The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complains the Council delayed considering her housing application for a change in medical circumstances and failed to inform her of its decision to award her Band C. The Council remedied this before Miss X complained to the Ombudsman by backdating her housing application. I have found fault with the way the Council handled Miss X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment for the injustice this caused Miss X.
The complaint
Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to not award her greater priority for social housing on account of her medical needs. Specifically, Miss X says the Council: should have backdated her to Band C from June 2022, when she first reported a seizure; did not properly consider her medical evidence when assessing whether she should receive greater priority; and failed to inform her she had been awarded band C and therefore she was bidding on properties from a lower banding.
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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
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 considered the information provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I carefully considered all comments before reaching a final decision.
What I found
The Council’s housing allocations scheme awards points to recognise different housing needs. Applicants are placed in one of four priority bands (A to D) depending on their points award. Band A is the highest band. Priority between applicants in the same band is determined by waiting time from when they entered that band.
The Council’s scheme awards medical points if someone in the household has a diagnosed health condition or disability relevant to their current or future housing needs.
What happened Below is a summary of key events. It is not meant to show everything that happened.
Miss X and her son have lived in a one bedroom first floor flat since January 2020. At the time, the Council placed Miss X in Band D for overcrowding.
In June 2022, Miss X contacted the Council about a change in her medical condition. Miss X said her seizures had returned and she had been signed off work for three months. Miss X provided medical information from her GP dated between 2007 and 2019. Miss X said she had an upcoming appointment with her neurologist in August.
The Council responded to Miss X and explained it required documentation dated within the last 6-12 months from medical professionals or any other professionals that she was engaged with regarding her health. The Council explained the supporting evidence should show how Miss X’s current accommodation was having an adverse effect on her medical conditions.
In October, Miss X provided the Council with a letter from her neurologist. The Council referred the letter to its medical advisor at the end of November.
In December, the Council placed Miss X in Band C.
In February 2023, Miss X provided the Council with a further letter from her neurologist. The letter suggested that Miss X should be moved to a ground floor property. This was considered by the Council’s medical advisor who recommended that Miss X required a ground floor property due to her medical condition. The advisor did not recommend an increase in banding. The Council accepted this decision and informed Miss X.
In May 2023, Miss X requested a review of the Council’s decision. Miss X also raised concerns about the delay in considering her change of circumstances.
The Council wrote to Miss X with the outcome of the review. The Council told Miss X she would need to raise a formal complaint about the delay in processing her medical submission. The Council confirmed it had reviewed Miss X’s housing register application; information she had provided in support of her review request; recommendation from the medical advisor and the Council’s housing allocations policy. The Council recognised that Miss X was awarded Band C in December 2022 and had submitted further medical information two months later. The Council upheld the decision to award Miss X’s application Band C with priority for a ground floor property.
In September, Miss X complained to the Council. Miss X explained she had requested a review because she was dissatisfied with the way the Council had handled her change of circumstances in October 2022. Miss X said the appeal failed to address this. Miss X said her housing situation had negatively impacted her well-being and that of her young child.
The Council partially upheld Miss X’s complaint. It said: there was a delay between Miss X’s circumstances being updated and her medical information being sent for consideration by its medical advisor; and it failed to inform Miss X of the outcome of its decision to place her in Band C in December 2022; The Council remedied Miss X’s complaint by apologising and backdating her Band C award to October 2022.
Miss X remained unsatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. Miss X said the Council: should have backdated her Band C award to June 2022, when she first reported a seizure; did not properly consider her medical evidence when assessing whether she should receive greater priority; and failed to inform her she had been awarded Band C and therefore she was bidding on properties from a lower banding.
Analysis The Council has acknowledged it could have sent Miss X’s request to the medical advisor sooner, in October 2022. The Council also accepts it failed to inform Miss X she had been awarded Band C. The absence of this letter means it is not clear how the Council reached its decision. However, I am satisfied that the Council has remedied this by backdating her Band C award to October 2022. I am also satisfied this remedies the delay by the Council in referring the case to the medical advisor.
It is Miss X’s view that the Council should backdate the award to June 2022, but she did not provide the necessary supporting evidence until October. I find no fault with the Council’s decision here.
Miss X requested a review because she disagreed with the decision not to increase her banding. The purpose of the review process is to reconsider a challenged decision. At this stage, a senior officer reconsidered all the evidence and upheld the original decision to award Miss X’s application Band C and priority for a ground floor property. I see no fault in the way the review decision was made. The review decision letter clearly explained the reasons for the decision.
Miss X disagrees with the review outcome. However, we cannot question the Council’s decision to award Band C priority, rather than Band B or A, when there is no evidence of fault in the way the decision was made at the review stage. We are not an appeal body so we cannot decide on the appropriate level of priority. The Council has to make that decision.
Miss X believes she has missed out on offers of housing since October 2022, as she was not aware she had been awarded Band C. I asked the Council if Miss X had missed offers of housing. The Council has looked at the properties it allocated during this period and it has determined that Miss X has not missed offers of housing. Therefore, while the Council was at fault, this fault has not caused Miss X to miss an offer of housing.
I have also considered the way the Council handled Miss X’s complaint. Miss X first raised concerns about the Council’s handling of her medical submission and change in circumstances as part of her review request. The Council should have referred these concerns to its complaints department or advised Miss X that she needed to raise a formal complaint. Instead, it waited until it wrote to her with the outcome of its review and then advised her to complain. This was fault and caused Miss X avoidable distress and time and trouble. I consider an apology and symbolic payment of £100 is suitable in the circumstances.
Agreed action
Within one month of my final decision the Council will apologise to Miss X and pay her £100 for the injustice caused by the fault in the way it handled her complaint.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I have found fault by the Council causing an injustice to Miss X. I have completed my investigation on this basis.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman