The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to provide the correct medical priority to her housing application which has impacted her son’s health. We have found no fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains the Council has failed to provide the correct medical priority to her housing application despite her providing additional supporting evidence about the impact of noise at the property on her son’s neurological condition.
Mrs C says because of the Council’s fault her son is staying away from home which is impacting his health and causing them both avoidable worry and upset.
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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 how the organisation made its decision, 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 read the papers provided by Mrs C and discussed the complaint with her. I have also considered information from the Council. I have explained my draft decision to Mrs C and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.
What I found
Housing allocations 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)).
An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories: homeless people people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3)) The Council’s allocation scheme and medical priority The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties. The scheme is a banded scheme with qualifying applicants being placed in one of five bands from A (high) to E (low).
Medical priority is awarded where a move would significantly improve the health or quality of life of an applicant or family member. Applicants who feel that they or someone in their household have a medical need to move are required to complete a medical form that forms part of the online Homeseeker application and provide proof of any medication applicable. The Council will consider all medical evidence provided and seek advice from the Councils Medical Advisor when making a decision to award medical priority.
The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme provides two levels of medical/welfare priority. The Council will award Level 2 where it finds an applicant has a medical condition, disability or welfare need where their home is unsuitable for their requirements. The Council’s policy says it will only award Level 1 in exceptional circumstances where it finds an applicant’s home is so unsuitable for their needs related to their medical condition, disability or welfare need that they are wholly unable to remain there.
Key events The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
Mrs C’s application is registered in Band C with medical priority Level 2.
Mrs C submitted an updated medical form and provided supporting information to the Council in December 2022. The Council referred the matter to its medical adviser who confirmed there was no change to the previous recommendation. The Council considered this response together with Mrs C’s son’s medical condition and the evidence she had supplied which included a letter of support from her son’s neurological consultant dated 7 October. This letter stated the level of noise at his property was affecting his ability to sleep which was important for people with his condition because of background issues with fatigue. The Council wrote to Mrs C in December to confirm its decision that her application did not meet the criteria for medical priority Level 1. This letter set out Mrs C’s right to seek a review.
Mrs C sought a review of the Council’s decision towards the end of December. Mrs C highlighted the letter of support she had already provided from her son’s neurological consultant. Mrs C also stated that her son was staying at his university accommodation to avoid the extreme fatigue he experienced at home and that this was an issue as he should be at home Thursday to Sunday for her to monitor his health and provide support.
The Council acknowledged receipt of the above review request in early January 2023 and confirmed she would receive an outcome within 56 days. This letter asked for any additional supporting information to be provided within 14 days.
The Council wrote to Mrs C at the start of March to say it was not proceeding with the review as she had not provided any further information. The Council advised Mrs C she would need to submit a new medical form together with any such evidence. The Council confirmed Mrs C’s application would remain registered in Band C with medical priority Level 2.
Mrs C subsequently complained to the Council. The Council responded to Mrs C’s complaint at the start of May. Mrs C remained unhappy with the outcome and escalated her complaint.
The Council wrote to Mrs C at the final stage of its complaint procedure at the start of September and apologised for the delay. The Council noted it had awarded Mrs C’s housing application Band C medical priority Level 2 in December 2020. Although its independent medical adviser did not make such a recommendation at the time, the Council decided to award the priority after considering Mrs C’s supporting information which included letters from her son’s neurologist and GP and research on the impact of noise on a person with a neurological condition. The Council noted Mrs C had stated her son was living at university due to the extreme fatigue he experienced at home but he needed to be at home Thursday to Sunday to allow health monitoring and medication by infusion. The Council explained it held no information about these requirements or how her son’s medical condition may have deteriorated to the point where he could not live at Mrs C’s property and was not receiving his medication. The Council noted the July 2022 letter of support from the GP but highlighted this was similar to the previous information that her son may find relief from a quieter environment. The Council also noted the October 2022 Consultant letter confirming noise affected her son’s ability to sleep and supporting a move. However, the Council explained neither letter advised her son’s health had deteriorated since the previous support letters or that his housing was completely unsuitable with reasons why. The Council concluded that the medical Level 2 priority remained appropriate as it acknowledged a move to a quieter property would be beneficial as supported by the consultant and GP. The Council noted if Mrs C had further supporting information about why the property was wholly unsuitable such as why her son could not live there and was not able to receive his medication by infusion she would need to update the online medical form and submit this for a reassessment.
Mrs C provided a further GP letter dated 11 September 2023 to the Council following the above complaint outcome. This noted her son had reported as disturbed and very anxious due to the high noise levels at the property and felt this was affecting his health adversely and did not want to stay there. It further noted Mrs C’ son had requested a letter to support alternative accommodation to a quieter property urgently due to the risk of his health deteriorating.
The Council wrote to Mrs C at the start of November to say it had considered the above GP letter, but the medical adviser recommendation remained that medical priority Level 2 was appropriate. The Council acknowledged the impact of the property on her son’s health but concluded the property was not wholly unsuitable, so her application did not meet the criteria for medical priority Level 1. The Council’s letter set out the right to request a review.
Mrs C contacted the Council about this decision towards the end of November. The Council treated this correspondence as a further review against the priority awarded to her application on medical grounds.
Mrs C complained to the Ombudsman in December. The Council sought information from Mrs C in February 2024 about her son’s university accommodation and his medical needs at home in terms of the infusions and medication she had highlighted as being needed from Thursday to Sunday each week. The Council also sought information from the GP at the same time.
Mrs C provided some additional information towards the end of February. The Council also received further information from the GP and consultant during February. The Council wrote to Mrs C towards the end of march to confirm the outcome of its review was that medical priority Level 2 remained appropriate and her application did not meet the criteria for medical priority Level 1. This letter sets out all the information the Council had considered and provided a detailed explanation of the reasons for its decision.
My consideration The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
I should also explain the Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. She may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
The decision about priority is for the Council to make. It should not simply adopt the recommendation of a third-party medical assessor. We would expect the Council to consider the medical adviser’s recommendation as well as any supporting information from the applicant’s own GP and any other relevant medical professionals.
Based on the information provided, I am satisfied the Council has done so. The Council has considered the recommendation of its medical assessor with the additional supporting information provided by Mrs C and the further responses of relevant medical professionals when reaching its decisions her medical priority should remain at Level 2.
Mrs C has suggested the Council relied too heavily on the GP correspondence as this was only relaying what her son had said rather than the GP giving their own view that her son was ‘wholly unable to remain’ in her property. The Council is entitled to take into account the GP information as written and this does not constitute fault.
The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making these decisions and I cannot therefore criticise it.
There was a delay in the Council seeking further information in relation to Mrs C’s most recent review request, but I do not consider this amounts to fault in the circumstances of this complaint or that it caused her an injustice given the outcome of the review.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation as I have found no fault by the Council.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman