The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision not to increase her housing band based on her and her child’s medical needs. There was no fault in how the Council arrived at its decisions not to award additional housing priority in Miss X’s case.
The complaint
Miss X complains about the Council’s decision not to increase her housing band based on her and her child’s (Child Y) medical needs. Miss X says the Council has ignored the evidence she provided in making its decision. Miss X has significant concerns about her mental health and the wellbeing of Child Y while they remain in their current accommodation. Child Y poses a significant risk to Miss X’s new-born child (Child Z) due to Child Y’s violent outbursts. Miss X wants the Council to reassess her family and agree to raising her housing priority, so she can bid for properties that better meet her and her children’s needs.
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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (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 have spoken to Miss X and considered the information she has provided in support of her complaint.
I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to our enquiries.
Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Relevant guidance 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 Register consists of four bands (A to D) reflecting the reasonable preference categories outlined in the Housing Act 1996, as amended, and local priorities.
Applicants will be placed in a band depending on their circumstances. The position in that band will be determined by the date of the application other than Band A where the reason for urgent housing may take priority and Band B where the priority date will be the date the household was accepted for the main homelessness duty. Where a household’s circumstances falls into more than one band they will be placed in the band that affords them the greatest priority.
The four Bands are: Band A – this is for those with an urgent or overriding need for rehousing. It includes those need to move on hardship grounds as well as when emergency or temporary accommodation is not an appropriate response to that need. Circumstances and need for this band include: under-occupation, medical priority 1, moves from supported housing, decants, reciprocal agreements and successions.
Band B – this is for those accepted as unintentionally homeless and owed a duty under s.193 Housing Act 1996 and placed in temporary accommodation until a suitable private sector let is identified (unless social housing is the only suitable option) and those accepted as homeless under s.148 and s.149 of the Localism Act.
Band C – this is for those in unsatisfactory housing conditions. It consists of two levels of priority. Priority level C for those whose needs arise from a single factor and priority level C+ for those with needs arising from multiple factors. Factors include lack of bedrooms, lack of space, lack of kitchen/cooking facilities or bathroom, sharing with unrelated people, disrepair, medical priority 2 cases, and social and welfare needs (including hardship).
Band D – this is for those threatened with homelessness or living in insecure accommodation.
Medical priority is limited to two groups: Priority 1: those with an urgent medical need for alternative accommodation. This includes: a household where a member has a serious, possibly life-threatening illness or disability and whose housing circum-stances are affecting their health very severely; or, a person dis-charged from hospital and it is likely they are to be deemed a priority non-intentionally homeless person if not rehoused; or, a household in which one of its members is housebound due to the design of, or access to, the building and where alternative housing will resolve the situation; and, social housing will demonstrably contribute to alleviating the impact of the medical condition; and, Priority 2: a household where one or more members has an illness or disability, and they require social housing to address their medical condition. For example, those who need an adapted or accessible property or need stability due to social disability or a mental health problem. It also includes: those where social housing will demonstrably contribute to alleviating the impact of the medical condition; or, a child with a serious medical condition and in the view of the medical adviser, there is a need for settled accommodation.
What happened Miss X and her child, Child Y, live in a two-bedroom social housing flat. Miss X is diagnosed with mental health conditions, including a personality disorder, and Child Y recently received a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
In February 2021, Miss X’s General Practitioner (GP) wrote a letter asking the Council to consider rehousing Miss X and Child Y. The GP explained that housing with outdoor space would benefit Miss X’s mental health and would help Child Y better manage their behavioural outbursts. The Council wrote to Miss X on 10 February 2021 to explain it had decided not to increase her housing priority on medical grounds.
Miss X, her Member of Parliament (MP) and adviser from the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) made further requests for reassessment by the Council on medical priority throughout 2021. On each occasion, the Council considered the information Miss X provided in support of her and Child Y’s health conditions. This included reports about Child Y’s behaviour and support Miss X was receiving for her mental health conditions.
The Council explained on each occasion that it or its medical adviser had assessed the evidence and decided this did not justify an increase in Miss X’s housing priority. The Council explained it had extremely limited stock of social housing with outdoor space and its medical adviser suggested Miss X and Child Y could instead make use of nearby parks and other green spaces.
Miss X made a stage one complaint to the Council on 12 June 2021. She remained concerned the Council was ignoring the advice of medical professionals involved in her care. Miss X felt she and Child Y’s health conditions warranted medical priority 1 due to her significant mental health issues and the safety risks posed to Child Y outdoors as they are unaware of dangers around them. Miss X also explained how she and her child might also meet the criteria for medical priority 2 given her GP’s advice.
The Council responded to Miss X’s stage one complaint on 20 July 2021. The Council reiterated that it agreed with the view reached by its medical advisers that medical priority should not be awarded in this case. The Council suggested Miss X might want to seek further support for Child Y from the Council’s Children’s First Contact Service and from Occupational Therapy for herself. The Council invited Miss X to submit any further evidence she obtained following any assessments by these teams, so the Housing Team could consider if this changed its view on her housing priority.
Miss X replied to the Council the same day and expressed her dissatisfaction with its response. She explained she was awaiting further assessments of Child Y’s needs and would submit further information once the assessments had been completed. Miss X wrote to the Council again in October 2021 to explain she was still awaiting Child Y’s assessments. Miss X informed the Council she was pregnant and very concerned about the risks Child Y might pose to her new baby when they were born.
The Council wrote to Miss X on 2 November 2021 to explain it was too late for her to request escalation of her earlier complaint to stage two. The Council explained it had still considered Miss X’s concerns and invited her to provide further information about Child Y’s assessments when received. The Council also explained that it could not reassess Miss X’s housing needs based on her pregnancy until six weeks prior to birth. The Council asked Miss X for her baby’s expected date of birth.
In late December 2021, the Council’s Children Social Care Team completed a pre-birth assessment for Miss X’s unborn child. The Social Worker met with Miss X and spoke to Child Y and other members of Miss X’s family and support network. The Social Worker concluded there were no safeguarding concerns in respect of Child Y’s behaviour that could not be managed by Miss X and her partner (the father of her unborn child).
In January 2022, the Council’s Children Social Care Team completed a Children and Families Assessment following a referral from Miss X that she was struggling to cope with Child’s Y’s outbursts and was increasingly worried about the risk of harm Child Y might pose to their unborn sibling when they were born. The Social Worker noted Child Y now had an ASD diagnosis and that Miss X was receiving support with managing Child Y’s behaviour. The Social Worker concluded there were no immediate safeguarding concerns that needed intervention by Children’s Social Care.
Miss X gave birth to Child Z in mid-February 2022. In May 2022, a member of the Council’s Disability Housing Panel (DHP) completed a home visit to contribute to the Council’s reassessment of Miss X’s housing priority. The DHP member was shown video footage of Child Y’s behaviour by Miss X during this visit. The DHP member and remaining Panel concluded there was no immediate requirement to increase Miss X’s housing priority, but that this would need reassessment in a year’s time when Child Z was likely to need their own room to sleep in. The Council informed Miss X of the DHP decision in writing on 1 June 2022.
Analysis Miss X has provided the Council with extensive evidence of her and Child Y’s medical conditions and needs throughout 2021. On each occasion requested, the Council has completed a reassessment to see if any of this information changes Miss X’s housing priority. The Council has sought guidance from its medical advisers when appropriate.
While I appreciate Miss X’s frustration and disappointment with the Council’s decision not to award medical priority, I have found no evidence of fault in how it made its decision.
Since making her complaint to us, the Council has completed a home visit and has offered to reassess Miss X’s housing priority as Child Z gets older and needs to move into their own bedroom. While I understand Miss X remains unhappy, I cannot conclude the Council has acted with fault given it has remained open to reconsidering Miss X’s circumstances as these change.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Miss X’s complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman