A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202127225)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127225

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

3 January 2022

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for medical priority.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She has recorded vulnerabilities including; stress, depression and carpal tunnel syndrome affecting her hand. The resident registered for a transfer in 2018 due to overcrowding, which was categorised as band C. The property is a second-floor maisonette, which is accessible by approximately 30 steps.
  2. The resident made a request for medical priority banding in August and November 2021, and February and May 2022. The resident’s medical evidence was sent to the landlord’s independent medical advisor for an assessment on each occasion. The medical advisor noted that the resident was awaiting surgical intervention, and following this her medical condition would be expected to resolve. The advisor concluded that there was nothing to preclude the use of stairs, and that the threshold for medical priority had not been met, and so no medical priority was recommended.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint in March 2022 as she was dissatisfied that her request for medical priority had been declined. She noted that she had sent medical reports and letters addressing her situation, and believed the decision was incorrect. The resident explained that she had a medical condition affecting both hands and had lost some grip in her right hand. She described 30 flights of stairs, without a lift to the front door of her flat, and said that carrying grocery shopping up the stairs had worsened her medical condition. She explained that supermarket delivery drivers would not deliver to the 2nd floor ‘because there is a risk of injury.’ She said the situation was impacting on her physical and mental health and she believed that she should be prioritised as band A. The resident stated that she required surgery for the carpal tunnel syndrome but that it was being delayed because her property was unsuitable, as she would not be able to lift anything for two weeks and no heavy lifting for three months. She said that her medical consultant agreed that being moved to a ground floor property would assist her recovery.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord advised that, in order to ascertain exactly how medical factors affected the resident’s housing, all its medical applications were sent to an independent, experienced medical advisor. It explained that the assessment determined whether the applicant had any medical needs that would improve or be eliminated by moving to alternative accommodation, and whether additional priority should be given on medical grounds. The landlord said that based on the medical advisor’s findings, it was unable to provide the resident with additional priority. It advised that there was no appeals process, but if the resident disagreed with the decision, it could resubmit any additional medical evidence she had for a further assessment.
  5. The landlord explained that while it would try to assist in facilitating a move, the demand for secure and affordable housing far outweighed the supply. It further explained that it was required by nomination agreement to give a high percentage of its units back to the local authority for allocation, which made securing a move more challenging. It recommended that the resident increase her search area, and ensure her information was up to date. The landlord provided additional options to help facilitate a move including: housing moves, mutual exchange scheme, and local authority and private rental.
  6. The resident passed her complaint to this Service, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response regarding medical priority. She believed that the medical advisor had not taken her medical condition seriously, and that the medical information provided should be enough to give her priority.
  7. She has said that she could not afford private housing, her bidding had been unsuccessful due to her banding, and that the mutual exchange scheme was not taking any applicants. She asked to be rehoused to a ground floor flat.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s allocation policy sets out that it operates its own Choice Based Lettings system to internally allocate properties. The banding criteria is as follows:
    1. Band A – emergency/top priority (for example where an applicant’s life would be in immediate danger if they continued to live in their current accommodation, or where there was an emergency medical need seriously affected by their current housing).
    2. Band B – Urgent need to move (for example where an applicant is currently severely overcrowded, or there was an urgent medical need seriously affected by their current housing).
    3. Band C – identified need to move (for example there was an identified medical need shown to be affected by their current housing, or where the applicant was overcrowded by 1 bedroom).
  2. In order to ascertain exactly how medical factors affected an applicant’s housing, the landlord would seek the advice of an independent medical advisory service experienced in this field. The assessment would determine whether the applicant had any medical need and, if such a need was identified, whether it fell under band A, B, or C.  In the event of an appeal against a banding decision, it would seek a review of the decision but only upon receipt of new supporting evidence.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident feels that the medical advisor had not taken her medical conditions seriously, and that these should warrant band A priority. The Ombudsman cannot make judgements on whether the medical evidence does or does not support this, or otherwise make an assessment of the resident’s medical conditions and how these may affect her housing need. However, this Service can look at whether the landlord followed its allocations policy, and treated the resident fairly.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application

  1. When the resident submitted her request and supporting information for medical priority in August 2021, the landlord needed to consider this request in line with its allocations policy: The evidence available demonstrates that it did so, by seeking the advice of an independent medical advisory service. This medical advisory service determined that, on the basis of the information provided, there was no medical priority. The landlord acted in line with its policy here, and it was reasonable for it to rely on the view of the medical specialist and act accordingly when determining the decision not to offer additional medical priority. The resident’s banding therefore appropriately remained at C.
  2. When the resident submitted further medical information in November 2021 and February and May 2022, in line with its policy regarding review, the landlord forwarded this to the medical advisory service to consider, but the decision remained unchanged on each occasion.
  3. The landlord clearly explained its position in the subsequent responses to the complaint, and offered information on additional options to help facilitate a move. While resident’s home situation was clearly distressing and frustrating for her, the landlord acted appropriately in managing the resident’s expectation by making her aware of the increased wait for properties, and that the demand for secure and affordable housing outweighed the supply. It was also reasonable for the landlord to recommend alternative housing options, as it could have potentially increased her chances of securing a move.
  4. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident strongly disagrees with the findings of the medical advisory service, but ultimately it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of this service when determining whether additional priority should be given on medical grounds.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s application for medical priority.