Summary: The Council has already accepted fault for its delays and poor communication with Mr X about his application for social housing. Its offer to Mr X of £500 is a suitable remedy for the distress and frustration this caused. The Council was not at fault in how it decided Mr X’s priority on its housing register. The Council’s failure to identify a safeguarding risk and make a referral was fault. The Council has agreed to act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his application for social housing. In particular, he says the Council:
1. Communicated poorly with him over many years
2. Failed to properly consider his medical needs when awarding priority
3. Failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disability
2. As a result, Mr X says he remains living in accommodation which makes his mental and physical health worse.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Mr X 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

Housing allocations

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
12. The Council awards points to applicants who qualify to join its housing register. The more points an applicant has, the higher their priority for rehousing.
13. The Council awards points for applicants who need to move for health or medical reasons.
14. The Council’s scheme also awards points under its New Generations Scheme (NGS). This gives points to adult children living with current social housing tenants.

Safeguarding adults

15. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

What happened

16. Mr X lives with his mother and his siblings in a housing association property.
17. In 2022, Mr X applied to the housing register. He said he wanted to move to live on his own and that his mother also needed to move to a new home. He asked the Council to consider whether he had any medical priority and provided details of his medical conditions.
18. The Council asked its medical advisor to consider Mr X’s evidence and make a recommendation.
19. In early 2023, Mr X chased the Council for the outcome of his medical assessment. He also asked the Council what it needed to support his mother’s application for a transfer.
20. The Council sent its medical decision in May. It did not award any additional priority. It also said Mr X did not qualify for any New Generation Scheme (NGS) points because it did not have records showing he was a member of the household.
21. In response, Mr X complained to the Council. He said:
• He had been contacting the Council for several months with no response
• He had NGS points in the past and was on the tenancy agreement as living there
• He did not agree with the Council’s assessment of his medical priority. He said managing the stairs in the property was difficult and he had fallen several times.
• His relationship with his mother was getting worse. He said they argued daily and disclosed that he had punched walls and thrown objects at her.
• His mother wanted him to leave.
• He was a carer for his mother, who needed a lot of support, and he could no longer manage this on his own.
22. The Council told Mr X it would ask for another medical review. It sent both Mr X and his mother’s cases to its medical advisor in October. An internal email shows the Council sought to clarify if it could award Mr X NGS points.
23. Mr X sent more information about his mother in support of her application.
24. The Council completed its medical assessment in December. It again decided Mr X did not have any medical priority.
25. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in May 2024. The Council accepted fault for periods of poor communication. It offered a remedy of £375.
26. Mr X asked the Council to consider the case at stage two of the complaint process. In its stage two response, the Council increased its offered remedy to £500.
27. The Council made another medical priority decision in July 2024. It again decided Mr X did not qualify for any medical points. Mr X asked for a review of the decision.
28. The Council completed the review in August. It awarded medical and welfare points.

My findings

Communication

29. The Council has already accepted fault for its delays and poor communication with Mr X.
30. In May 2023, Mr X told the Council his mother wanted him to leave because their relationship was breaking down. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says councils should be alert to requests for housing that trigger its duty to make homelessness inquiries. There is no evidence the Council considered if Mr X might be threatened with homelessness. This was fault.
31. I consider the Council’s offer of £500 is a suitable remedy for the avoidable distress and frustration this caused.

Medical priority

32. The Council completed several medical assessments. Each time it decided Mr X’s circumstances did not qualify for medical points.
33. The Ombudsman is not a review or appeal body. Our role is to decide if the Council made its decisions properly, without fault. If there is no fault in how the Council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome.
34. Although the 2024 review arrived at a different decision, this does not mean the earlier decisions were flawed. The Council made its decisions based on the information Mr X provided and in line with its allocations scheme. There is no fault in how it made the decision and so I cannot question the outcome.

Reasonable adjustments

35. Mr X says the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for his Disability in how it communicated with him.
36. There is no evidence Mr X asked the Council for any reasonable adjustments or otherwise indicated he found communication difficult. And communication was in writing, which is what Mr X has asked of us in our communication. In the circumstances, I do not find fault.
37. However, the Council has a proactive duty to consider reasonable adjustments. It should consider including an opportunity for applicants to tell it about any reasonable adjustments they need in housing applications and change of circumstances forms.

Safeguarding

38. Mr X told the Council he was shouting and throwing things at his mother. He also said that she had care and support needs and that he was her carer.
39. Everyone at the Council has a role to play in safeguarding adults. The Council should have made a safeguarding referral following Mr X’s disclosure. Failure to do so was fault.
40. I cannot say what the outcome of the referral might have been. And the evidence shows Mr X understood his actions were unacceptable and he was seeking support to address it. There is no evidence Mr X caused further harm to his mother.
41. However, a fault of this kind could leave a vulnerable person at serious risk of harm. I have therefore recommended action for the Council to improve its services.

Back to top

Action

42. The Council’s already offered £500 is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X by its poor communication and failure to consider if he might be threatened with homelessness.
43. The Council should take the following action to improve its services:
• Ensure frontline staff are aware that a homeless application can be made to any department and refer people who indicate they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness to the relevant department for advice and assistance. Provide guidance or training as necessary.
• Using this case as an example, provide training or guidance to frontline staff on their role in safeguarding and the process for making a safeguarding referral.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within 12 weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Decision

45. I have completed my investigation. The Council has already accepted fault and offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. It should also act to improve its services.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman