Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of housing and adult social care. There appears no fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to accept Mr X on its housing register.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of housing and adult social care matters. He says the Council has failed to properly consider his adult social care needs when it has processed his application to its housing register. Mr X says the Council’s Housing and Adult Social Care Teams have not worked together to ensure his needs are met by the housing he is offered. He feels he has been unduly pressured by the Council into accepting accommodation that is unsuitable. Mr X says the Council has ignored a recommendation to undertake an Occupational Therapy assessment of his housing needs given his various health conditions. Mr X would like the Council to reassess his housing priority, so this better reflects his needs and enables him to apply for suitable properties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have spoken with Mr X and considered the information he has provided about his concerns.
5. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries.
6. Mr X and the Council 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

Relevant guidance

Housing allocations

7. Every council 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))
8. 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;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

9. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

10. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

The Council’s Housing Allocation scheme

11. The Council’s published scheme at the time of Mr X’s complaint includes details of circumstances when an applicant to its scheme will be excluded, which include those:

• under the age of 18;
• not continually resident in the Council’s area for three years at the date of application;
• not currently living permanently in the UK;
• who own or part own or are purchasing a property;
• whose gross income exceeds the threshold for the higher rate of taxable income tax;
• tenants with rent arrears
• accommodated in the Council’s area by another council that retains responsibility for rehousing;
• who have within the last five years moved out of or sold or disposed of property where it would have been possible and reasonable to remain or has refused a suitable offer of accommodation from the Council;
• who have moved within the last five years into accommodation that is unaffordable and/or unsuitable;
• who moved into the current home and caused it to be overcrowded or containing Band A hazard(s) under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System;
• who have within the last five years applied to a council for help and been found to have been intentionally homeless;
• who have within the last five years applied to a council for help to create or increase priority;
• found guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make a person unsuitable to be a tenant, including those who have been prosecuted and found guilty of anti-social behaviour.

12. The Council’s scheme includes provision for people who need to move on medical, disability, welfare or hardship grounds. This states that rehousing will arise on these grounds where the housing situation seriously adversely affects health and the property cannot reasonably be adapted to meet needs.
13. When appropriate, the Council will request an assessment of medical priority applicants from a medical advisor.

What happened

Housing

14. Mr X has been diagnosed with various medical conditions, which affect his physical and mental wellbeing. Mr X receives help through a care and support package from the Council’s Adult Social Care Team.
15. Until Autumn 2022, Mr X lived in temporary accommodation within the Council’s area. Mr X was placed in this property by a neighbouring council, which I will call Council B. Sometime at the end of 2022, Mr X moved to another temporary accommodation property, which is in Council B’s area.
16. Mr X made an application to join the Council’s housing register at the end of May 2022. Mr X explained that he had lived in the Council’s area for three and a half years. He asked for his application to be considered under medical priority grounds and provided some information about his medical conditions.
17. The Council wrote to Mr X on 1 June 2022 to advise him it had rejected his housing register application. It explained it did not consider Mr X’s health was being seriously and adversely affected by his current accommodation to warrant rehousing on medical grounds. The Council included details of how Mr X could challenge the Council’s decision if he disagreed with it.
18. Mr X submitted a review request against the Council’s decision on 21 June 2022. He provided further information and letters of support from medical professionals involved in his care. The Council acknowledged receipt of Mr X’s review request on 22 June 2022 and invited Mr X to provide any further information in support of his request in the next 14 days. The Council also confirmed that it would complete its review in 56 days, unless it agreed an extension of time with Mr X.
19. Mr X sent further information about his medical conditions to the Council on 26 July 2022. He asked it to confirm if this would delay the Council’s review deadline.
20. The Council wrote to confirm its review decision to Mr X on 12 September 2022. It explained it had carefully considered the further information Mr X had provided about his medical conditions and concluded that these were not seriously adversely affected by his current accommodation. The Council confirmed its decision not to accept Mr X’s housing register application on medical grounds.
21. Mr X made a stage one complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application on 14 October 2022. Mr X explained his complaints related to how the Council’s Housing and Adult Social Care Teams had not worked together to ensure his housing needs were met. Mr X was unhappy that the Council’s Adult Social Care Team had refused to provide information to the Housing Team. Mr X was also unhappy that he had been previously advised he could not apply to the Council’s housing register as he met the exclusion criteria of being accommodated in the Council’s area by another council that retains responsibility for rehousing.
22. The Council’s Housing Team responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint on 27 October 2022. It explained it could not comment on Mr X’s concerns about the Adult Social Care Team but noted that team had responded to Mr X’s concerns on 21 October 2022.
23. The Council reconfirmed its view that Mr X did not meet the Council’s criteria for being rehoused on medical grounds. It explained how it had considered all the information Mr X had provided on application and review. The Council apologised for the delay in completing its review when Mr X appealed the decision. The Council explained it would be open to considering a further review based on Mr X’s comments that he would be submitting further information from his General Practitioner (GP).
24. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two on 10 November 2022. He complained the Council had overlooked how his medical conditions were severely impacted by his current housing and that his care and support needs should have been considered when determining his housing register application. Mr X said he did not believe the Council had properly considered all the evidence he had provided about his medical conditions.
25. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint on 13 December 2022. It explained it remained satisfied with the decision reached to reject Mr X’s application. It confirmed the medical assessor that had considered Mr X’s evidence was suitably qualified to do so. The Council also explained that Mr X’s case did not meet the criteria for the Director of Housing to exercise discretion as stated in the Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme. This is because Council B had rehoused Mr X in its area and it continued to owe a housing duty to him. The Council explained it was unable to refer Mr X for an Occupational Therapy assessment as he was not eligible for housing in the Council’s area.

Adult Social Care

26. Mr X appears to have been supported by the Council’s Adult Social Care Team with a package of care provided via direct payments until December 2022. The Council started the process of transferring Mr X’s care and support over to Council B in November 2022 following his rehousing in Council B’s area. The Council continued to make direct payments to Mr X until the end of December 2022 to allow sufficient time for Council B to put its own payments in place for Mr X.
27. In late November 2022, an Occupational Therapist (OT) from the Council’s Mental Health Reablement Team completed an assessment of Mr X’s needs. The day after this assessment the OT contacted Council B to discuss it providing housing that met Mr X’s needs. The OT also considered how their team might support Mr X with making visits to view properties he had been offered by Council B so he did not miss out on potentially suitable properties. Mr X’s care and support plan transferred to Council B shortly after this.

Analysis

28. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council’s Adult Social Care and Housing Teams did not communicate or work with each other in respect of Mr X’s housing register application or needs.
29. However, this was not fault by either of these teams because Council B already owed Mr X a housing duty and was meeting this by placing him in temporary accommodation in the Council’s area.
30. In response to my enquiries, the Council has provided correspondence between Mr X’s local Councillor and the Council about the possibility of adding him to the Council’s housing register while he also remained on Council B’s housing register. Mr X believed this might improve his chances of obtaining more suitable housing.
31. I can understand Mr X’s reasons for this, particularly as he feels Council B has been offering him or placing him in unsuitable housing for a number of years. However, the Council is under no obligation to accept Mr X onto its housing register when he is already on the housing register of another council and its refusal to do so is not fault.
32. The Council’s notes show its Adult Social Care Team was liaising with Council B in respect of Mr X’s housing needs. How Council B then used any information shared with it about this is outside the scope of my investigation into this Council’s handling.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman