Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not give enough medical points to her housing register application. She also complained the Council delayed deciding her housing register application and her review request. The Council was not at fault for the medical points awarded for her housing register application. The Council was at fault for poor communication and the delay in issuing Ms X’s housing application and review decisions. The Council will apologise to Ms X, pay her £100 and produce an action plan to avoid reoccurrence of the fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to give enough medical points to her housing register application and she could not bid for housing because of her low point score. She said the Council delayed deciding her housing register application and her review request. Ms X also complained the Council had not given her enough time to respond to its review questions and it did not understand her child’s medical condition. She said her current property is unsuitable because her children share a bedroom.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint and considered the information she provided.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents.
7. I considered the Council's allocations policy and relevant law and guidance.
8. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. We considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

9. 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))
10. 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))

11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

Health and wellbeing priority

12. The Council has a points-based allocations scheme to decide on the priority of applicants who qualify to join the Housing Register. This includes points for applicants who need to move for health and wellbeing reasons. There are three levels of priority:

High (1000 points) – where there is an urgent need to move and:

1. there is a risk to life without a move; or
2. the applicant is housebound, or a wheelchair user, and would become more independent with a move to alternative accommodation; or
3. there is a risk to the life of others unless the applicant moves (e.g delay in evacuating the person from the building in the event of a fire).

Medium (150 points) - where the applicant’s need to move is less urgent, and not life-threatening, but living conditions are unsuitable and if left unresolved their quality of life will deteriorate.

Low (50 points) where the applicant’s living conditions cause them difficulty in carrying out daily activities but this is not life-threatening and it would not cause them greater harm or progress their illness if they did not move.

13. Points for insanitary or unsuitable accommodation are only awarded to private sector tenants, subject to meeting certain conditions. Council tenants cannot be awarded these points.
14. The Council’s scheme only allows applicants with 100 points or more to bid due to the high demand for social housing and short supply of properties.

What happened

15. Ms X and her two children live in a ground floor 2 bedroom council property. One of Ms X’s children, Child A, has a medical condition.
16. In mid-January 2022 Ms X applied to the Council’s Housing Register. A Council Officer, Officer Z helped Ms X fill in the application form because of a condition Ms X had. Officer Z told Ms X she would get a response from the Council within six to eight weeks.
17. In her housing register application, Ms X said she required a property with three bedrooms. This was because Child A had a medical condition which meant her children could not share a bedroom.
18. In early February 2022 the Council emailed Ms X advising her the case would be assessed by a medical officer. The Council told Ms X it could take up to 12 weeks to the end of May 2022.
19. Ms X said she had not received an update from the Council in early February 2022 and she had to contact Officer Z in early March 2022 for an update. Officer Z told Ms X her application still needed to be assessed by a medical officer.
20. In mid-March 2022 a new hospital medical report was produced about Child A. It explained Child A’s diagnosis and existing medication.
21. Ms X said the Council did not give her a telephone number to contact it about her application and she had to contact Officer Z multiple times for an update.
22. In June 2022 Officer Z contacted Ms X. Ms X asked for an update on her application. Officer Z told Ms X there was a backlog of medical assessments. Officer Z asked Ms X to send them any updated medical forms.
23. In late June 2022 Ms X sent the Council the latest medical letter from the hospital about Child A’s condition.
24. Nine days later a medical officer concluded Ms X was a low medical priority based on the hospital report from mid-March 2022. It said ‘Whilst the applicant’s living conditions cause them difficulty in carrying out their daily activities, this is neither life threatening nor would greater harm or progression of the illness be caused if they did not move’.
25. In early July 2022 the Council wrote to Ms X with its decision on Ms X’s housing register application. It said:
• her housing register application had been assessed in accordance with the Council’s Allocation Scheme;
• she needed a 2 bedroom property which meant she was already adequately housed, the allocations scheme awarded her 0 points;
• it had completed a health and wellbeing assessment and used the medical information she provided in support of her application and she was awarded a low medical priority which awarded 50 points;
• she did not have 100 points and so was not eligible to bid for social housing;
• if her circumstances changed she could update her housing register application and it gave her the relevant log on details; and
• she could request a review of the decision in writing within 28 days.
26. In mid-July 2022 Ms X emailed the Council and asked it to review its decision. Ms X said:
• Child A’s medical condition had got worse with age;
• Child A needed to go to hospital once a month and have an injection twice a week;
• the medicine Child A had been prescribed was strong and usually used for cancer patients; and
• Child A wakes in the night and needs medical attention.
27. Two days later the Council responded to Ms X and acknowledged her request for a review. It confirmed the timeframe for a review was 56 days.
28. In early September 2022 Ms X said she received new medical letters from the hospital which said Child A’s medication needed to be increased and she needed an infusion every month. Ms X said the Council did not ask her for this new information.
29. In late September 2022 the Council spoke to Ms X on the telephone about her review request and it emailed Ms X the following two questions:
• how sharing a bedroom with Child A affected Ms X’s other child, Child B; and
• when Child A’s medicine was administered.
30. Two days later Ms X emailed the Council about the telephone call and responded to the Council’s questions. She said:
• she did not agree Child A’s medical condition was not life threatening;
• she complained she had to explain to different teams about Child A’s medical condition and had to answer questions she had already responded to;
• it was over 8 months since she applied with no adequate answer despite her medical evidence;
• Child B was regularly woken up in the night because of Child A’s medical condition, causing sleep deprivation and Child B had difficulty in functioning the next day;
• she explained the days Child A needed medication to be administered; and
• she queried why the review decision timescale of 56 days had not been met.
31. The Council replied the same day. It apologised for Ms X’s concerns, explained the additional questions were required as part of the review and asked Ms X for a week extension to send its review decision. The Council also asked Ms X if there were days Child B did not attend school or do their homework. The Council apologised for the delay in issuing the review decision and said it was because it had received a high volume of review requests. It advised it anticipated the review would be completed by end of September 2022.
32. Two days later Ms X responded to the Council question about Child B. Ms X said: ‘Child B is exhausted but concentration at school is splendid’. Ms X also told the Council she did not accept the week extension request and wanted a response within 24 to 28 hours. When I spoke to Ms X about her complaint she said she miss typed her answer because of her condition, Officer Z was not available to help her to respond and the Council rushed her to answer.
33. The next day the Council sent Ms X its review decision and decided Ms X was assessed as adequately housed and her low health and wellbeing points score of 50 was upheld. It advised Ms X if she remained unhappy she should contact the Ombudsman.
34. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to us.

My findings

Medical needs assessment

35. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to consider whether councils have followed the correct decision making process and taken suitable information into account when making their decisions. Unless there was fault in the decision making process we cannot comment on the decision reached.
36. The Council’s allocations policy says that more points can be granted for health and wellbeing and a medical officer will review the evidence submitted and decide if the evidence meets the criteria for additional points.
37. The Council considered the medical evidence Ms X provided about Child A. It assessed Child A’s health needs and the impact Ms X’s current property had on Child A’s health, based on the information Ms X provided at the time.
38. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in how it made its decision regarding the priority it awarded for the medical needs of Child A.
39. The records do not show the Council rushed Ms X into responding to the extra questions it asked in September 2022. It did not set a short timescale for the response and it was open to Ms X to provide this information by telephone if she preferred. It properly considered the information she provided as part of its decision making.
40. If Ms X has additional information which was not available to the Council at the time of its decision, it is open to her to provide that to the Council for its consideration.

Delay

41. Ms X applied to the housing register in mid-January 2022. The Council did not make a decision on Ms X’s application until early July 2022. This is a period of six months.
42. The law and guidance does not set out a timescale for processing applications. Nor does the Council’s allocations policy. We expect councils to deal with applications in a timely manner. Four to six weeks is what we consider an appropriate time to process applications. The Council told Ms X it would take until the end of May 2022 to reach a decision because of a backlog of medical assessments. The Council did not make a decision on Ms X’s application until early July 2022. This delay was fault.
43. The Council told Ms X it would review its decision within 56 days which it did not do. It took 4 weeks longer to provide Ms X with its review decision. This delay was also fault. These delays caused Ms X frustration.

Communication

44. The Council failed to keep Ms X informed of the progress of her application. Ms X had to contact Officer Z for updates between March and June 2022. This caused Ms X time and trouble and was fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. Within one month of the final decision the Council will apologise and pay Ms X £100 to acknowledge the time and trouble and frustration caused by the failure to keep her updated and the delay in issuing the decisions.
46. Within 3 months of the final decision the Council will provide an action plan to show the action it is taking to reduce delays in dealing with applications for medical priority.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have completed my investigation finding fault with the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice and prevent reoccurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman