Changing the prescription

Mr Mohammed lived in private rented accommodation. He was given notice to quit by his landlord, who was intending to redevelop the property.

Mohammed found accommodation temporarily in a hostel situated in the area of the council about which he subsequently complained.

He made an application to join the housing register. The council told him he was not eligible under its policy because he had not lived in the council’s area for 12 months.

Mohammed asked for consideration on medical grounds. He said he had pulmonary tuberculosis, renal failure, arthritis in his left knee and was under the care of a doctor at a chest hospital. He said he could not manage 60 stairs (his accommodation was on the third floor of the hostel, which had no lifts).

Mohammed’s medical assessment form was filled in by his nurse from the chest hospital. He confirmed that Mohammed had TB and that the stairs at his accommodation were causing him to become breathless and experience chest pains. The nurse said Mohammed needed stable accommodation in order to recuperate: he was not allowed to remain in the hostel during the day even though both his condition and the treatment left him exhausted. However, his application was declined again.

The council then changed its policy and reduced the requirement for residence to six months. At that point, Mohammed became eligible for inclusion on the housing register, but the local authority did not notice this.

Eight months later, Mohammed had become homeless. He accepted a property that he didn’t consider suitable but took because it was the only offer.

When Mohammed complained about the way the council had considered his application for inclusion on the council’s housing register, the local government ombudsman investigated.

The investigation uncovered that, when Mohammed’s medical papers were passed to the health assessors, the instructions given to the assessors were not clear. It took five months for the assessment and notification of the outcome. The ombudsman said this delay was not acceptable.

When Mohammed was informed that his medical assessment had not resulted in him being given extra priority, he was told he could appeal but he was not given any reasons for the application being unsuccessful, so he had no information about what he had to appeal against.

The instructions given to the health assessors were not clear. It took five months for the assessment and notification of the outcome. This delay was not acceptable

Stress and anxiety

The ombudsman said that was against the principles of natural justice and was maladministration. In fact, all the letters Mohammed had received were unclear, confusing and uninformative.

“It is impossible to state with any certainty what position Mr Mohammed might be in now if this maladministration had not occurred,” the ombudsman said.

“It is possible that he would have found suitable accommodation sooner. It is conceivable that his health might not have failed again.

“Whatever else, he has had a lot of unnecessary stress and anxiety at a time when he was extremely vulnerable.”

The council agreed to pay Mohammed £1000 compensation. It also agreed that, if he remained dissatisfied with his existing accommodation, it would give him an enhanced priority to enable him to be rehoused more quickly to a suitable property.

The ombudsman commended the council for undertaking a wide range of administrative changes, including:

• all unsuccessful applicants for medical priority are to be given a copy of the health assessment so they know the reasons for the decision based on it
• health assessors are to be clearly told the purpose of the assessment
• a new IT system will be introduced to improve the sharing of information within the council
• staff will be trained to produce standard letters with sensitivity rather than sending them out without sufficient consideration of how they will be understood by the recipients
• a fast-track system will be set up for applicants considered to be particularly vulnerable.
• Patricia Thomas is one of three local government ombudsmen for England