The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not assessed her housing priority properly. The Council did not consider all information when it assessed her family’s medical circumstances. Miss X was allocated a lower priority band and missed opportunities to be rehoused. The Council has already backdated Miss X’s housing priority. It has also agreed to apologise and pay her £1000 for distress and inconvenience.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains the Council has not assessed her housing priority properly because It has not considered all the information she provided about her sons’ circumstances.
Miss X says her housing priority hasn’t been properly assessed between July 2019 and May 2020.
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) If we are satisfied with a council’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
I spoke to Miss X about her complaint and considered documents provided by Miss X. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Law, guidance and policies 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 who need to move on medical or welfare grounds. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3)) The Council’s Allocations Scheme Housing need is determined by assessing the current housing circumstances of applicants. A priority ‘band’ is then allocated according to the urgency of the housing need. There are four priority bands as follows: Band A - This is the highest priority band and is only awarded to households with an emergency and very severe housing need.
Band B - This is the second highest band and is awarded to households with an urgent need to move.
Band C - This is the third highest band and is awarded to households with an identified need to move.
Additional priority is awarded to those who have a local connection by living in the borough continuously for a minimum period of ten years.
The standard for a couple with two children of the same sex is a 2 bedroom property. Larger accommodation than specified above may be considered in exceptional circumstances on the recommendation of a specialist advisor, for example the Council’s Medical Adviser or Occupational Therapy Service.
Medical priority is awarded according to the extent to which the health or welfare of one or more members of the applicant’s household is affected by their current housing conditions and the expected benefits of providing suitable alternative settled housing.
Applicants will complete a Medical Assessment Form to provide details of the medical condition and other supporting information.
What happened?
Miss X lives with her partner and two children, A and B.
Miss X was awarded Medical Band C requiring three bedrooms in January 2019. This was enhanced to Band B with additional priority. The medical award was based on an occupational therapist (OT) report concerning child A.
In July 2019 Miss X provided further medical evidence regarding child A.
In September 2019 Miss X provided medical evidence regarding child B.
In November 2019 the Council told Miss X she needed to submit a medical form for child B, which she did. The Council decided not to send the information to its doctor for a medical assessment.
Miss X provided the Council with a letter from an occupational therapist in January 2020 concerning child B.
In April 2020 the Council again decided not to send the information to its doctor for a medical assessment.
Miss X then provided the Council with full occupational therapist’s reports for both child A and child B in June 2020.
In September 2020, after seeking medical advice, the Council awarded Miss X Medical Band B, requiring three bedrooms. This was enhanced to Band A with additional priority.
Miss X complained to the Council that it had not properly taken account of all the medical evidence she had provided. The Council did not uphold her complaint.
Analysis Miss X provided the following information to the Council: An OT report for child A in February 2019.
Copies of diagnoses for child A in July 2019.
Emails and telephone calls in August and September including information about disturbed sleep patterns and the impact on family life.
Copies of diagnoses for child B in September 2019.
An email in November 2019 including information about both children needing their own space, sensory and sleep difficulties, and the strain on their health and wellbeing.
A medical form in November 2019.
A letter from an OT in January 2020 outlining details about Miss X’s current situation, and how her family are affected by it. This included a recommendation that child B required space at home to support his own sensory needs within the family.
Documents provided by the Council show: It considered the OT report for child A in April 2019, which resulted in Band B priority as outlined in paragraph 15 above.
It reviewed the medical form in November 2019. A medical approval sheet shows the Council used the medical form itself and a report about child B as evidence. The medical approval sheet notes that as child A and child B were both diagnosed with ASD, this did not form a combination of different factors.
The decision letter says, “Based on the information you submitted on your medical form for [child B], the supporting evidence from the Child Development Centre, DWP and the further enquiries we have made, you have been assessed as having no further identified medical need. We accept that [child B] has been diagnosed with ASD but there is insufficient evidence to support how the property is having a detrimental effect on his health.”
The Council has not provided evidence to show it made further enquiries or considered any other information in November 2019. On the balance of probabilities, it did not make any.
It considered the January 2020 OT letter in April 2020. Case notes show a record that, “[Miss X] has already been awarded Band B due to medical reasons. Client has submitted a letter supporting that her son has more space - which they will have once housed. No extra additional banding can be awarded.”
It considered the OT reports for child A and child B in September 2020, resulting in Band A priority as outlined in paragraph 22 above.
My analysis of the information the Council considered shows: Child A was diagnosed with ASD, ADHD and sleep difficulties. Child B was diagnosed with ASD.
Although Miss X did not complete the specific section of the medical form which asked for information about how her housing situation was impacting on medical conditions, she did make reference to how this impacted her family life in earlier emails and in a different part of the form.
There is no evidence it took into account the diagnosis for child A provided by Miss X in June 19.
Since it did not consider this, the Council could not have properly determined whether there was a combination of different factors that required medical assessment, when it reviewed the medical form in November 2019.
The Council inaccurately recorded that Miss X had been given medical band B in April 2020.
The recorded rationale for its decision not to pass the January 2020 OT letter about child B for medical advice was based solely on the previous decision in respect of child A. The Council did not consider the individual circumstances of child B or the combined effect of the accommodation on the whole family.
The Council did not properly consider all the information provided by Miss X. This is fault by the Council. Miss X cannot be sure that her housing priority is correct.
It is clear that the Council took a long time to consider information provided by Miss X, on each occasion. On the balance of probabilities, this contributed to the failure to consider all information she provided.
Did Miss X suffer injustice as a result?
On the balance of probabilities, the documents for child A provided in July 2019 would not by themselves have resulted in a higher medical priority being given, as they back up the earlier decision to award Band B from January 2019.
On the balance of probabilities, if the Council had sought medical advice after the provision of information about child B, Miss X would have been granted medical Band B from the date she submitted that information.
The Council has confirmed that Miss X missed eight rehousing opportunities and could have been rehoused 11 months earlier.
What has the Council done?
The Council has already agreed to backdate Miss X’s Band A housing priority to July 2019 as a result of the Ombudsman’s investigation.
Agreed action
To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council had agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision: Apologise to Miss X; Pay Miss X £1,000 to acknowledge the significant distress, inconvenience and time and trouble she and her family were caused.
Final decision
I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Miss X. I have now completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman