Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council had handled his housing application. He said the Council delayed processing his request for a medical assessment; the Council failed to properly consider his medical evidence; the Council’s communication has been poor, and the Council has failed to provide him with the right support. We find the Council was at fault for the initial delay in arranging a health assessment. This caused significant distress to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to address this injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about how the Council has handled his housing application. He said:
1. the Council delayed processing his request for a medical assessment;
2. the Council failed to properly consider his medical evidence;
3. the Council’s communication has been poor; and
4. the Council has failed to provide him with the right support.

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 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)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the Council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the Council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I am investigating matters between February 2023 and September 2024.
8. I am not investigating any matters in relation to Mr X’s homelessness application as this has been considered under case 24010083. I am also not investigating any matters in relation to housing repair issues. We cannot investigate the Council’s management of its social housing.
9. Mr X also raised concerns around bidding. He said he remains bidding on properties, but the Council says the properties are not suitable due to anti-social behaviour. I have not investigated this as I am not satisfied the Council has had the opportunity to investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I spoke with Mr X about his complaint. I considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my revised draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s housing allocations policy

12. The Council uses a banding scheme to prioritise applications for housing. There are five bands representing different levels of need, different degrees of urgency, and the reduced preference given to certain application. Band five is for people with no need and/or reduced priority in date order. Band four is for people with one need.
13. The policy states applications from cohabiting couples where one applicant is a Dudley MBC tenant, may not register jointly until the cohabitee and any member of his/her household has resided with the tenant for 6 months, if a joint application would result in:
• a higher need band;
• eligibility for additional property types.

Summary of the key events

14. In July 2023, the Council’s website was updated to state it would be moving to a new system. It said new applications to the housing register were paused from the 4 June 2023 and existing customers had been invited to make a new application on the new system. Those wishing to make a new application could do from the 31 July 2023.
15. The website was updated in August 2023. It stated the new system was now in place. It again noted existing customers had been invited to make a new application on the new system. It also said if someone had a live housing register application, they could reapply by the 30 September.
16. In October 2023, Mr X requested an urgent managed transfer. He said he needed to be closer to his mum who is his registered carer. He said his current property affected his mental state as he was so far out from any family.
17. The Council contacted its occupational therapy (OT) team shortly after stating it had re-registered an application for Mr X.
18. Mr X complained to the Council in November 2023. He said:
• his housing application had been live for 15 months and he was still waiting for an OT assessment;
• his current property was not suitable for his disability, and he was too far away from his mum; and
• he did not feel as though he was being listened too.
19. In response the Council said:
• his most recent medical assessment form was submitted in February 2023. It apologised as it was not able to review the form prior to the transition to the new system;
• all applicants who still wished to be considered for housing were required to reregister; and
• it had started an assessment of his health needs to see if it could support priority to move. But in the meantime, it advised him to bid on properties.
20. Mr X asked for his banding to be reviewed in December 2023.
21. In December 2023, it was noted Mr X had added two people to his housing application. But the Council advised he could not add people unless there were reasons why they needed to move in with him.
22. The Council completed a health assessment in February 2024. It was noted that:
• Mr X’s mum provides support, and she lives 6.4 miles away;
• the Council had asked Mr X’s GP for information on his diagnosis and support. This included whether the GP thought Mr X would manage better in an area near to his support network;
• the GP stated they arranged an appointment with Mr X to discuss this, but he did not attend. It was also noted Mr X had not engaged with the GP when they tried to rearrange the appointment; and
• there was no supporting evidence to support a need to rehouse closer to family support.
23. Mr X contacted his councillor in the same month and set out his concerns with the Council. These concerns were then forwarded to the Council. This included:
• discrimination towards him;
• inhabitable property;
• unmet disability needs in his current property;
• conflicting information; and
• the Council has failed to provide adequate support.
24. The Council dealt with the above as a councillor enquiry. It said:
• Mr X was currently in band five and assessed as adequately housed;
• Mr X had queried his banding based on his medical need. The OT team had been in touch with his GP who advised they needed to see him but Mr X had not responded to their request for an appointment;
• if Mr X wanted to add anyone to his application, they could apply for joint tenancy. But they would have to have lived with him for six months and the Council would need to check their eligibility for housing;
• the housing officer had been trying to contact Mr X to discuss housing repairs. But he had not responded; and
• it was looking into his query regarding eligibility for social care support.
25. Shortly after, Mr X asked for his concerns to be considered as a complaint. But the Council advised Mr X if he remained unhappy, he could contact the LGO.
26. Mr X’s GP provided a letter in April 2024 which stated Mr X may benefit from living closer to his mum. The GP also sent in details of Mr X’s medical history which included a referral for an ADHD and ASD assessment.
27. In April 2024, Mr X’s councillor asked the Council if Mr X had a social worker. The Council advised them he could contact his GP to make the relevant referrals if he required mental health support.
28. The Council completed a health assessment in April 2024. It noted:
• it had reviewed the letter provided by the GP;
• Mr X said his mum supported him with making his meals and laundry;
• Mr X said he had no physical health needs and when in the property, he can access all facilities.
29. In early May 2024, the Council advised Mr X he had been placed in band four with a backdated start date of the 10 October 2023. This was due to moderate medical, disability or related support needs.
30. Following a further complaint to the Council, the Council responded and said:
• it had found no evidence of discrimination against Mr X and asked him to send any evidence he had to support his claim;
• Mr X completed a medical application to move in February 2023. But his application did not reach the top of the waiting list prior to the new system coming into place;
• Mr X completed a new application in August 2023 and his health needs were reviewed in November 2023;
• in February 2023, the GP said they could not respond to enquiries as they had not seen Mr X. The Council concluded it did not have any evidence to award any priority;
• following further contact with the GP, Mr X attended an appointment. The Council reviewed the information and an award to move nearer to family has been made; and
• the housing options and support team confirmed they had supported Mr X previously on two occasions. But both instances ended due to lack of cooperation from Mr X.
31. Mr X made a homelessness application in July 2024. In response the Council decided Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. It said it was satisfied his current property was affordable and reasonable for him to remain living in.
32. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision. It was noted the Council had offered him multiple dates to attend a meeting to discuss why he believed it to be incorrect, but he did not attend. The Council asked him to send further information by the 3 September 2024.
33. Mr X made a further complaint in August 2024. He said:
• he had added his partner and unborn child to his application which was accepted. But the Council removed them and made further enquiries;
• he spoke with the Council who said he was eligible for a larger property. But then received a phone call stating he had been misinformed; and
• he was now missing out on bidding cycles due to the delays caused by the Council as his account was suspended.
34. The Council stated the request to add his partner, and unborn child was declined in line with its policy. It said his complaint had been closed as it was being considered under his review appeal.
35. The Council completed a health assessment in September 2024. It was noted that no change had been identified and the moderate medical need would remain the same.
36. The Council considered Mr X’s review and complaint made in paragraph 33. It said:
• when he added his partner and unborn child to the application, it had to initially approve the changes so further information could be requested. But it said the application should have been suspended at the time whilst checks were completed so he should not have been able to see or bid on larger properties. It apologised;
• it apologised for initially giving him the wrong information. It said this error was quickly picked up and Mr X was updated;
• priority is awarded when an existing home is unsuitable for the residents and not because someone receives disability benefits;
• his current home did not have any unsuitable features that would prevent him from navigating it. But it understood a moderate award of band four priority was currently in place to allow him more priority to move close to his support;
• his bidding was not affected;
• It considered Mr X’s circumstances. But it upheld the previous decision that Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Analysis- was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Part a of the complaint

37. Mr X requested a medical application to move in February 2023. The Council said the application did not reach the top of the waiting list prior to the new system coming into place. This meant he made a new application in October 2023 and the Council started the health assessment in November 2023, which was finalised in February 2024.
38. As stated in paragraphs 14 and 15, the Council’s website was updated in July 2023 to advise applicants of the new system and what they needed to do. The Council also sent a letter to Mr X notifying him of the changes.
39. I acknowledge that once the Council had issued the letter to Mr X and updated its website, it was Mr X’s responsibility to re-apply for the assessment. But between Mr X initially requesting the assessment in February 2023 to update in July 2023, there is a 6-month delay. This is fault. This caused significant distress to Mr X.
40. Had the fault not occurred, I cannot say that the outcome would have been different. This is because the Council stated there was not enough evidence to make any changes to Mr X’s application. This was because Mr X had not engaged with his GP, and therefore the GP could not provide any medical evidence.
41. I understand that Mr X states the Council failed to tell him about the GP appointment. He said the Council had agreed to update his housing account which was not done. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council did update his housing account. But if the GP had made an appointment, we could not criticise the Council for this. It would have been down to the GP to update Mr X. It is also noted in the health assessment in February 2024 that Mr X had not engaged with the GP when they tried to rearrange the appointment.

Part b of the complaint

42. The April 2024 health assessment it was noted that the Council had considered the evidence provided by the GP. This is detailed in paragraph 28. The Council amended Mr X’s banding to band four as it said he had a moderate medical, disability or related support needs. It backdated his banding start date to the 10 October 2023. This was when his application for a health assessment was re-registered.
43. Where a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information and given clear reasons for its decision, we cannot criticise it. We do not make decisions on a council’s behalf or provide a route of appeal against their decisions. As the Council has evidenced it did consider the medical evidence, I do not find fault with the Council. It is for councils to decide whether the medical evidence provided changes the outcome of a decision. It is also for councils to decide what banding someone should be awarded.

Part c of the complaint

44. Mr X complains about the Council’s poor communication. From the evidence seen, the Council responded to Mr X’s correspondence consistently. The Council has accepted that it failed to communicate with Mr X’s mum despite agreeing to in December 2023. But this was in relation to repairs and access issues. Therefore, this is outside our jurisdiction as this is in relation the Council’s management of its social housing. As explained in paragraph 8, we cannot investigate this.
45. I have not seen any evidence to suggest Mr X asked the Council to communicate with his mum only in relation to his housing application or his complaints. From the evidence seen, Mr X has raised his concerns directly. Therefore, I do not consider there to be any fault by the Council.

Part d of the complaint

46. From the evidence seen, I have not seen evidence to suggest Mr X was asking for support or that this was declined. In April 2024, Mr X’s councillor asking if Mr X had a social worker. In response the Council advised that Mr X could contact his GP to make the relevant referrals if he required mental health support.
47. I therefore cannot find fault with the Council for failing to provide Mr X with the right support. I acknowledge that the advice mentioned above was communicated to Mr X’s councillor and not Mr X. But I do not think this was unreasonable as the councillor was raising concerns on behalf of Mr X.

How the Council handled the housing application

48. Mr X raised concerns about him not being able to add his partner and unborn child to his application. The Council did initially accept the changes to make further enquiries. But after further enquiries, it removed them from the application. This is in line with the Council’s policy which is detailed in paragraph 13.
49. The Council has accepted it should have suspended Mr X’s account whilst making further enquiries to prevent him from being able to see larger properties. It has also apologised for initially telling him he was eligible for larger properties. This error was quickly corrected, and I believe the apology was an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to:
• write to Mr X with an apology that takes account of our published guidance on remedies and accepts the findings of this investigation; and
• pay Mr X £150 to recognise the distress caused to him due to the initial delay in carrying out a health assessment.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

52. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman