Summary: Ms X complains the Council significantly delayed carrying out medical assessments, did not consider her and her family’s needs when allocating her accommodation and failed to address health and safety issues at three temporary accommodations she and her family stayed at. She said this matter has caused her and her family distress and upset. The Council was at fault when it did not respond to Ms X’s medical assessments for several months on two occasions. This caused Ms X stress and upset. The Council has agreed to provide Ms X with a £150 financial award. The Council has also agreed to remind its staff of the importance of carrying out medical assessments within the required timescales. There was no other fault identified in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained:
1. the Council delayed carrying out an assessment of her medical needs;
2. did not properly consider her and her family’s needs when it allocated her to her current housing band; and
3. did not address health and safety issues at the temporary accommodations she and her family lived in.
2. She said the Council’s actions have caused her and her family distress and upset.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated complaint points a) and b). I have not investigated complaint point c) for reasons I will explain at paragraph 36.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I contacted Ms X and discussed her view of the complaint.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided which included, complaint form, Ms X’s medical assessment forms, the Council’s chronology of the events which took place, Ms X’s medical information,
8. I wrote to the Council and Ms X with the draft decision and considered the comments I received before I made the final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and statutory guidance

9. Before 3 April 2018 someone was considered threatened with homelessness if, when asking for help from the Council they are likely to become homeless within 28 days.
10. The Council has a legal duty to assess the applicant’s homelessness and if they are satisfied the applicant is threatened with homelessness they must help them to secure accommodation.

The Council’s housing allocation scheme

11. The Council’s policy is to offer the majority of applicants a choice of accommodation by way of a choice-based lettings scheme.
12. Every local housing authority must publish an allocation scheme setting out how it prioritises applications and how it allocates housing.
13. In line with the Housing Act 1996, section 166A (3) 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.
14. The Council’s housing bands span from Band A, the highest priority to Band D, the lowest priority. Examples of applicants in priority need are people with dependent children, people who are vulnerable with serious health problems or pregnant women.
15. Applicants must tell the Council if there is a relevant change in their circumstances affecting their application. An applicant’s priority band may increase or decrease following a change of circumstances.

Medical assessments

16. If a housing applicant believes they have a disability or medical need which should be considered as part of their housing application, they can submit a medical assessment form to the Council.
17. The Council aims to respond to applicants with an assessment decision within 10 working days of receiving the application.
18. Applicants have a right to ask for a review within 21 days if they disagree with the Council’s decision. The Council must complete the review within 3 weeks of the date they receive the review request. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and is in a senior position.

Ms X’s complaint

19. The Council accepted it had a duty to house Ms X in June 2018 after she was evicted from her property. The Council provided her and her two young children with temporary accommodation and placed her in housing Band C.
20. Ms X complained to the Council on 26 February 2018 regarding the cleanliness of the accommodation and damaged furniture. Neither Ms X or the Council has not confirmed how it responded to this complaint.
21. In March 2019 Ms X complained to the Council that she was unfairly evicted from her previous accommodation and wanted to be placed in a higher property band. The Council told Ms X there was a shortage of social housing, and it could not justify placing her in a higher band. The Council told Ms X to complete a medical assessment if she believed she had health issues which qualified her for priority banding.
22. On 11 March 2019 Ms X sent the Council a medical assessment form on behalf of herself and her two children. Ms X complained to the Council on 30 July 2019 because she had not received a response to the medical forms.
23. The Council responded on 7 August 2019. The Council apologised for the delay in carrying out Ms X’s medical assessment and explained it was experiencing staffing issues. The Council confirmed it did not consider her medical issues warranted granting her medical priority. The Council told Ms X she had 21 days to request a review if she was unhappy with the Council’s decision. Ms X did not request a review at this time.
24. Ms X emailed the Council a medical assessment form on 1 January 2020 again asking for priority medical status along with a letter from her GP stating that she was suffering from anxiety and depression. The Council sent Ms X a letter on 2 January 2020 and advised it did not consider this warranted her moving to a higher housing band.
25. Ms X sent a further medical assessment to the Council on 14 February 2021 stating she also suffered with back problems and would benefit from living in a ground floor property. The Council wrote to Ms X on 15 February 2021 to inform her she would remain in Band C.
26. Ms X asked the Council to review the decision on 16 March 2021. She provided a letter from her children’s school and a further letter from her GP in support of her request. Ms X sent the Council further chasing emails when she did not receive a reply.
27. The Council issued its review decision on 25 May 2021, informing Ms X it had considered the additional information she supplied and did not consider it necessary to move her to a higher housing band.
28. The Council issued its final response on 20 August 2020. It partly upheld Ms X’s complaint regarding its benefit assessment and offered her a £200 financial award for this aspect of her complaint. The Council told Ms X it could not make a direct offer of accommodation due to a property shortage in the area and encouraged her to continue bidding for properties as regularly as possible.
29. Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman because she remains unhappy with her housing situation. The Council has apologised for taking 105 working days to respond to Ms X’s first medical assessment form and 50 working days to respond to her request for a review.

Findings

30. Ms X complained the Council did not respond to her medical assessments in a timely manner. The evidence shows the Council significantly delayed responding to two of the medical assessment forms Ms X supplied and did not send her holding letters or keep her updated in the interim. This is fault. Ms X had to chase the Council for responses on several occasions and I imagine this caused her stress and upset. The Council has apologised to Ms X for this. It should also provide Ms X with a financial award in recognition of the time and trouble she expended on this matter.
31. Ms X remains dissatisfied with her current housing banding. The evidence shows the Council has carried out three medical assessments and reviewed the additional information Ms X has supplied when she has asked it to. The Council has increased Ms X’s housing banding when it deemed she was eligible to be placed in a higher priority band. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision the Council has properly made. There is nothing to suggest the Council has not followed the correct process in making this decision. Based on the evidence there is no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to provide Ms X with a £150 financial award in recognition of the trouble and upset caused by significantly delaying responding to Ms X’s medical assessment forms.
33. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to provide evidence it has reminded its staff of the importance of keeping to the required timescales when processing medical assessments.

Back to top

Final decision

34. The Council was at fault when it significantly delayed assessing Ms X’s medical forms and requests for a review. I have made a recommendation for how the Council should remedy this and the Council has agreed to these recommendations. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

35. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint c) as the evidence I have received indicates she first raised this issue in 2018. I can see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate events which took place this long ago.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman