The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s request for medical priority on its housing register. This did not cause Mrs X any injustice so no remedy is recommended.
The complaint
Mrs X complained about the level of priority the Council awarded her on its housing register. Mrs X believed she should have a higher medical priority due to her son’s medical needs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We cannot question whether an organisation’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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
As part of this investigation, I considered the complaint made by Mrs X and the responded from the Council. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X over the telephone. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this response to Mrs X and the Council for comments.
What I found
Housing allocations 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)) 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)) The Council’s allocations scheme places applicants in Bands based on their level of priority. Applicants in Band three include those who have a been awarded medical priority two and have medical condition which is affected by their current accommodation.
Applicants in Band two include those who have been awarded medical priority one. Medical priority one is for the most urgent of cases.
What happened Mrs X lived in a privately rented two bedroom house with her husband and three children. One of her children, Y, suffered with a number of health issues including Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
In January 2020, Mrs X completed a medical banding questionnaire. Mrs X said Y needed his own room as he was sharing with his younger sister and older brother. Mrs X said Y has injections every day which cause him to have violent outbursts and he has harmed his sister. In addition, Mrs X explained Y has incontinence issues. Mrs X attached medical evidence from Y’s Consultant Paediatrician to support her application.
The Council considered Mrs X’s application for medical priority and in February 2020 decided her household qualified for medical priority 2. This meant Mrs X moved into Band three on the Council’s housing register. In addition, the medical adviser recommended Y needed his own room. Therefore, Mrs X became eligible to bid on four bedroom properties.
In October 2020, Mrs X complained to the Council that it had failed to correctly assess her housing register application and should have placed her into Band two based on her household’s medical priority. Mrs X provided further medical evidence and asked the Council to review her current Banding on the housing register.
The Council acknowledged this correspondence should have been allocated as a medical review. It said the review officer in post has since left the Council and it was unable to identify why this was not forwarded for a review.
As Mrs X did not receive a response she contacted the Ombudsman. We advised Mrs X to progress her complaint through the Council’s complaints procedure and return to us should she have problems doing this.
The Council registered Mrs X’s complaint in July 2021. The Council told Mrs X it had passed the information she provided in October 2020 to its Medical Advisor.
On 27 July 2021, the Council’s Medical Advisor sent the Council its report. The Medical Advisor recommended Band three for Mrs X’s household.
On 30 July 2021, the Council provided Mrs X with its stage one response. The Council said Mrs X was in Band three and her start date for this was February 2020. The Council said the Medical Advisor assessed the further information Mrs X provided from October 2020 and they recommended Band three. The Council said Mrs X has a four bedroom need and currently there are no applicants on the housing register with a four bedroom need who are in Band two.
Mrs X responded to the Council’s stage one response in August 2021. Mrs X asked the Council to consider her for a higher Band as Y needed his own room. Mrs X also explained the difficulties her children were having sharing a room and the impact of this on Y.
The Council provided its stage two response on 23 September 2021. The Council said it provided the information Mrs X sent to its Medical Advisor who returned the same recommendation as that of February 2020. This said Y should have his own room and Band three was recommended.
Since the conclusion of the complaints procedure Mrs X has managed to obtain a property through the housing register and signed the tenancy at the end of March 2022.
Analysis The Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s request for higher medical priority. Mrs X asked the Council to review her banding in October 2020, however the Council did not respond to this. The Council has rightly explained it should have put this forward for a review at the time.
When the Council did reconsider Mrs X’s level of priority in July 2021, it sent her information to its Medical Advisor. The Medical Advisor sent its report back to the Council and recommended Band three for Mrs X’s household. The Council did not send a decision letter to Mrs X after receiving the report from the Medical Adviser but informed her of the decision in its complaint response. This is fault.
In response to my enquiries, the Council said, “In all cases such as Mrs X’s, all information is sent to the Medical Advisor to request they make a decision on whether a priority banding should be awarded for medical.” It is for the Council to make a decision on medical priority and not the Independent Housing Medical Advisor. The Council should consider the Medical Advisor’s recommendation, but it should be the Council who makes the decision on an applicant’s medical priority.
While I have found the Council at fault, I need to consider whether this caused Ms X injustice. Mrs X has now been re-housed. The Council confirmed there were no applicants in Band two or above who were eligible for four-bedroom properties, so on balance there was no guarantee Mrs X would have been re-housed faster. In addition, even if the above faults had not occurred, there is no guarantee Mrs X would have been moved to a higher Band. Therefore, I do not consider Mrs X suffered injustice because of the Council’s fault.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault in how it considered Mrs X’s request for higher medical priority, however this has not caused her injustice so no remedy is recommended.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman