Summary: Miss X complains the Council delayed in carrying out medical assessments, reviewing her housing priority and failed to take sufficient action on disclosures of domestic abuse. The Council is at fault as it delayed in dealing with Miss X’s medical assessment and failed to take sufficient action on disclosures that Miss X was at risk of domestic abuse. This caused distress to Miss X and she missed the opportunity for a management transfer. The Council has remedied the injustice to Miss X by placing her in band A of its allocations scheme. It has also agreed to apologise to Miss X for the distress caused and make a symbolic payment of £300.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council:

• delayed in carrying out medical assessments for her and her family and reviewing her priority for rehousing.
• failed to take sufficient action when MARAC and the IDVA advised the Council that she was at high risk of domestic abuse.

2. Miss X considers that as a result she has had lower priority on the transfer queue than she should have had so will wait longer to be offered suitable accommodation. She has also been caused significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated events from November 2021 when Miss X submitted her medical assessment form. I have not considered how the Council dealt with her housing application before November 2021 as it was open to Miss X to make a complaint to us sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Miss X;
• Discussed the issues with Miss X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Miss X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

What I found

8. 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))

9. 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))
   

10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications.
11. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out how applicants will be prioritised for housing. Applicants are placed into one of four priority bands with band A being the highest priority.
12. The Council’s allocations scheme has a number of access queues. These include a queue for council tenants requesting a transfer. Additional preference for priority rehousing may be given in a number of circumstances including if there is a serious and credible risk to the applicant’s safety in their current accommodation. The award of priority rehousing is awarded on a case by case basis. Applicants awarded priority rehousing will be placed in band A.
     

Back to top

What happened

13. The following is a summary of the key events which are relevant to my consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.

Background

14. Miss X lives in two bedroom flat with her three children. Miss X and her children have medical conditions. Some years ago, the Council moved Miss X and her children to the property via a management transfer as Miss X was at risk of domestic abuse. Miss X then applied for the Council’s tenant transfer queue as she was overcrowded. The Council reassessed Miss X’s application in 2021. It considered she required a three bedroom property. It placed her in band C with 50 points for overcrowding. Miss X considered the Council should have awarded medical points.

Medical assessment

15. In late 2021 Miss X completed a medical assessment form. The Council asked Miss X to explain what she found difficult about living in her current property in view of her medical conditions and how the property aggravated those conditions. It asked her to provide details of her medication. The Council also asked Miss X to provide more information about how the property aggravated the medical conditions of her children. Miss X did not provide this information. In response to my enquiries the Council said it did not have sufficient information to carry out an accurate assessment of Miss X’s rehousing need on medical grounds.
16. In early 2022 Miss X’s representative contacted the Council to ask for the outcome of Miss X’s medical assessment. The Council advised that Miss X had not yet provided the information it requested in late 2021.
17. The officer also agreed to review Miss X’s medical information and arranged a further meeting with Miss X and her representative. The officer did not attend the meeting.
18. In early summer 2022, the Council requested information from Miss X’s GP about her children’s medical conditions. Miss X provided the name and telephone number of her GP on her medical assessment application form but she did not provide the practice’s address. The Council sent the information request to the GP surgery linked to the telephone number provided by Miss X. Miss X’s representative then notified the Council that it had contacted the wrong GP surgery. The Council asked Miss X to provide details of her current GP.
19. Miss X provided the details of her current GP two months later. The Council then asked Miss X to provide her signed consent for it to contact her current GP. In response to my enquiries the Council said it usually expects clients to provide consent to allow it to make enquiries of third parties and this should include a wet signature. It considers a GP practice would be unlikely to disclose a patient’s medical information without their consent.
20. In spring 2023, Miss X provided her signed consent for the Council to contact her GP and further medical information about her children. Three months later the Council completed its medical assessment. It considered Miss X was eligible for a four bedroom property and placed her in band B. The Council awarded 150 overcrowding points and 25 medical points. The Council did not notify Miss X of her right to seek a review of this decision.
21. The Council has said the delay in completing Miss X medical assessment after Miss X provided her consent was due to high demand. The Council has expanded its team dealing with medical assessments to assist with managing the demand.

Domestic abuse

22. In early 2022, Miss X’s representative sent a copy of a letter from the Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) to the Council. The letter said Miss X was at high risk of domestic abuse as the alleged perpetrator was aware of her address. A Council officer held a meeting with Miss X and her representative. The Council has said Miss X said she felt unsafe in her home but not in the wider area. An officer agreed to speak to Miss X’s estate manager about her being offered a management transfer but did not do so.
23. Miss X’s independent domestic violence advocate (IDVA) contacted the Council in spring 2022 for an update on Miss X’s housing position. She said Miss X and her children were at risk as the alleged perpetrator had visited Miss X’s address. The Council advised that Miss X did not have a reasonable prospect of being rehoused via the transfer queue at that time. The Council suggested Miss X contact her estate manager for a management move. The Council also provided information on how Miss X could make a homelessness application. I understand Miss X did not want to make a homelessness application.
24. The Council’s records show an officer contacted Miss X in Autumn 2022 to discuss her options following her reports of domestic abuse. The Council declined to offer a management transfer and suggested Miss X consider a mutual exchange.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council has said it did not consider Miss X for priority rehousing under its allocations scheme as it considered a management transfer would be the best option. The Council has acknowledged it did not fully explore a management transfer with Miss X. A management transfer would have resulted in Miss X being offered another two bedroom property but the Council has now assessed Miss X as requiring a four bedroom property. It has exercised its discretion to place Miss X in band A for a four bedroom property.

Complaint

26. Miss X made a complaint to the Council about it not providing sufficient support with her request for a transfer and it had not dealt with her medical assessment. The Council responded at stage one of its two stage complaints procedure. It advised that the Council was still waiting for Miss X to provide the medical information requested in late 2021. It acknowledged the officer had not spoken to Miss X’s estate manager about the possibility of a management transfer and upheld this aspect of her complaint. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two. The Council said there was insufficient information to indicate a rehousing need on medical grounds. It also said the Council would seek additional information from Miss X’s GP. The Council did not say it was waiting for Miss X to provide her signed consent before it could do this.
27. The Council also advised Miss X she could make a homelessness application if she felt unsafe at her property due to the risk of domestic abuse.

Analysis

Medical assessment

28. The Council took 20 months to complete Miss X’s medical assessment. Miss X contributed to this delay by not providing the medical information requested by the Council in November 2021 and not providing the details of her current GP. So, I cannot conclude that fault by the Council caused the medical assessment to take such a long period of time. But I consider fault by the Council contributed to the time taken. Miss X did not provide her signed consent for the Council to contact her current GP for several months. This delay was caused, in part, by a lack of clarity in the Council’s stage two response to her complaint. The Council said it would contact Miss X’s GP despite the fact it was waiting for her signed consent. It is therefore understandable that Miss X thought the Council did not need her consent so did not provide it until the Council requested it again in Spring 2023. This delayed Miss X’s medical assessment by five months.
29. The Council took three months to complete Miss X’s medical assessment when she submitted her consent and additional information in spring 2023. The Council has acknowledged this was too long and I consider this to be fault.
30. I cannot conclude the Council would have increased Miss X’s priority to band B sooner if the fault had not occurred. The Council made its decision to increase Miss X’s priority on the information she submitted in Spring 2023. The Council backdated the band B priority to spring 2023 so she was not disadvantaged by the delay in completing the assessment. But the delays will have caused distress to Miss X which the Council should remedy.
31. Applicants have the right to seek a review of the Council’s decisions on their priority. The Council did not notify Miss X of her right to seek a review when it notified her of its decision to award band B in spring 2023. This is fault which caused Miss X to miss the opportunity to seek a review of her priority.

Domestic abuse

32. The Council failed to take sufficient action when Miss X’s representative disclosed the MARAC letter which stated Miss X was at high risk of domestic abuse. There is no evidence to show the Council considered the risks to Miss X when it received the letter and when Miss X’s IDVA reported the alleged perpetrator had visited her property. The Council has said it considered a management transfer was the most suitable option for Miss X. But it then declined to offer a management transfer. There is no evidence to show the Council considered its discretion to consider Miss X for priority rehousing status in accordance with its allocations scheme when it refused the management transfer or considered what other support it could offer. The lack of support by the Council caused distress to Miss X which it should remedy.
33. The Council has acknowledged it did not properly explore the possibility of a management transfer with Miss X in 2022. On balance, I consider that had it done so, it would have offered a management transfer of a two bedroom property to Miss X at that time. The Council has now placed Miss X in band A in the transfer queue for a four bedroom property. This is a sufficient and proportionate way to remedy the missed opportunity for a management transfer in 2022, subject to the Council ensuring Miss X’s priority is backdated to February 2022 when it was notified of the MARAC’s view that Miss X was at high risk of domestic abuse. The decision to place Miss X in band A also remedies her missed opportunity to seek a review of the Council’s decision to place her in band B.

Back to top

Recommended action

34. That the Council will:
1. Send a written apology to Miss X for the distress caused to her by the delays in completing her medical assessment and for failing to provide sufficient support when it received disclosures of domestic abuse. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the distress caused to Miss X;
3. If it has not already done so, backdates Miss X’s band A priority to February 2022 when the Council became aware of MARAC’s view that she was at high risk of domestic abuse.
4. Review its procedures for dealing with disclosures of domestic abuse to ensure officers consider all options for safe housing such a management transfers and increased priority under the housing allocations scheme.
5. Draw up an action plan, with clear timescales, for reducing the delays in dealing with medical assessments.
6. Amend its template letters to ensure the Council includes details of how applicants can seek a review of the Council’s decision on their housing priority band
35. The Council should take the action set out at a) to c) within one month of my final decision. It should take the action at d) to f) within two months of my final decision.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. Fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman