Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not properly dealt with his housing priority. The Council is at fault because it did not record how it made its decision. Mr X suffered uncertainty and avoidable distress. The Council should record its decision making about medical priority and reassess Mr X’s priority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to deal with his housing properly because it has not taken account of his medical circumstances properly when determining his housing priority.
2. Mr X says he has not been allocated the right housing priority.

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. I considered documents and information provided by the Council.
6. Mr 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

Law, guidance and policies

7. The Council’s allocations policy says where an applicant is determined to be in need, additional ‘local priority’ points are also awarded for a range of factors, including medical need.
8. The Council’s allocations policy allows for the allocation of 0, 10, 25 or 50 points due to medical, social and welfare issues.

What happened?

9. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
10. Mr X applied to join the housing register in September 2023. The Council already held information about Mr X’s medical circumstances.
11. Mr X believed that his medical circumstances had not been properly assessed. He submitted further supporting information.
12. The Council assessed this information and did not increase Mr X’s medical priority.

Analysis

13. The Council assessed Mr X’s circumstances in June 2019 and January 2021, awarding him 10 points for medical social and welfare on each occasion.
14. The Council also awarded Mr X 10 points for medical social and welfare when it assessed his circumstances in September 2023 and June 2024.
15. I have viewed the supporting medical evidence considered by the Council. This shows a developing understanding of Mr X’s medical circumstances between 2019 and 2024. Significant mental health diagnoses were identified in February 2020 and February 2021 and a significant deterioration in his mental health, due to his housing situation, in June 2024.
16. The Council says it does not hold information relating to the assessment itself or the rationale behind it. Without any records or evidence relating to the consideration of Mr X’s circumstances it is impossible to know if it was completed properly. This is fault by the Council. Mr X remains uncertain whether his medical priority has been properly assessed.

Back to top

Agreed action

17. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr X for the fault found. 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.
• Implement a process of recording the rationale for assessments of ‘housing needs’ points under its allocations policy and include a summary of that rationale in decision letters to applicants.
• Reassess Mr X’s medical circumstances and provide him with an explanation of how it has decided the number of ‘local priority’ points it has awarded him.
18. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X. I have now completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman