Summary: Miss A complains the Council has failed to consider important information in her application to the housing register. Miss A says this means the Council has not awarded her the correct points, and she therefore cannot bid. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to show reasonable decision-making. The Council has agreed a financial remedy, a reassessment and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has failed to suitably consider her evidence and application in its decision about her housing need.
2. Miss X complains the Council has failed to consider her children’s needs and failed to consider the risk posed to her and her children by her current living circumstances.
3. Miss X also complains about the Council’s handling of the issues and its handling of her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered Miss X’s complaint and information provided by her. I also considered information by the Council and its allocations policy.
8. I considered comments from the Council and Miss X on drafts of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

9. Councils must have an allocation scheme to decide priorities and set out the procedure it will follow when allocating housing. Each council’s allocations scheme will be different but in general most will award 'reasonable preference' to allocations by awarding points or placing an applicant in a certain priority band. Applicants have a right to request a review of a council’s decision about the number of points or band they have been awarded.

What happened

10. Miss X lives in private rented accommodation with her three children. Some of Miss X’s children have additional medical needs
11. Miss X applied to the Council’s housing register. She also presented to the Council has homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse.
12. The Council offered Miss X a move to an alternative area as she presented as fleeing domestic abuse. Miss X declined this option as she wanted her children to remain in their schools and she relied heavily on her support network. Miss X withdrew the homelessness application.
13. In her application to the housing register, Miss X told the Council that she required support to move as the private accommodation she and her children lived in was not suitable. This was because her children had additional needs which meant that they could not share a bedroom
14. Miss X also told the Council that she feared for her and her children’s safety as she lived near an ex-partner from whom she had fled domestic violence.
15. The Council asked Miss X for medical evidence of hers and her children’s health needs. Miss X provided hospital appointment letters, hospital reports and information from the children’s school.
16. The Council also completed a risk assessment with Miss X for domestic Abuse. Miss X also provided the Council with information from her domestic violence advocate, information on the injunction against her ex-partner, the most recent crime reference numbers, and court documents about his charges.
17. The Council reviewed the evidence sent by Miss X. It wrote to her to accept that it had a housing duty, and that it could help her get private rented accommodation. Miss X told the Council she did not want private rented accommodation or temporary accommodation and therefore did not wish to continue the homelessness application and wanted to apply to the housing register. The Council closed Miss X’s homelessness application
18. The Council reviewed Miss X’s application to the housing register. It wrote to Miss X to say that it had awarded her 50 points on her application to the housing register for “low health and wellbeing”.
19. Miss X wrote to the Council and requested a review of the decision. She felt the Council had not properly considered the medical evidence for her and her children and the current risk posed to her by her ex-partner and his family.
20. The Council responded to Miss X’s review request. It reviewed the decision and upheld its first response. The Council said that a medical officer had reviewed the medical evidence and it had awarded the “low health and wellbeing” criteria to the application. The Council accepted that some of the health conditions meant it was difficult for the family to carry out daily activities. However, the conditions were not life threatening nor would greater harm or progression of the illness be caused if they did not move.
21. The Council said that Miss X was not overcrowded as her two older children had their own rooms, and there was no medical evidence to show they needed their own rooms. The Council also said that even if Miss X could show the children needed their own rooms, lacking a bedroom in the private rented sector would not mean she was awarded additional points.
22. In response to Miss X’s domestic violence evidence, the Council said that as Miss X had a non-molestation order against her ex-partner, he was not permitted to be within a certain distance of her. The Council were of the view that as she had taken legal steps to prevent further abuse, the Council viewed the current property as suitable.
23. Miss X complained to the Council about its decision not to award her application more points. The Council refused to consider the complaint under the statutory process as it said Miss X had a legal right of review.
24. Miss X then bought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

25. The Ombudsman considers whether Council’s have taken suitable information into account making its decisions. Where Councils can evidence reasonable decision making, the Ombudsman cannot find fault.

Medical needs assessment

26. Miss X provided medical evidence to the Council for herself and her children. This was to show the current property she is in is not suitable for the family and that they need additional priority on the housing register.
27. In its review, the Council accepted that “that some of the health conditions meant it was difficult for the family to carry out daily activities but that the conditions were not life threatening nor would greater harm or progression of the illness be caused if they did not move”.
28. The Council’s allocations policy says that additional points can be granted for health and wellbeing. A medical officer will review the evidence submitted and decide if the evidence meets the criteria for additional points.
29. I have reviewed the documents from the Council where it reviews the health needs of the family members. The Council has been able to demonstrate that it assessed two Miss X’s children’s health needs based on the information she provided at the time. It did not consider Miss X’s third child as at the time the child had no diagnosed conditions.
30. I am therefore satisfied that the Council has been able to show reasonable decision making when deciding to award the “low health and wellbeing” aspect to the application. There is no fault by the Council in how it made its decision not to award further priority for the medical needs of Miss X and her family.

Domestic Abuse

31. Part of Miss X’s application to the housing register included her history of domestic abuse and her current circumstances. Miss X provided the Council with crime reference numbers, non-molestation orders, and information from her advocate. Miss X also informed the Council that her ex-partners family lived near her and so he was often close to her house.
32. The Council told Miss X that as she had taken legal action to prevent the abuse and the last incident happened in 2019, it considers her current accommodation suitable.
33. The Ombudsman does not expect officers to list all evidence and docs provided but does expect to see considerations of key points and recent evidence.
34. The Council’s consideration of the domestic abuse consisted of Miss X’s legal injunction and information from 2021. The Council has not been able to show that it suitably considered the information from Miss X about more recent incidents or the information from another professional saying she remained at high risk and needed to move for her and her children’s safety.
35. The Ombudsman would expect the Council to be able to evidence it considered the recent evidence and information from Miss X. This was fault by the Council as it has failed to show that it considered suitable information when making its decision not to award further priority to Miss X’s application.
36. This has left Miss X uncertain in the outcome of her application if the Council had considered this part of the application without fault.

Complaint handling

37. When Miss X complained to the Council about its decision, the Council told Miss X it would not investigate her complaint, but that she could seek legal advice for a judicial review of the decision.
38. The Ombudsman expects Council’s to signpost to the Ombudsman’s services where it might not be reasonable for complainants to pursue legal remedies and the case would be within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
39. The Ombudsman does not expect Council’s or complainants to go through the complaints process where there has already been a review decision. In the case of Miss X, the Council should have signposted Miss X to the Ombudsman. However, Miss X was not disadvantaged by the Council failing to do this, as she complained to the Ombudsman shortly after the review decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within 4 weeks of my final decision the Council has agreed to

• Write to Miss X and apologise for the fault identified
• Pay Miss X £150 for the uncertainty caused because of not suitably considering all the information available.
• Reconsider Miss X’s application to the Housing register.

41. Within 12 weeks the Council has agreed to

• Review how it considers evidence from applicants and professionals to ensure all relevant information is considered during the review process for applications to the housing register.
• Ensure that it includes signposting to Ombudsman services in its review decision and complaints handling.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for how it reached the decision about Miss A’s application to the housing register.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman