
29. Miss X accepted new TA at Property 2 for herself and Miss Y on 25 May 2021. At the same time, she asked the Council to review its suitability. She gave the Council a hospital letter confirming her kidney condition and a letter from her support worker.
30. A later letter, sent on Miss X’s behalf by a local charity, said Property 2 was unsuitable because it met the description of bed and breakfast accommodation. They also said there was not enough space to meet Miss X’s care and support needs.
31. The Council allocated Miss X and Miss Y new TA at Property 3. This was a one-bed flat. Because it had two living spaces, the Council considered it was suitable for two adults.
32. The Council found Miss X and Miss Y new TA (Property 4) in October 2021. This was a two-bed flat. Shortly after moving in, Miss Y contacted the Council about mould and damp. She said this was making her, her baby, and Miss X unwell and she struggled to meet Miss X’s care and support needs.
33. The Council asked Miss X to complete a medical assessment form. It said it was trying to source another property and Miss X was on the list for a transfer. It also said it would chase up repairs to Property 4. Miss X returned the medical form on 13 October 2021.
34. Also in October 2021, Miss Y asked the Council to check Miss X’s housing application because her grandson was not showing up on it.
35. The Council confirmed Miss X’s grandson was not on her housing application. Miss X needed to complete a change of circumstances form and provide a birth certificate.
36. Miss X complained on 23 February 2022. She was still waiting for the result of her medical assessment and the Council had not added her grandson to her housing application.
37. The Council’s independent medical assessor reviewed Miss X’s medical form on 28 February 2020. They considered Miss X had no medical need to move and made no recommendations about what type of property she needed.
38. The Council sent its first complaint response on 21 April 2022. It said:
• It seeks expert opinion on medical evidence from an independent assessor. It sent Miss X’s evidence on 20 February and awaits a response from the assessor.
• It apologised for the delay in the assessor’s response and said it would chase this up.
• It needs to see Miss X’s grandson’s birth certificate to add him to her housing application. A hospital letter was not enough.
39. Miss X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two on 28 April. She said the Council was meant to give an answer about medical grounds within 14 days of the change of circumstances form. She also said the Council left her in unsuitable TA for a year and this has affected her mental health and wellbeing.
40. The Council wrote to Miss X with the result of its medical assessment on 11 May 2022. It confirmed she had no medical need to move. It said the main issue was overcrowding, which has its own priority.
41. Miss X emailed the Council on 23 May. She could not understand the Council’s decision, based on her medical evidence. She asked the Council to look into it again. The Council treated this as a review request.
42. The Council sent its final complaint response on 9 June 2022. It said:
• It received Miss X’s housing application in February 2021 and placed her in priority Band 3.
• On 28 February 2022 an independent medical assessor decided Miss X had no medical requirement for a move.
• Miss X appealed this decision on 23 May 2022. The Council will complete a review by 20 June 2022.
• Miss X’s grandson is now listed on her housing application and the Council has awarded a ‘community’ priority star.
43. A review officer contacted Miss X in June 2022. They noticed Miss X had moved to new TA since she filed her medical form in October 2021. The officer said that medical assessment was based on information about Miss X’s previous TA and is therefore no longer relevant in assessing her current housing needs. The officer asked Miss X to submit a new change of circumstances form and send supporting medical evidence.
44. Miss X said she had no choice but to accept her current TA as the last TA had mould. She explained she cannot manage the stairs in the new property, due to her kidney disease, and the property is at the bottom of a hill. This affects her breathing. She said she already sent a change of circumstances form in October 2021 and waited seven months for a reply. She could not understand why she remained in priority Band 3.
45. The Council apologised for not processing the details within its usual timeframe. It said this was due to a backlog of medical forms. However, it said it was important to understand how Miss X’s current TA impacts her health.
46. The Council wrote to Miss X in July 2022 with the result of its medical assessment. The independent medical assessor found Miss X had severe medical need for a move. They also recommended a ground floor property, if there is no lift, no internal stairs, low level shower access, and a second bedroom for Miss X’s live-in carer.

My investigation

47. In response to my enquiries, the Council said pregnancy is not considered in a priority assessment, in terms of bedroom need, until the baby is born. The applicant then needs to complete a change of circumstances form and submit a birth certificate. Miss X completed the form on 13 October 2021 but did not provide a birth certificate until 22 April 2022. The Council then updated her application on 25 April 2022.
48. The Council said it reviewed the suitability of Miss X’s TA in May/June 2021. Its independent medical assessor decided Miss X had no medical need to move on 4 August 2021. Miss X did not ask for a review at the time but did ask for a review in May 2022. However, because she had moved to different TA by then the earlier medical assessment did not match her current circumstances, so Council asked her to complete a change of circumstances form.
49. The Council said it completed medical assessments in line with its scheme and processes. It recognises there was a delay in the first medical assessment, beyond its target of 28 days.
50. The Council told me it has now placed Miss X in priority Band 2, with a priority date of 22 June 2022, which was the date of its review decision. Miss X confirmed this was the housing priority she sought.
51. In response to my draft decision, the Council told me it has now rehomed Miss X. Miss X confirmed she likes the new property, but it does not have space for home dialysis equipment so she is still making trips to the hospital.

Analysis

Medical assessments and suitability

52. The Council received Miss X’s medical assessment form in October 2021, but did not send it to the medical assessor until February 2022. That was a significant delay and was fault.
53. The medical assessor gave an opinion within about seven days, on 28 February, but the Council did not give Miss X a decision until May 2022. Again, that was a significant delay and was fault.
54. Meanwhile, the Council found Miss X new TA in November 2021. That meant by the time it sent her assessment form to the medical assessor in February 2022 the information was already out of date and redundant.
55. Miss X asked for a review of the medical assessment in May 2022, within two weeks of receiving the Council’s decision. It was only then the Council realised Miss X had moved and it needed up to date information about her present accommodation.
56. The Council’s updated medical assessment placed Miss X in priority Band 2 with a severe medical need to move. It also highlighted she needs a property without stairs and with a low shower. Miss X’s TA at the time had stairs with 30 steps and no shower. This information should have led the Council to review the suitability of Miss X’s last TA. I have not seen evidence the Council did this. That was fault.

Miss X’s grandson

57. Miss X did not provide the Council with her grandson’s birth certificate when she returned the change of circumstances form.
58. I found the Council updated Miss X’s housing application as soon as it received the birth certificate. The Council was therefore not at fault.
59. In addition, Miss X and Miss Y were in two-bed TA when Miss X’s grandson was born, and they were not entitled to any extra priority. Miss X’s priority changed due to her medical condition and the impact her current TA has on her physical health and wellbeing.

Injustice

60. I found the Council was responsible for significant delays in deciding the medical assessment form Miss X filed in October 2021.
61. If the Council had made a decision within 28 days, as it should have done, Miss X could have asked for a review or a new medical assessment in November 2021. She was unaware she needed to do so.
62. The Council’s delays prevented Miss X from asking for a new medical assessment when she first moved into her current TA. They also meant Miss X had the wrong priority and potentially remained in unsuitable TA for months.
63. The Council’s delays also caused Miss X frustration and distress. She was put to unnecessary time and trouble challenging the Council and in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman. This could have been avoided if the Council had not been responsible for significant delays.

Back to top

Agreed action

64. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X for the delays in considering her medical needs and deciding on her housing priority, and for failing to review the suitability of her last TA.
• Pay Miss X £500 to recognise the distress its delays caused, and the time and trouble Miss X was put to.
65. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

66. Subject to further comments by Miss X and the Council, I intend to complete my investigation. There Council was responsible for significant delays in considering Miss X’s medical needs. I have made recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman