The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to fully explain its decision on Miss B’s housing application in its complaint response letters. However, it has subsequently demonstrated that it did, in fact, properly consider her circumstances. Because of this, she suffered no significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss B, is on the Council’s housing list and is seeking a move to a different property. She says her daughter has mental health issues which are made worse by her current property. She complains that – although she provided evidence of her daughter’s needs – the Council failed to take account of them when deciding her priority.
Miss B says this means she is less likely to secure a move. She says it is affecting both her and her daughter’s mental health. She wants the Council to consider increasing her priority.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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 considered information from Miss B and the Council. Both had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Miss B is currently on Band 5 of the Council’s lettings policy (‘Applicants with a general housing need who have a local connection’). This is for people who satisfy the Council’s ‘local connection’ requirements but have no other housing priority.
Band 4 of the policy does not apply to Miss B, but – were she to achieve higher priority because of her daughter’s medical needs – this would potentially be in Band 3 (‘Medium housing need’). One qualifying criterion for Band 3 is, “The applicant or a member of his household has a medical need that could be eased or improved by re-housing”.
In late 2021 Miss B asked the Council to increase her housing priority. The Council refused, saying her banding was correct. It said it could not give her priority because of the size of the bedrooms in her current property.
Miss B then sought a review of her priority under the Council’s complaints procedure. She provided a psychologist’s letter which set out some information about her daughter’s mental health needs. The letter did not mention housing.
The Council, in its response, told her it had considered her daughter's medical needs but, as there was no evidence from a medical professional to support her application, it would not change her priority.
Miss B then sought a further review under the final stage of the Council’s complaints procedure. She provided another psychologist’s letter. This letter said Miss B’s daughter suffers from social anxiety and low mood, which limits her ability to leave the family home. It also said she has a very small room, and: … given the amount of time [she] is spending at home, it would be important to consider physical environment around her as this may well be contributing to some of the difficulties she is experiencing.
The Council considered this letter, but did not change its decision. In its final letter to Ms B, it said, “the letter submitted did not detail that your current housing situation is causing or exasperating any medical condition”.
The Council subsequently wrote to the Ombudsman and provided clarity on its decision. It said: One of the medical letters Miss B provided did not mention housing.
The other letter mentioned that it had only been written at Miss B’s request, which meant the author had not independently identified housing as an issue.
Miss B’s daughter occupies the smallest of three bedrooms in the property. If the size of her bedroom is affecting her mental health, Miss B could arrange for her to move into a larger bedroom.
My findings
It is not for me to comment on the merits of someone’s application, or on whether evidence they have supplied justifies an increased priority banding. However, I would expect the Council to properly consider any evidence provided by an applicant.
The Council’s final letter to Miss B said her medical letters do not say whether her current housing situation is ‘exasperating any medical condition’ (including, I assume, her daughter’s).
Given that one of the medical letters does, in fact, suggest that Miss B’s daughter’s living environment may be contributing to her mental health difficulties, I am not satisfied that the Council’s response was a fair reflection of the medical evidence Miss B provided.
It turns out (from subsequent correspondence) that the Council had other grounds for reaching its decision – grounds which I consider reasonable. But it did not explain this in its complaint response letters. This led Miss B to believe that it had not properly considered her application. This was fault by the Council.
Although the Council failed to include all of its reasoning in its letters to Miss B, I am satisfied that it did look at her application properly and it has now explained its decision. Because of this, I do not consider Miss B to have suffered a significant injustice, and I will not recommend any further action.
Final decision
The Council was at fault for failing to properly explain its decision on Miss B’s housing application in its decision letter. However, she suffered no significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman