The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided that Mrs B does not qualify to join the Council’s housing register.
The complaint
Mrs B complains about the way the Council decided that she does not qualify to join the housing register. She says that as a result of the Council’s decision, she is unable to return to Birmingham which is having a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of each member of her family.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I have: considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant; discussed the issues with the complainant; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
What I found
Housing allocations Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14)) The Housing Act 1996 requires councils to give certain groups of applicants a reasonable amount of preference over other groups of applicants. This includes people living in unsatisfactory housing, those who need to move due to welfare or medical grounds, homeless people and those who would face hardship unless they moved to a particular locality within the local authority’s area.
Applicants who have been assessed as having no housing need and whose circumstances do not warrant inclusion in any of the Council’s priority bands do not qualify to join the housing register.
Overview
Mrs B previously lived in a Housing Association property in Birmingham with her husband and their three children. For around two years, the family experienced significant anti-social behaviour and harassment from a neighbour.
In May 2020, the Housing Association arranged for the family to move to a house in a neighbouring council area. After living there for around six months, Mrs B applied to Birmingham City Council for housing because the family wanted to return to Birmingham.
The Council considered Mrs B’s application and decided that she did not have a recognised housing need and therefore did not qualify to join the housing register.
Mrs B’s MP requested a review on Mrs B’s behalf. He explained why the family was rehoused in the neighbouring council area and said that each member of the family was suffering, in terms of their health and wellbeing, from living outside of Birmingham. He provided medical evidence to support his request for a review.
The Council carried out the review and decided to uphold its original decision.
Analysis As explained in paragraph two, the Ombudsman cannot criticise a decision which has been reached without fault. I have considered how the Council reached its decision that Mrs B does not qualify to join the housing register.
The Council’s review decision letter explains why it did not consider Mrs B met the criteria in relation to each of the housing needs she selected on her application form – overcrowding, care and support, mobility, exceptional need to move, medical and hardship.
Overcrowding: The Council upheld its decision that the family did not qualify for an overcrowding award. It said that according to the bedroom standard, the family needed a property with three bedrooms, and they were already living in a property with three bedrooms.
Mrs B considers they are overcrowded because they need a property with four bedrooms. Mrs B lives with her husband, two sons aged 5 and 17, and her daughter aged 13.
The Council uses the bedroom standard to measure overcrowding levels for the purpose of awarding priority and allocating accommodation. The bedroom standard states that a separate bedroom is required for: Two persons living together with another as husband and wife A person aged 21 years or more Two persons of the same sex aged 10 years to 20 years Two persons (whether of the same sex or not) aged less than 10 years Two persons of the same sex where one person is aged between 10 years and 20 years and the other is aged less than 10 years Any person aged under 21 years in any case where he or she cannot be paired with another occupier of the dwelling.
I am satisfied that according to the bedroom standard, the family needs three bedrooms and is not overcrowded. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided that Mrs B did not qualify for an overcrowding award.
Care and support: Mrs B told the Council that she needs to live near her mother in Birmingham to provide care and support. The Council explained that a care and support award can only be made where the applicant has had a social care needs assessment or carers assessment which identifies a need to give or receive care which is substantial and ongoing. The Council upheld its decision that Mrs B did not qualify for a care and support award because she had not had such an assessment. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision here.
Mobility: The Council upheld its decision that Mrs B did not qualify for a mobility award. It explained that a mobility award could only be made following an assessment by the Council’s Occupational Therapist Service, which Mrs B had not had. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision here.
Exceptional need to move: The Council explained that this award could only be made where there was evidence that an applicant’s housing situation is of a significant severity, for example where there is an imminent threat to life, and the applicant’s request is being supported by a relevant agency such as the police. It decided Mrs B’s housing situation was not of a severity which would merit this award. I have found no evidence of fault in the way this decision was reached.
Medical: The Council upheld its decision that Mrs B did not qualify for a medical award because the evidence she provided did not show that a medical condition or disability was being directly caused or worsened by her accommodation.
Mrs B provided medical evidence relating to four members of the household. While two of the reports do refer to the impact of relocating, they do not specifically state that, in the opinion of a medical professional, any medical conditions were being caused or worsened by their accommodation or by living away from Birmingham. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided that the criteria for a medical award had not been met.
Hardship: Government guidance says that hardship grounds should include, for example, a person who needs to move to a different locality in order to give or receive care, to access specialised medical treatment, or to take up a particular employment, education or training opportunity.
The Council considered whether the family needed to move to Birmingham to access ongoing specialist medical treatment. It decided that it could not make an award because Mrs B had not provided any evidence to show that any member of her household was accessing specialised medical treatment that could only be provided in Birmingham or could not be replicated in the area where they were living.
Mrs B says that it has been impossible to change consultants; she says Mr and Mrs B and their daughter have to travel to Birmingham for medical appointments. However, the medical evidence provided does not show that their treatment can only be provided in Birmingham. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided that Mrs B did not qualify for a hardship award.
I am satisfied that the Council’s decision that Mrs B did not qualify to join the housing register was made in accordance with the Council’s allocations scheme and after properly considering all the evidence. I have found no evidence of fault here.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint. There was no fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman