The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr and Mrs M complain the Council did not allow them to bid for an extra bedroom in their attempt to find a new home. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. The Council’s records show it considered the request from a narrow medical need, rather than also considering social needs. The Council has provided an update that has allowed us to complete our investigation.
The complaint
The complainants, whom I shall refer to as Mr and Mrs M, complain about the Council refusing to allow them bid for a two-bedroom property on their housing register application. They say they need this because of the effect on Mr M’s sleep from issues around Mrs M’s medical condition.
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 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
In investigating this complaint I have: considered Mr and Mrs M’s complaint; considered information the Council sent us while we were waiting to allocate the complaint; checked the Council’s housing allocation policy; spoken to Mr and Mrs M; sent my draft decision to Mr and Mrs M and the Council and considered the responses I received.
What I found
Legal and administrative background 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 policy has rules for the size of properties applicants can bid for. This says most single people or couples can only bid for one-bedroom properties.
One of the exceptions to this rule is for applicants with particular medical needs. The Council’s policy says: “Larger accommodation may be bid for by people who require an additional bedroom to cater for a medical or social need. This would include for example, the need to accommodate live in carers who are not part of the application, or where a couple needs to sleep separately because of a medical condition. An applicant will only be entitled to a property with an additional bedroom if agreed by the Senior Officer in relation to a medical or social needs assessment.”
What happened At the end of 2020 Mrs M was admitted to hospital with a respiratory issue. After discharge, she could not go back to live in their flat due to reduced mobility. The only access to the flat is by stairs.
Mr and Mrs M applied to the Council’s housing register for a move. The Council granted them medical priority to bid for a one-bedroom flat.
Mr and Mrs M asked for a review. They said they needed a two-bedroom property, as the noise and disruption of the oxygen equipment Mrs M uses while sleeping would disturb Mr M’s sleep. The Council reviewed its decision but did not uphold their request. Its note of its decision said: “Two Bed Not agreed a 1 bed prop is suitable to meet their [housing] need” Later, Mr and Mrs M asked again for the Council to allow them to bid for two bedroom properties. They sent the Council a letter from a doctor involved in Mrs M’s care. The letter noted Mrs M used oxygen equipment and experienced nightmares, both of which disrupted Mr M’s sleep which affected his ability to do his job. The letter said: “Separate bedrooms to minimise sleep disruption for both patient and her husband”.
In early 2022, Mr and Mrs M again asked the Council to consider their need for an extra bedroom. The Council asked its medical advisers to consider the question. Its first response did not consider the request for a second bedroom . When Mr and Mrs M pointed this out to the Council, it again asked its medical adviser for its opinion. Their response said: “we have been requested to make a comment on the need for an additional bedroom in order store her medical equipment. Whilst I acknowledge the applicant’s medical conditions, there is no evidence in the information provided that would make this essential on specific medical grounds” The Council’s decision was that a one-bedroom property was suitable for Mr and Mrs M’s needs. Mr and Mrs M complained. The Council’s response did not uphold their complaint.
Mr and Mrs M complained to the Ombudsman.
Analysis The Council asked its medical advisor to consider Mr and Mrs M’s request that it allowed them to bid for two-bedroom properties. The medical advisor advised Mr and Mrs M had not provided information “that would make this essential on specific medical grounds”, in relation to storing Mrs M’s medical equipment. The Council used this advice to decide Mr and Mrs M did not need a second bedroom.
But Mr and Mrs M say they need a second bedroom primarily because of the effect on Mr M. The medical adviser has only commented on storing Mrs M’s equipment. It made no comment on Mr and Mrs M’s stated need for a move. The reason they cite is not a specifically medical issue – it is a social need arising from Mrs M’s medical issue. I note the Council’s policy anticipates social needs might be a possible reason for an extra bedroom (see paragraph 7) .
The Council decision making record shows no evidence it considered this issue; nor that it asked Mr and Mr M for more information about this. So my decision is its decision was based on partial information and so was fault.
Recommended action I recommended that, within a month of my final decision, the Council: consider again Mr and Mrs M’s application for a second bedroom, taking account of Mr and Mrs M’s stated social need for a move; write to Mr and Mrs M apologising for the fault I have identified; pay Mr and Mrs M £200 as symbolic recognition of the time and trouble caused by the faults I have identified; if the Council’s assessment awards a social need for two-bedrooms, it will need to consider if it needs to make any further remedial actions to remedy any further injustice to Mr and Mrs M.
In response to my draft decision, the Council advised its occupational therapist had provided a report in September. It had sent this to its medical advisor which had again advise there was no medical need for a move. But the Council should consider providing a two-bedroom property. The Council had agreed to provide the second bedroom. It had also agreed to our recommendations.
It had also agreed to offer Mr and Mrs M the option of accepting a direct offer of a suitable two-bedroom property.
Final decision
I uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendation so I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman