The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained about errors in how the Council managed her requests to review her rehousing application between December 2020 and November 2021. The Council was not at fault.
The complaint
Ms X complained the Council: did not appropriately consider medical information she provided in support of her rehousing application between December 2020 and November 2021, meaning she was wrongly placed in a lower priority band for over a year; communicated poorly with her in December 2020; did not proactive seek additional medical information it needed; and delayed in its consideration of an occupational therapy report.
The Council increased her housing priority to its highest level in November 2021, but she says the delays meant she has missed out on suitable properties, caused her distress and have affected her health. She wants the Council to acknowledge it should have awarded her higher priority sooner, arrange an immediate move to a suitable property and review its procedures.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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
I read Ms X’s complaint and spoke with her about it over the phone.
I made enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent me.
Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Background information Housing allocations Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out its procedures for allocating housing and how it decides the priory level of each applicant.
The Council’s housing allocation scheme is a choice-based lettings scheme. It assesses applicants housing needs against criteria set out in the scheme and places them in one of five priority bands. The policy says: Band A includes applicants with the highest housing need including an urgent or emergency need to move for medical or social reasons.
Band B includes applicants with a higher medical need. This band also includes applicants already in social housing where a move would free up a two-bedroom house.
The Council also has a “direct match” category for those considered to have the most urgent need to move. Applicants awarded direct match are offered suitable properties directly as they become available and before they are offered to any applicants awaiting housing through the allocations scheme.
What happened Ms X lives with her partner Mr Y and children in social housing. Mr Y has a long-term health condition. In 2020, Ms X considered their housing no longer met the family’s needs.
She applied to the Council’s housing department for re-housing in September 2020. The Council assessed her application and, in November 2020, placed her in priority Band B.
In December Ms X spoke to the Council about her application. She said she was unhappy they had not yet been allocated suitable housing and that Mr Y’s health was deteriorating. She wanted the Council to increase their priority to Band A. The Council advised Ms X to provide further information about Mr Y’s medical condition and housing needs. It said that once this was received, it would review the application and the priority level awarded.
Ms X submitted medical evidence to the Council later that month. The Council considered the information provided against the criteria set out in its allocations scheme but decided it did not warrant an increased priority banding.
The Council told Ms X of its decision at the end of December 2020. Ms X has complained the timing of this call was inappropriate. However, the evidence shows that Ms X requested a call back on the day the Council contacted her.
In February 2021, Ms X submitted further medical evidence. The Council considered this information but decided it did not warrant an increase in priority banding.
Ms X submitted further medical information at the beginning of May 2021. The Council considered this new information but again decided it did not warrant a change in banding.
Ms X submitted further medical information at the end of May. The Council considered this new information and wrote to her at the beginning of July. It apologised for the delay is responding to her. It said it had decided again that this further evidence did not warrant an increase to Band A, but accepted the evidence showed Mr Y’s condition was deteriorating. Because of this it said it had referred Mr Y for an urgent occupational therapy (OT) assessment to further assess Mr Y’s housing needs and whether any equipment or adaptations could help meet his needs. It said once it had received the OT report, it would review the case again.
Ms X remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to us in October 2021.
The Council received the OT report in November 2021. It considered the report and based on the findings decided to increase Ms X’s priority to “direct match”. It wrote to Ms X and told her its decision two days later. It explained that now she would no longer have to bid on properties and the Council would give her priority access to suitable properties before they even reached the housing allocations list.
Ms X told us that although she accepted she had now been awarded direct match, the Council had still not allocated her a suitable property. She said the delay had also meant that she had missed out on properties since November 2020, which had caused her and her partner distress and affected their health.
In its response to our enquiries, the Council told us that each time Ms X submitted medical information, it had reviewed her priority banding in line with criteria set out in its housing allocations policy. It said it would only request further medical evidence if it felt it did not have sufficient evidence to make an informed decision. It said in this case, it did not consider it needed any further information in addition to that submitted by Ms X. It said it accepted the OT assessment took several months, but this was due to high demand on therapy services. As soon as the housing department received the report it reviewed it and decided to increase Ms X’s priority to direct match. It said it continued to work to try and allocate Ms X and Mr Y a suitable property but there was a shortage of property which met all their requirements.
Analysis 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. The evidence shows that each time Ms X submitted new medical information, the Council appropriately considered it in line with its housing allocations scheme. Although Ms X did not agree with the decisions at the time, there is no fault in how the Council reached its decisions.
Ms X said the timing of the Council’s call to her in December 2020 was inappropriate and caused her distress. However, the evidence shows Ms X requested a call back from the Council that day. The Council was aware Ms X was awaiting its decision and considered delaying telling her the outcome of its review could have caused more distress. The decision to call her and the timing of this call in December 2020 was not fault.
The Council considered each piece of medical evidence Ms X submitted and appropriately reviewed her priority banding on each occasion. It is for the Council to decide if and when it needs further evidence to reach a decision, and in this case, it did not consider additional information was necessary. The Council was not at fault.
The Council has acknowledged that the occupational therapy assessment took some time to complete but said this was due to service demand. As soon the housing team received the report in November 2021, the team considered it, decided to increase Ms X’s priority to “direct match” and informed her of this outcome. There was no delay in the Council’s consideration of the report once received. The Council was not at fault.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman