The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms Y complained about the way the Council considered her request for increased priority banding on its housing register. We have not found fault by the Council in the way it made its decision about Ms Y’s priority banding.
The complaint
The complainant, who I am calling Ms Y, complains about the Council’s response to her request for increased priority banding on the housing register. Her daughter, Miss Z is her representative for, and supporting her with, this complaint.
Ms Y has a degenerative medical condition. She lives in social housing in the Council’s area and applied for a transfer to be nearer Miss Z who also lives within the Council’s area. Miss Z provides support for Ms Y’s ongoing care needs, which are increasing as her condition deteriorates. The Council assessed Ms Y as having a medium medical and welfare need to move and placed her in Band 3.
Ms Y says the Council: has not properly considered her request or taken proper account of her medical condition, its impact on her, and her urgent need to move, when assessing her priority band.
should reassess her as having a high medical and welfare need to move and place her in Band 2.
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 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 a council’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 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 Ms Y and Miss Z about the complaint, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Ms Y, Miss Z and the Council provided about the complaint.
I invited Ms Y, Miss Z and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.
What I found
What should have happened Housing Allocations Schemes – the law 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)) The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme The Council operates a choice-based letting scheme with a banding system for applicants on the housing register. Applicants are placed in a band based on their housing circumstances and need. Band 1 is the highest priority and Band 4 the lowest.
The Council’s allocations policy sets out the criteria for the different bands. Priority may be awarded to applicants on health or disability grounds, following an assessment. Priority is not given based on the medical condition or disability alone, but the effect housing circumstances are having on a long term and serious medical condition or disability.
The Council’s Housing Service undertakes the assessments and may ask qualified health advisers for advice and/or recommendations in relation to the condition and impact their housing is having on an applicant’s condition. Occupational therapists are usually used to assess housing requirements for mobility and physical disability cases.
Band 2 includes applicants with High Medical Need High Welfare Need Someone needing an adapted property Band 3 includes applicants with: Medium Medical Need Medium Welfare Need The policy says applicants must notify the Council of a change in their circumstances, together with any supporting evidence. A change of circumstances means the application should be reassessed.
Decisions and Reviews Housing applicants can ask councils to review a wide range of decisions about their applications including decisions about their housing priority. Councils must notify applicants of their right to request a review of these decisions (Housing Act 1996 section 166A (9)) The Council’s policy confirms applicants have a statutory right of review of its decisions about their application and says: Requests for a review should be made within 21 days of the decision.
Reviews will be carried out by a senior officer who did not make the original decision.
What happened
Background
I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened.
We are investigating what happened from November 2020. But I have set out what happened before then by way of background to the complaint.
In 2019 Ms Y, who is an existing social housing tenant in the Council’s area, applied to join the housing register for a transfer to a property closer to Miss Z.
The Council accepted her application in February 2020. It assessed her as having a welfare and medical need to move and placed her in its medium priority (silver) band for a one bedroomed property.
In November 2020 Ms Y asked the Council if she could be assessed as having a higher priority and placed in its gold band. In its reply the Council said its silver band gave her significant priority over a large majority of other applicants. Its gold band was reserved for applicants whose current homes were wholly unsuitable and causing an immediate and significant impact on their medical condition. It accepted her accommodation was causing her significant problems, but she was currently managing to some extent.
Ms Y’s review request in 2021 In January, Ms Y made a further request for an increase in her banding.
On 1 April, the Council adopted its current Housing Allocation Scheme. Ms Y was placed in Band 3, its medium priority band, equivalent to the previous silver band.
Ms Y did not receive a response to her January request. In May 2021 she requested a review of the Council’s decision to place her in Band 3. She said she had been assessed as requiring an adapted property and, under the Council’s banding categories, should be placed in Band 2.
Ms Y provided: a letter dated September 2020 from her specialist nurse. This recommended any future property was wheelchair accessible, and had a wet room, due to the potentially progressive nature of Ms Y’s condition.
a housing needs report dated May 2021 from her occupational therapist. This said Ms Y had been wrongly recorded as a full-time wheelchair user. She was currently mobile with a walking stick and frame. The report referred to Ms Y’s current difficulties caused by her accommodation as struggling with her current bathing facilities, struggling with heavy fire doors to access her post and use her mobility scooter to go out, and accessing care from Miss Z.
The review outcome – July 2021 Ms Y’s review was conducted by a senior technical advisor in the Council’s housing team. The officer wrote to Ms Y in July confirming the review outcome and said: A need for a grab rail was not a need for a fully adapted property and Ms Y had been offered a wet room at her current property She was managing to some extent at her current property and did not meet the very high threshold required for Band 2 An accessibility rating had now been added to her application so she would be given greater priority for properties with a wet room over applicants without this need.
There would be no change in Ms Y’s banding Ms Y’s contact in September 2021 Ms Y contacted the Council again about her priority banding. She provided a letter dated July 2021 from her occupational therapist in response to the review outcome letter. The letter provided more detail about Ms Y’s current struggles in her property.
The Council’s Housing Manager replied to Ms Y. He told her the Council had decided her current banding was still correct and there had been no change in her situation. He also replied to the occupational therapist and said although it was difficult for Ms Y she was still coping in the property. Band 2 was reserved for those living in wholly unsuitable properties. Band 3 was currently still the appropriate priority for Ms Y.
Ms Y’s contact in October 2021 Ms Y replied to the Housing Manger’s letter. In response, the Housing Manager confirmed there did not appear to be any change in the information she had provided with her previous requests. The Council knew she had a progressive medical condition and would act when her circumstances changed in the future.
Ms Y’s complaint in November 2021 Ms Y was not satisfied with the manager’s response and complained.
The Council issued its final complaint response in which it said it was satisfied Band 3 was appropriate and there had been no error in its banding decision.
Miss Z brought Ms Y’s complaint to us.
My findings – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?
We cannot question whether the Council’s decision not to increase Ms Y’s priority banding was right or wrong. It is likely there may be many other applicants on the Council’s housing register in difficult housing situations, with medical and welfare needs waiting to move. It is for the Council to assess whether, in its view, an applicant with these needs should be awarded medium or high priority.
Our role is to review the process the Council followed when making its decision about this. If we found fault with the way it made its decision, we would then consider whether this fault had caused Ms Y injustice.
Council’s July 2021 review of its decision about Ms Y’s banding priority The review was carried by a senior officer. Based on the evidence I have seen, my view is the reviewing officer properly considered all the information Ms Y, her specialist nurse and occupational therapist provided about the current impact of her accommodation on her needs, and properly explained why she did not consider Ms Y’s priority banding should be increased at this stage.
I have not found fault in the way the Council reviewed its decision to place Ms Y in Band 3.
Council’s response to Ms Y’s contact in September and October 2021 Ms Y was not entitled to ask for a review of the Council’s review decision. But she raised a number of queries following the review. Based on the evidence I have seen, my view is the Council considered the information Ms Y provided and responded promptly to her. I have not found fault in the way the Council responded to Ms Y’s queries in September and October.
Further requests from December 2021 Ms Y brought her complaint to us in November 2021, following the Council’s final response to her complaint about its decisions on her priority banding up to this point. I have not considered anything that happened after November.
But I appreciate Ms Y’s ongoing concern about her difficulties and the impact of any change in her condition or other circumstances.
The Council says it understands the issues with her accommodation will become more difficult as her condition deteriorates. And its policy says it will re-assess an application if there is a change in the applicant’s circumstances.
In my view, a decision on whether there has been a change of circumstances is a decision on the application, giving the applicant a right to ask for a review of the decision. The Council should make it clear to Ms Y when it makes any further decisions on her application and notify her of her review rights.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation of this complaint. I have not found fault by the Council in the way it considered Ms Y’s request for an increase in her priority banding.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman