The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his housing application. We have not found fault in the way the Council reviewed its decision not to award him medical priority. But we have found fault by the Council in failing to tell Mr X of his right to request a review of its decision to disqualify him from the housing register. We consider the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy for the injustice this fault caused Mr X by inviting him to ask for a review of the decision.
The complaint
The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, is unhappy about the way the Council made decisions about his priority banding and disqualification from the housing register. He says the Council: failed to properly consider his medical condition and the impact of his current housing on his health; should accept the medical evidence he provided shows he should be given medical priority; wrongly decided he can continue to live in his current property because its physical condition is suitable for him; and wrongly disqualified him from the housing register because of his rent arrears. He is repaying the debt each month and the position is the same whether he remains in his current house or is transferred to another property within the Council’s area.
Mr X told us his mental health condition is deteriorating because of his current situation. He wants the Council to restore his transfer application to the housing register, with the medical priority he requested.
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 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 spoke to Mr X about the complaint, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr X and the Council provided about the complaint.
I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any 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.
The Council’s allocations policy sets out the criteria for the different bands. Band A is the highest priority (applicants with an emergency need to move) and Band D the lowest.
Band B is for applicants with an urgent need to move. This includes those: “with a need to move for a medical reason or due to a disability and whose housing is unsuitable for urgent, but not life threatening, medical reasons or due to their disability, who do not qualify for Band A but whose housing conditions directly contribute to causing serious ill health” Band C1 is for applicants with an identified need to move. This includes those who are assessed as: “having an identified health or welfare need to move and whose housing is unsuitable for non-urgent medical reasons or due to their disability and whose housing conditions directly contribute to causing ill health.”
The policy says the Council: will require supporting evidence from relevant and qualified health professionals and is the responsibility of the applicant to provide. It must be less than six months old at the time the request is submitted, current, relevant and specific to the applicant. The Council will not request or pay for any supporting evidence; and will consider all recommendations from health professionals but will make the final decision as to the assessment of an application. Medical assessments will be made by trained officers and referrals are also made to independent professional services for more in-depth reviews where appropriate.
Band D is for applicants with low or reduced housing need and includes existing Council tenants.
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 can ask for a review of its decisions about their housing application and submit a: stage 1 review request within 21 days of the date of the original decision. The review will be conducted by the Service Manager. If the applicant remains dissatisfied they can progress to a stage 2 review; stage 2 review request within 21 days of the date of the stage 1 review decision. The review will be conducted by the Strategic Housing Manager. The stage 2 review response will be the final decision and there is no further review stage.
At both stages, applicants will be invited to submit any further evidence to support their review request. The Council may seek any further information it requires to make a decision, including advice from medical or other specialist advisors.
Disqualification from the Housing Register The Council’s policy says an applicant having a recoverable housing-related debt of over £100 will be disqualified until the debt is satisfied. This is subject to an exception that can only be granted by the Service Manager or Strategic Housing Manager on the basis of exceptional or unforeseen circumstances.
What happened
Background
I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened.
Mr X is a Council tenant. He wants to transfer to another Council property. In October 2020 the Council accepted his application to go on to its housing register. It assessed his priority as Band D (2), the lowest band.
Mr X was unhappy with this assessment. He told the Council it did not reflect the impact continuing to live in his current property had on his mental health.
The first review The Council considered Mr X’s request for medical priority. On 29 January 2021 it told Mr X it had decided there was no evidence his current home was unsuitable for him on health grounds, and he would remain in Band D.
Mr X asked for a statutory review of this decision. He did not provide any new medical evidence.
The Council paused the review process because of issues with Mr X’s health.
It completed the review in May 2021. It told Mr X it was satisfied its decision not to award him medical priority was correct.
The stage two review Mr X complained about this decision. The Council treated this as a request for a stage two review. Mr X provided a letter from his GP supporting his application for a transfer. Mr X set out his reasons for needing to move, and the impact on him of his current accommodation. He said the GP was clear in his letter why he needed to move, and he couldn’t understand why the Council would not accept this.
Mr X cancelled his housing benefit claim in May 2021. This meant his rent payments stopped.
There were further pauses in the review process because of Mr X’s health issues. During this period the Council obtained reports and updates about his mental health and the impact of his current accommodation from his community practice nurse.
The Council completed its stage two review in March 2022. In its decision letter to Mr X of 1 April 2022 it said: it had considered all the information provided. It set out the details of the information, which included Mr X’s GP’s letter and evidence from his community practice nurse; it did not consider the medical information showed it was his current home which was affecting his mental health, or that it would be improved by him moving; his application for a transfer should be disqualified because he now had significant rent arrears of £2,000, far above £100 threshold, and these arrears were only being reduced by £32 a month. His application would be removed from the register until the arrears were below £100; and it had considered whether there were exceptional reasons why he should remain on housing register. It had noted the debt was significantly more than £100 and his current home was suitable for him. It did not consider his situation was exceptional or there were unforeseen circumstances which warranted his exemption from the scheme rules.
Mr X’s complaint to us Following Mr X’s complaint to us about the outcome of the review, the Council told him in August 2022: He had the right to ask for a review of its decision to disqualify him from the register. It should have offered him the opportunity to do so in its letter of 1 April 2022.
To remedy the situation, Mr X could request a review now if he disagreed with its decision to disqualify him from the register.
If his review request was successful, his application would be reinstated to the register and backdated to October 2020, the date it was originally accepted.
Mr X’s housing benefit claim has been restored and his rent arrears have substantially reduced to just above £100. In view of this, the Council has told Mr X it will accept a new application (subject to the position with the arrears as at the time of any new application). However, a new application will not be backdated and will be effective from the date it is received.
Mr X has asked the Council to review its April 2022 decision to disqualify him.
My findings – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?
We cannot question whether the Council’s decision not to increase Mr X’s priority banding was right or wrong. It is for the Council to assess whether, in its view, an applicant meets its criteria for medical 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 Mr X injustice.
April 2022 review decision on Mr X’s priority band I have considered the way the Council reviewed its decision not to award Mr X medical priority. In addition to the letter Mr X provided from his GP, the Council also obtained up-to-date evidence from his community practice nurses.
In the decision letter, the reviewing officer set out details of the information considered, discussed the evidence provided and gave reasons for their view Mr X did not meet the Council’s criteria for medical priority. Although the Council understood Mr X was experiencing significant difficulties with his mental health, it did not consider his current accommodation directly contributed to these.
I appreciate Mr X disagrees with this decision. But, based on the evidence I have seen, my view is the reviewer properly considered the information before reaching their decision. I have not found fault by the Council in the way it made its decision in April 2022 not to award medical priority to Mr X’s application.
April 2022 decision to disqualify Mr X from the housing register The Council has accepted, and I agree, it should have told Mr X in April 2022, he had the right to ask for a review of its decision to disqualify him from the housing register. I consider its failure to do so was fault. Because of this, Mr X lost the opportunity to ask for a review.
But the Council has, in my view, already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused by this fault. It invited Mr X to ask for a review. He has now submitted his review request and the Council has confirmed, if successful, his reinstated application will be backdated to October 2020.
On this basis I have not recommended any further action by the Council.
Final decision
I have not found by the Council in the way it reviewed its decision not to award Mr X medical priority. I have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to tell Mr X of his right to request a review of its decision to disqualify him. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy for this injustice by inviting Mr X to ask for a review.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman