Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to carry out a medical assessment for her housing register application properly and delayed considering her complaint. The Council delayed carrying out a medical assessment but there is no evidence of fault in how it considered the medical assessment. The Council delayed considering the complaint. The faults identified caused Ms B frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and send a reminder to officers.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms B, complained the Council:
• failed to take into account her medical information from 2018 when considering her housing register application; and
• delayed considering her complaint.
2. Ms B says if the Council had considered her medical evidence properly she would not have become homeless in 2024.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated Ms B’s concerns about what has happened since February 2023. I have not investigated what happened between 2018 and February 2023, for the reasons set out in this statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
9. Ms B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s allocations policy

10. Applications which include a medical or welfare need are considered by an officer in the housing assessment team.
11. Those with a severe medical or welfare need to move are assessed as band A.
12. Those for whom the medical, welfare or overcrowding need to move is relatively mild, moderate, temporary or intermittent, do not receive priority.
13. The severity of cases is assessed according to the suitability of the current housing circumstances, not the clinical severity of the medical condition.
14. In many cases re-housing will not alleviate the mental condition of the applicant. It is always the effect on health of the current housing circumstances that is considered, not the medical condition itself.

What happened - housing register banding

15. Ms B has various medical conditions and had originally applied to go on to the Council’s housing register in 2018. The Council did not award Ms B any priority and she could not bid on properties.
16. In September and October 2023 Ms B provided the Council with medical documents and asked it to review her banding. The Council said it would refer the case to its medical adviser. There is no evidence the Council did that in 2023.
17. Ms B provided her medical evidence again in March 2024 and the Council referred the case to its medical adviser. After considering the information the Council wrote to Ms B to tell her it had not awarded medical priority as it did not consider Ms B’s housing was making her medical condition worse.

What happened – complaint

18. Ms B put in a complaint to the Council on 11 February 2024. The Council responded to some of the issues raised on 15 February. Ms B reiterated she wanted to complain about how the Council had dealt with her housing register application. The Council responded to that complaint on 19 March.
19. On 19 March Ms B asked the Council to move the complaint to stage two. Ms B chased the Council for a response on 13 April. The Council responded to the complaint on 16 May. The Council apologised for the delay responding and said it would amend Ms B’s housing register application so she could bid for a one-bedroom property and confirmed she remained in band C.

Analysis

20. Ms B says the Council failed to properly assess her medical circumstances when she applied for rehousing in 2018. Ms B says if the Council had assessed her properly in 2018 she would likely have secured a property and would not have faced homelessness in 2024.
21. The Ombudsman will not normally consider a complaint about what happened more than 12 months ago. I am not exercising the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate what happened between 2018 and 2023. That is because I see no reason why Ms B could not have complained to the Ombudsman at the time. I am, however, exercising the Ombudsman’s discretion to consider the period from February 2023 onwards. That is 12 months before the complaint to the Ombudsman.
22. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Ms B provided the Council with medical evidence, which is the same as the medical evidence she previously provided, in September and October 2023. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council agreed to refer those documents to its medical team for a view on whether Ms B’s banding should be increased. However, I have seen no evidence the Council referred Ms B’s case to its medical team in 2023. That is fault.
23. I am, however, satisfied the Council referred Ms B’s case to its medical team in March 2024 when she provided her medical evidence again. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Ms B’s medical evidence at that point and decided she did not qualify for additional priority on the housing register. As I am satisfied the Council carried that assessment out properly after taking into account Ms B’s medical evidence there are no grounds on which I could criticise it.
24. As that medical evidence is the same as the medical evidence Ms B provided before 2024 I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, if the Council had referred the case to its medical adviser in 2023 the outcome would have been the same. So, while it was fault for the Council not to refer the case to the medical adviser in 2023 when it had agreed to do so I do not consider that affected the outcome for Ms B. In those circumstances I consider an apology satisfactory remedy.
25. In reaching that view I note Ms B has referred to the various medical conditions she has. Having considered the medical information she submitted it is clear Ms B suffers from a variety of medical conditions. However, a housing applicant does not qualify for medical priority on the Council’s housing register just because they have medical conditions. A housing applicant will only qualify for medical priority if the Council is satisfied the applicant’s housing is making their medical conditions worse. The Council is not satisfied Ms B has provided medical evidence to show that is the case, which is why it has not awarded additional medical priority. As I have made clear, I am satisfied the Council carried out that assessment properly and there are therefore no grounds on which I could criticise it.
26. Ms B says the Council delayed considering her complaint. The Council’s complaints procedure says complaints at stage one will be acknowledged within five working days and responded to within 10 working days from the date of acknowledgement. The Council’s complaint response at stage one says Ms B put in her complaint on 26 February 2024. However, the evidence I have seen satisfies me Ms B asked the Council to consider her complaint on 11 February 2024. The Council’s response on 19 March 2024 is therefore outside the 10 working day timescale. That is fault.
27. I am also satisfied the Council delayed responding to the complaint at stage two. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Ms B asked the Council to move her complaint to stage two on 19 March. The Council’s complaints procedure says it should have responded to that complaint within 25 working days, taking into account the 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint. The Council failed to meet that timescale which led to Ms B having to chase it. That is fault. I am satisfied though the Council has apologised for the delay responding to the complaint, which I welcome. I consider that, alongside a reminder to officers of the need to keep to complaint timescales and keep complainants up-to-date when there is a delay, satisfactory remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Ms B for the frustration she experienced due to the fault identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet; and
• send a reminder to complaints officers about the need to ensure complaint timescales are adhered to and, when delays occur, to ensure the person that has complained is kept up-to-date with what is happening.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Ms B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman