Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to give the complainant greater priority for housing on medical grounds. The complainant says her current property is unsuitable for her son’s medical needs. The Council considered the complainant's request having due regard to the complainant’s reasoning, along with medical evidence and advice it obtained. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the complainant’s medical priority request.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Miss J) complains about Home Group’s decision to not award her greater priority for social housing and allocate a property with an additional bedroom which she says is needed to meet her son’s medical needs. Home Group provides social housing on behalf of the Council and in accordance with the local authority’s housing allocations policy. Decisions made by Home Group are therefore referred to as being decisions made by the Council.
2. Miss J says the Council refused to give her greater housing priority and a larger property on the grounds of medical need. She alleges the Council’s decision is flawed and did not properly consider her appeal challenging this. In summary, Miss J says the alleged fault is resulting in her and her family living in unsuitable accommodation which fails to meet her son’s medical needs. As a desired outcome, she wants the Council to award her medical priority for housing which is suitable to meeting her son’s needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I found Miss J’s request for greater housing priority was based on her current property being unsuitable due to the way her son’s disabilities impact on his life and that he requires assistance with all his daily living activities. Miss J states she is the only person currently supporting her son and that her request to move closer to her son’s father would provide better access to support. Miss J also explains the current property is unsuitable because the area outside is unsafe for him on the roads and that he is unable to leave the house independently.
6. In addition, Miss J requested her need for a three bedroom property. I reviewed her application for greater medical priority and understand the reason for Miss J’s request as being twofold. First, Miss J states a three bedroom property would accommodate a carer to stay at the property to assist in meeting her son’s needs. Second, Miss J says she has caring responsibilities for her young granddaughter who stays with her three nights per week. Miss J says her granddaughter cannot share a bedroom with her son due to his medical needs.
7. As part of its consideration of Miss J’s requests, the Council requested and received medical advice for the purposes of assessing whether her household needs met the eligibility criteria for greater housing priority on medical grounds. I found this advice specifically considered Miss J’s son’s disabilities which impairs his social behaviour and communication and can cause delay and learning disabilities. The advice states the disabilities requires assistance in all aspects of his life. While the advice recognises Miss J’s point that a move would enable better family support, it notes her son’s father lives in same area (approximately a 10 minute drive away). It also says support services are available in Miss J’s current area to provide needed support. The advice concludes that Miss J’s son’s needs are currently met in her current accommodation and that a move for easier logistics does not amount to this being medical unsuitability.
8. With respect to Miss J stating her need for three bedroom property, the Council’s medical advice stated there was no evidence indicating a live in carer was required to support meeting her son’s medical needs. Further, the medical advice stated Miss J’s granddaughter is not a member of the her household and, in any event, has no medical needs of her own. In accordance with the Council’s housing allocations policy therefore, the Council decided there was no basis, on medical grounds, for Miss J to be allocated a three bedroom property. The Council’s final determination of Miss J’s housing need during this process was to allocate her Band B priority for a two bedroom property and a statutory housing need to move.. It refers to the Council’s allocations policy defining Band B has having a statutory housing need to move.
9. The Council’s housing allocations policy states Band A (the highest level of priority need for housing) is awarded to applicants who have an urgent need to move due to them having medical problems or disabilities that are being exacerbated by their current housing situation. The Council’s assessment of Miss J’s request and its decision-making process considered the points raised by her. This concluded there was a lack of evidence that Miss J’s current accommodation was detrimental to the household on medical grounds, or which supports the need for a three bedroom property. This process invited medical evidence from Miss J which the Council took account of, as well as medical advice it sought. In my view, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has assessed Miss J’s medical priority request for a three bedroom property closer to son’s father, or how it has applied its housing allocations policy.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restriction I outline at paragraph three (above) applies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman