Summary: Miss C complained the Council failed to consider the suitability of a property offered to her, failed to give her information about the housing register process or the right to seek a medical review, failed to provide her with suitable banding on the housing register, delayed considering her complaints and failed to refer her to the LGSCO. The Council failed to carry out the medical assessments properly and failed to signpost Miss C to the LGSCO. There is no evidence of fault in the rest of the complaint. An apology, payment to Miss C and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss C, complained the Council:
• failed to properly consider the suitability of a property offered to her to discharge its homeless duty;
• failed to offer her a suitability review of that property;
• failed to respond to her request for a suitability review;
• failed to tell her about the option of completing a medical assessment when she put in her homeless application;
• failed to properly explain the processes relating to the tenancy;
• failed to explain how the bidding system worked;
• failed to provide her with the suitable banding;
• delayed considering her complaints;
• failed to signpost her to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO);
• failed to act on antisocial behaviour (ASB) or investigate it properly;
• failed to carry out the antisocial behaviour review (ASB review) properly;
• failed to deal with her second homeless application properly.
2. Miss C says the Council’s actions have had a significant impact on her mental health.

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. If the authority has accepted the main housing duty the applicant has review and appeal rights about the suitability of any accommodation that is offered to fulfil that duty, whether it is temporary or permanent. We usually expect applicants to use their review and appeal rights in this respect, subject to any exceptional circumstances.
5. We will normally pursue complaints where a person has not been informed of their rights. In addition, we may consider further investigation in cases where this remedy would be ineffective for some reason, or where the person that has complained has already left the accommodation in question.
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I have investigated Miss C’s concerns about the suitability issues, medical assessments, failure to properly explain the processes, banding issues and how the Council dealt with her complaint. I have not investigated Miss C’s concerns about how the antisocial behaviour issues were dealt with, the antisocial behaviour review process, the managed move or the second homeless application. I explain my reasons for that at the end of this statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss C's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
11. Miss C and the organisation 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

LGSCO guide for practitioners on medical assessments for housing applications

12. In our guide for practitioners on medical assessments (LGSCO guide) for housing applications we say councils must give reasonable preference to applicants who need to move on medical grounds. Many allocation schemes say the Council will do a medical assessment if an applicant says their physical or mental health conditions are made worse by their current housing situation. The purpose of the assessment is to decide if they qualify for medical priority under the allocation scheme.
13. The LGSCO guide say when considering their request, councils may seek advice from external independent medical advisers or ask their own occupational therapist (OT) to carry out an assessment. But the decision about whether the applicant qualifies for priority, and at what level, is for the council to make based on its allocation scheme and all the evidence provided.
14. The LGSCO guide says when telling an applicant about the council’s decision the council may set out the independent medical adviser's view, but we would expect it to go on to explain its reasons for the decision reached. The decision letter should explain why the medical evidence the applicant provided was discounted or was not sufficient to award priority or was only sufficient to award a lower level of priority than the applicant wanted.
15. The LGSCO guide makes clear we expect councils to critically assess the independent medical adviser's opinion and balance it against any conflicting evidence provided by the applicant. Where the council accepts the independent medical adviser's view, it should explain its reasons for doing so, to ensure it is clear it is the council's decision and not that of the adviser.

The Council’s housing allocation scheme

16. This says applicants or a member of their household with an illness or disability which is affected by their current home can complete a medical self-assessment form. The Council will then assess the impact the applicant's current housing has on the health of any member of the household.
17. It says there are three categories of medical need:
• exceptional medical need which is where the applicant or member of their household has a life-threatening condition which is seriously affected by their current housing and which cannot be resolved within a reasonable time. This will be reviewed after six months.
• Urgent medical need is recommended where the current housing conditions are having a major adverse impact on the medical condition of the applicant or a member of their household. This is reviewed after 12 months.
• Nonurgent medical is recommended where the current housing conditions are having a minor effect on the medical condition of the applicant or a member of their household.
18. Appendix C sets out the bands for the housing register. Band A covers, among other things, those with exceptional medical need. Band B covers, among other things, those who are statutory homeless and owed the full housing duty and those with urgent medical need. Band E covers, among other things, those with nonurgent medical and children in flats. The banding system says those with two need factors will be placed in band C2.

The Council’s complaint policy

19. This says complaints will be responded to at stage one within 10 working days from the date the complaint was raised. Stage two is then responded to within 20 working days.

What happened

20. Miss C made a homeless application in 2022. The Council accepted it had a duty to help Miss C secure accommodation in July 2022. Miss C told the Council she needed to live in the south of the Council’s area to be near her support network. The Council explained most social housing was in the north and if she wanted to live in the south she should continue looking for a private sector property. The Council allocated band B priority on its housing register as Miss C was homeless.
21. In July 2022 Miss C placed a bid on a property in the north of the Council’s area. The Council offered that property to Miss C in August 2022. The letter told Miss C accepting the accommodation would end the Council homelessness duty. The letter explained Miss C could ask for a review of the suitability of the property within 21 days and said if she wanted to do that she should accept the offer and then request a review.
22. Miss C contacted the Council to raise concerns the flat was too far from her support network. The Council reminded Miss C about the availability of properties in the south of its area. Miss C agreed to view the property. Miss C later accepted the tenancy.
23. On 4 September Miss C contacted the Council to ask for a review of the suitability of the property. The Council asked Miss C for more details about the request for a review on 5 September and chased Miss C on 6 September. Miss C contacted the Council on 6 September and said everything was okay. The Council asked Miss C whether she wanted to continue with the review and she said she did not. At that point the Council had closed Miss C’s homeless application and she was not registered on the Council’s housing register.
24. In September 2023 Miss C asked for a medical assessment. The Council passed the case to its medical adviser who recommended band B priority on medical grounds. The Council wrote Miss C to tell her that and said she would stay in band B for 12 months.
25. Miss C applied for further medical priority in February 2024. The Council passed the application to its medical adviser. The medical adviser recommended band E priority as there was no evidence Miss C’s medication dose had been increased, that she had been consulting her GP about that or that she had been referred for therapy. The Council changed the banding to band E on 6 March and wrote to Miss C to tell her that. The Council changed the banding to C2 on 15 March as Miss C had two needs recorded.
26. Miss C’s representative challenged the Council about its decision to change the banding. The Council wrote to Miss C on 8 May to explain it had considered her request for a reassessment of her medical priority. The Council explained it was satisfied C2 was a correct assessment of her priority, referring to the medical adviser not being satisfied Miss C had exceptional medical needs or evidence to show her housing circumstances were having a major adverse impact on her medical condition which would show her in urgent housing need.
27. Miss C has now moved to alternative accommodation following a managed move.

Analysis

28. Some of Miss C’s complaint relates to matters which happened more than 12 months before the complaint to the Ombudsman. I am exercising the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate those complaints. That is because I am satisfied the complaints were delayed by the Council’s failure to direct Miss C to LGSCO at the same time it directed her to the Housing Ombudsman.
29. Miss C says the Council failed to properly consider the suitability of the property it offered to her to discharge its duty. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Miss C bid for the property the Council gave to her rather than the Council identifying the property for Miss C. In those circumstances I would not expect the Council to have carried out a suitability assessment.
30. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me when the Council wrote to Miss C to offer her the property it told her about her right to ask for a review. I am therefore satisfied the Council told Miss C about her review rights.
31. I appreciate Miss C’s representative says Miss C asked for a review and the Council did nothing with that. I can see from the documentary evidence Miss C contacted the Council to ask for a review on 4 September. I am satisfied though over the next few days Miss C exchanged messages with the Council’s officer. That culminated with Miss C telling the Council she did not want to pursue a review. I am satisfied the Council did not just accept that and instead checked with her whether she wanted to continue with the review and Miss C confirmed she did not. In those circumstances I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
32. The Council accepts though it could have provided more information to Miss C about what she needed to do to ask for a review. The Council says it has amended its processes to ensure it provides further information to housing applicants about that. I welcome that. However, given Miss C declined to continue with the review I do not consider she has suffered a significant injustice because of any failure to detail the process. I therefore do not intend to pursue the point further.
33. Miss C says the Council failed to offer her a medical assessment when she first applied as homeless. Miss C says because the Council did not mention it she did not know she could apply for one.
34. Having considered the documentary evidence I am satisfied Miss C did not declare any medical issues or support needs when she completed her homeless application. Miss C ticked on the form to say she was not taking any medication, did not need support and did not have any medical issues. In those circumstances I see no reason for the Council to offer a medical assessment. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
35. Miss C says the Council failed to properly explain the process for the tenancy when she has suspected learning difficulties. Having considered the information available to the Council when Miss C accepted the tenancy I have seen nothing to suggest the Council should have known about any difficulties for Miss C understanding the implications of accepting the tenancy. The homeless application Miss C completed did not declare any learning disability or medical issues for the Council to consider. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council here.
36. Miss C says the Council failed to explain how the bidding system worked. The documentary evidence I have seen satisfies me the personalised housing plan the Council completed for Miss C noted it had given her advice about applying for available social housing. I am therefore satisfied the Council explained the process to Miss C. It is also clear Miss C has not had any difficulty submitting bids for properties. In those circumstances I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
37. Miss C says the Council failed to award her sufficient banding. Miss C’s representative says Miss C should have been in band E between September 2022 when she was rehomed by the Council until September 2023. That is because Miss C was placed in a flat with a child which, according to the Council’s allocations policy, warrants band E priority.
38. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council at first placed Miss C on the housing register in band B as a homeless applicant. When the Council made Miss C an offer of permanent accommodation in 2022 that brought the Council’s duty to an end. There is no evidence Miss C made a further housing register application at that point to go back onto the Council’s housing register. As Miss C did not make an application until September 2023 she was not registered on the Council’s housing register. That meant Miss C did not have any right to bid on properties and did not have a band.
39. I am concerned though there is no evidence the Council told Miss C it would remove her from its housing register when she moved into the permanent property in September 2022. I would have expected the Council to explain that, particularly as it knew Miss C would be entitled to band E as she had moved into a flat with a child. Failure to tell Miss C is fault. That denied Miss C the opportunity to put in an application to join the Council’s housing register between September 2022 and September 2023.
40. I cannot reach a safe conclusion about whether Miss C would have put in an application at the time given she did not contact the Council for an assessment until a year later. Nor does it seem likely, on the balance of probability, Miss C would have secured a property had she applied and received band E priority. I therefore consider Miss C’s injustice is uncertainty about whether the situation could have been different.
41. I turn now to the Council’s decision to place Miss C in band B following a medical assessment in September 2023 and its decision to then downgrade her to band E in March 2024. For both assessments the Council took advice from its medical adviser. As I said in paragraphs 12 and 13, it is usual for councils to seek medical advice when deciding whether to award medical priority for an applicant on the housing register. However, as I also make clear in paragraphs 14 and 15, the decision about whether an applicant qualifies for priority and what priority to give is a matter for the Council rather than the medical adviser.
42. The Council can take into account the views of the medical adviser but it must make a decision on the banding itself after considering the medical adviser’s opinion and any medical evidence the applicant has provided. We also expect councils to critically assess the independent medical adviser’s opinion and balance it against any conflicting evidence provided by the applicant. Where the Council accepts the independent medical adviser’s view, it should explain its reasons for doing so, to ensure it is clear it is the Council’s decision and not that of the adviser.
43. I am not satisfied the Council did that in this case. I say that because the letters to Miss C, telling her about her banding in September 2023 and March 2024, mentioned only the medical adviser’s recommendation. There is no reference in those letters to the evidence the Council had considered. Nor is there any reference to what view the Council had taken after considering all the evidence and the recommendation. I therefore consider the Council relied on the medical adviser’s opinion in awarding banding priority rather than taking the decision itself. That is fault.
44. For the banding in September 2023 I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, the Council would have confirmed that banding had it properly considered the medical adviser’s recommendation. That is because band B is the band somebody with urgent medical need would normally be allocated. So, while it is fault for the Council to simply take the medical adviser’s recommendation and confirm that in writing without considering whether that recommendation was appropriate, I do not consider it likely that resulted in any injustice to Miss C before the assessment in March 2024.
45. For the medical assessment in February 2024 though the Council decided to downgrade Miss C’s banding in March 2024 after taking medical advice. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council considered whether the banding recommended by the medical adviser was suitable for Miss C in March 2024. The Council is therefore at fault.
46. In reaching that view I recognise when dealing with Miss C’s request for a review in May 2024 the Council went into detail about the reasons for Miss C’s banding. However, that letter again noted the medical adviser was not supporting Miss C’s claim she had exceptional medical needs, referring to the comments the medical adviser had made. I am therefore satisfied the Council repeated the same fault as it did not consider what banding it should allocate to Miss C and instead used the medical adviser’s opinion as its decision. That is, again, fault.
47. The Council accepts when it downgraded the banding in March 2024 it failed to identify Miss C had two needs: a medical need and had a child living in a flat. The Council accepts it should therefore have recorded the banding as C2 and it delayed doing that until 15 March 2024 which meant Miss C was in the wrong band for 9 days. The Council says though Miss C did not miss out on a property during that time. Failure to identify the number of needs Miss C had is fault. As I said in the previous paragraphs though, I am not satisfied the assessment the Council completed in March 2024 properly considered Miss C’s case.
48. As remedy for the complaint I recommended the Council apologise to Miss C. I recognise though the situation has moved on given the Council has moved Miss C into alternative accommodation as part of a managed move. Had that not been the case I would have recommended the Council review Miss C’s banding from March 2024 onwards.
49. I see no reason to make that recommendation now given Miss C’s circumstances have changed. In those circumstances I consider Miss C’s injustice is limited to her uncertainty about whether her situation would have been different had she known about the closure of her housing register application in September 2022 and had the Council properly considered her banding in March 2024.
50. As remedy for that I recommended the Council pay Miss C £300. That amount takes into account that I cannot reach a safe conclusion about whether the Council would have awarded greater priority had it properly considered the case in March 2024. I also recommended the Council remind officers dealing with medical assessments of the need to ensure the decision on an applicant’s banding is made by the Council after considering medical advice rather than relying on the medical recommendation. I further recommended that when a homeless applicant is registered on the Council’s housing register because they are homeless the Council make sure when ending it homeless duty it tell the applicant about the right to put in a further housing register application. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
51. Miss C says the Council delayed considering her complaint. The Council’s complaints procedure says stage one complaints will be dealt with within 10 working days. The Council was slightly outside that timescale in this case but not so far outside the timescale to warrant a finding of fault.
52. For the stage two complaint the Council’s complaints procedure says it has 20 days to respond to the complaint. The Council received a complaint on 2 October. As the Council did not respond to the complaint until 3 November that is outside the timescales set out in the Council’s complaints procedure. However, it is also clear part of the delay here was because the Council could not get hold of Miss C’s representative to discuss the complaint. So, while the Council failed to meet the published timescales in its complaints procedure I consider there were mitigating circumstances. I therefore do not criticise the Council for the delay.
53. The Council accepts it failed to signpost Miss C to the LGSCO at the end of the complaints process. The Council says though it understood under the complaints code as Miss C is a Council tenant it would be expected to refer her to the Housing Ombudsman and the Housing Ombudsman would then identify any areas outside its jurisdiction.
54. I am concerned about the Council’s approach here. I appreciate the split between what the Housing Ombudsman considers what the LGSCO considers can be complex. However, in this case as well as raising concerns about the state of the property let to Miss C and antisocial behaviour issues she had also raised concerns about how her homeless application had been dealt with and the failure to offer her a suitability review. I consider it should have been clear to the Council those matters fell within the LGSCO’s jurisdiction rather than the Housing Ombudsman. Failure to direct Miss C to the LGSCO is therefore fault and meant her complaint was delayed.
55. In reaching that view I recognise part of the Council’s reasoning was that the issues for the homeless application and suitability review related to events which happened more than 12 months ago. While I appreciate that, the decision about whether to exercise discretion to investigate matters which took place more than 12 months ago is a matter for the LGSCO. I therefore consider the Council at fault for not referring Miss C to us.
56. I recommended the Council apologise to Miss C and remind officers that when dealing with a complaint from a Council tenant if there are areas which relate to matters where the Council is not acting as a landlord (such as when dealing with homeless applications) the Council should also ensure it provide details of the LGSCO. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Miss C for the uncertainty she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Miss C £300;
• remind officers dealing with medical assessments of the need to ensure the decision on an applicant’s banding is made by the Council after taking into account medical advice rather than simply relying on the medical recommendation;
• remind officers dealing with decisions on homeless applications to inform applicants that their housing register application has been closed when the Council has discharged its duty and to inform them of how to make a further housing register application if they wish to do so;
• remind officers that when dealing with a complaint from a Council tenant if there are areas which relate to matters where the Council is not acting as a landlord (such as when dealing with homeless applications) the Council should ensure it provide details of the LGSCO at the end of the complaints process.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have completed my investigation and have found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Miss C an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

59. I have not investigated Miss C’s concerns about the Council’s failure to act on antisocial behaviour she reported or the way in which it carried out its antisocial behaviour investigation. That is because those are matters the Housing Ombudsman will consider as part of its investigation into the Council’s actions as landlord. For the same reason I am not investigating Miss C’s concern about the Council’s delay arranging a managed move as that is linked to the antisocial behaviour issues and the Council’s actions as Miss C’s landlord.
60. Nor have I investigated Miss C’s concerns about any decisions reached by the ASB review process. That is because the ASB review process is a multiagency process and the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction for all the participants in that process. Miss C has, in any event, asked for an appeal and the antisocial behaviour aspects of the complaint are a matter for the Housing Ombudsman.
61. I have not investigated Miss C’s concerns about how the Council dealt with her second homeless application. That is because that is a new matter which the Council has not had an opportunity to respond to.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman