The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to award sufficient priority to her housing register application to enable her to bid successfully for suitable social housing. She says her current property is not suitable for her son’s needs. We found no fault on the Council’s part.
The complaint
Ms X complains that the Council has not awarded sufficient priority to her housing register application to enable her to bid successfully for suitable social housing. She says her son has autism and their current property is not suitable for his needs. The situation is causing her and her son distress and anxiety.
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) 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 considered all the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I have also considered the Councils published housing allocations policy.
Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Legal and administrative background 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 Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
The Council’s housing allocations scheme The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. It operates a panelling system to ensure that households in certain types of housing need have a degree of priority over others. When the Council accepts a housing application it places applicants into one of 5 priority bands: Band 1 includes applicants who have an extremely urgent and immediate need to move for medical reasons or because of a disability which is being exacerbated by their current housing; Band 2 includes applicants whose housing is unsuitable for severe medical reasons, or because of a disability, but who are not housebound and whose health or safety is not such a risk level to require immediate urgent re-housing; Band 3 includes homeless applicants, those living in overcrowded properties and to people who need to move to a particular locality (welfare priority); Band 4 includes applicants who are intentionally homeless or are unintentionally homeless but refused a suitable offer of accommodation; Band 5 is awarded to all other households who do not fall within any of the other priority need categories.
Key facts Ms X lives with her adult son, Mr Y, who is autistic. They live in a house on a busy road near a school. Ms X says the noise and high volume of traffic causes Mr Y significant distress and he frequently suffers meltdowns when leaving the house.
In 2020 Ms X applied for a housing transfer. She was placed on the Council’s housing register in Band 5. She was advised that she was eligible to bid for two-bedroom flats.
In October 2023 Ms X submitted a medical priority application.
The medical assessment panel met to consider the application. It decided to refuse the application but sent it to the Council’s medical advisers for a second opinion. The panel did however award Ms X welfare priority (band 3).
The Council’s medical adviser provided the following advice: “Environmental issues or antisocial behaviour should be reported to the relevant authorities to deal with. There is no other profound, substantive medical evidence provided to preclude the use of the present abode. No medical priority applies”.
On 8 November the Council wrote to Ms X to advise her of the panel’s decision not to award medical priority. It explained the panel had carefully considered all the evidence provided, but this did not suggest that the property was having a detrimental effect on Mr Y’s health condition. However, the panel accepted there were external environmental factors that were causing him distress, such as the heightened level of noise from school traffic. Accordingly, the panel had awarded band 3 welfare priority to Ms X’s application to support her moving to a property that she considered suitable.
On 15 November Ms X requested a review of the panel’s decision. She also argued that living in a flat would not meet Mr Y’s needs and asked for her priority to be amended so she could bid for a house.
The Council wrote to Ms X to confirm that a panel would meet to consider her application.
On 4 January the appeals panel met. It considered: Ms X’s submissions; advice from the Council’s medical adviser; the submissions provided by Ms X’s GP; Mr Y’s speech and language therapy report; his education, health and care plan; and the Council’s housing allocations policy. The panel decided to uphold the original decision.
The Council wrote to Ms X explaining that, after considering all the facts and evidence available, the panel had decided to uphold the original decision not to award medical priority and the decision that Ms X was not eligible for a house. It explained its allocations policy states that houses will only be allocated to households where at least one member of the household is aged 16 or below. Although there were exceptions to this, including the need for adapted accommodation, they did not apply in this case.
Analysis Ms X says her current property is not suitable for Mr Y because he finds the noise so distressing. She also says he would not be suited to living in a flat because he suffers from claustrophobia. She considers the Council should award medical priority.
Under the Council’s allocations policy, for Ms X to be awarded medical priority, she would need to show her home has a significant harmful impact on Mr Y’s condition causing his health to seriously worsen unless rehousing occurs. The Council does not consider Ms X meets these criteria. It does however accept that external factors are causing Mr X distress and, in recognition of this, it awarded band 3 welfare priority.
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 decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with it.
I am satisfied the Council considered all the evidence provided by Ms X in support of her application when making its decision. It also sought medical advice. In the absence of administrative fault in way the Council reached its decision to refuse medical priority, there are no grounds to question it.
I also find no grounds to criticise the Council’s decision that Ms X was eligible to bid for a flat rather than a house. This is in line with its allocations policy. Houses are only allocated to households with one or more children.
Final decision
I do not uphold Ms X’s complaint.
I have completed my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman