London Borough of Southwark (24 013 449)

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 24 Jun 2025

The complaint
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
What I have and have not investigated
How I considered this complaint
What I found
Action
Decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained that for many months the Council had failed to consider his application for a change of his priority banding on medical grounds. We found fault with the Council for its significant delay to consider Mr X’s application and its failure to send its decisions to Mr X in writing and tell him about his right to ask for a review. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate Mr X’s higher priority banding and make a symbolic payment to recognise his uncertainty and distress. The Council has also agreed to carry out some service improvements.

The complaint

Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to respond to his application for a change of accommodation based on the new medical evidence filed in October 2023. Mr X says the Council’s delay in considering the new evidence meant he remained in a lower priority band and reduced his chances to be moved to a suitable property. He says the Council’s failure to follow the right process affected his health and well-being as well as his family’s.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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)

What I have and have not investigated

I have only investigated the way the Council handled Mr X’s application for a change in his priority banding due to medical needs. This is what Mr X complained to the Council about in November 2023 and to us in October 2024. As explained in paragraph three of this decision any other issues, such as suitability of Mr X’s current accommodation, would need to be raised with the Council first.

How I considered this complaint

I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

What I found

Legal and administrative framework

Decisions and review rights

Councils must tell 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.

The Council must also tell the applicant of the right to ask for a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Review procedures

Statutory guidance on allocating accommodation says:

review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process;
there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Guide to the Council’s Allocation Scheme

The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme states:

the banding system is made up of four priority bands. To be moved into a higher band the applicant must meet one of the higher band criteria;
medical, welfare and disability grounds includes applicants whose health is being affected by their current property and where a move to another more suitable property would alleviate their condition or make it easier to manage and other management action or adjustment to the property cannot alleviate the problem;
the Council should respond within 14 days to the request for a change to the priority banding based on medical needs;
based on the advice provided by the medical advisor the Council makes decision on the degree of medical need. Where appropriate the medical advisor will also recommend the type of property most appropriate to the medical needs;
the applicant will receive the outcome of the medical assessment through the post. Applicants with moderate health related issues will be awarded priority band three and applicants who have a severe medical need to move will be awarded priority in band two;
the applicant has statutory right to request a review of the Council’s decision they do not have needs to move on medical grounds. The Council will have 28 working days to respond to such requests.

What happened

In the second week of October 2023 Mr X told the Council about the change of his medical circumstances and sent some supporting evidence, including a letter from his General Practitioner (GP).
Having received no response, Mr X complained in mid-November. He was concerned about the delay and that he could not find on his account the new documents he had sent. He told the Council the review of the documents was urgent because of his vulnerability. Mr X provided the reference numbers for his change of circumstances application and for his housing application.
The Council’s officer (the Housing Officer) responded over a week later. She said Mr X’s assessment had taken place at the end of January 2022 and the Council had placed his application in band three as Mr X had moderate medical need for a move. Mr X also needed a ground floor if the property was without a lift. The Council accepted it had failed to provide a proper standard of service. It asked for the reference number of the medical information and documents sent.
In December Mr X asked the Council to take his complaint further. The Council acknowledged the complaint and responded at the end of January 2024. The Council’s investigator told Mr X he had asked the Housing Officer to find his new medical evidence and pass it on to the independent medical advisor to assess. Mr X should be notified of the outcome of the assessment by the second week of February 2024. The investigator upheld Mr X’s complaint.
At the beginning of February 2024 Mr X sent the reference numbers for his change of medical circumstances request and his housing application to the Housing Officer. He also attached the medical documents which had previously been included in the change of circumstances request.
The Housing Officer told Mr X the reference number he had provided for a change of circumstances was invalid. There was a further correspondence between them about this matter as Mr X could not understand why the number he received after completing the online form was wrong.
In mid-February 2024 Mr X sought help from his local Member of Parliament (MP).
A month later the Housing Officer told Mr X she had found the form he had completed. She told him to complete online a change of circumstances for medical form as a necessary step for the medical team to carry out his assessment. The Housing Officer sent Mr X a link to use.
Responding to the MP the housing manager (the Housing Manager) told her the Council had not started reassessing Mr X’s medical needs to move.
At the end of September 2024 an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed Mr X. The OT found the location of Mr X’s property by a busy road and close to industrial warehouses meant it was not safe for him, because of his disability, to go out on his own. When going out he was fully reliant on help from the members of his family which affected his well-being and access to the community.
A month later Mr X complained to us.
In January 2025 the Council told us that Mr X’s priority banding had now changed to priority band two with the effective date of the beginning of October 2024. The Council had no record of sending a letter with the outcome of the reassessment to Mr X.
A day after this correspondence with us the Council told Mr X about the change in his priority banding.
Responding to our enquiries the Council said:

it should have reassessed Mr X’s medical needs after he applied in October 2023 but until the MP sent supporting evidence, including the GP letter, the Council could not access it. The Council suggested that even if the Council had reassessed Mr X’s medical needs, it would have not changed his priority banding as his needs had not changed since 2021;
by not telling Mr X in writing about the Council’s decision on his priority banding following his request for a change the Council had denied him the right to review;
the change in Mr X’s priority banding had resulted from the OT assessment in September 2024, therefore the Council had not backdated this decision. Although based on the information provided by Mr X in October 2023 he would not be eligible for priority banding two, as a gesture of goodwill the Council offered to backdate this priority banding allocation by a year.

Analysis

The Council should have responded to Mr X’s application for a change of priority banding on medical grounds within 14 days. It failed to do so. After Mr X had complained, the Council responded without examining the documents which Mr X had sent. When responding the Housing Officer failed to tell Mr X of his right to ask for a review.
This continued for many months, as the Council could not find supporting evidence sent by Mr X in October 2023. Mr X kept re-sending the documents but the Council failed to act and its responses to Mr X were confusing.
After the OT assessment in September 2024, the Council moved Mr X from priority banding three to priority banding two from the effective date of 1 October 2024. The Council delayed sending its decision on the priority banding change to Mr X by a few months. Only after our involvement, at the end of January 2025 did the Council send the letter to Mr X telling him of this change.
The Council’s failings described in paragraphs 28 to 30 are fault. They meant that for many months Mr X was left without the medical assessment the Council should have carried out to find out the severity of his medical need to move. For a long time Mr X waited for the resolution of his application and did not understand why the Council could not access the documents he had sent. Mr X and his family members spent much time contacting the Council and seeking external support. Mr X did not receive the Council’s decision refusing to change his priority banding in writing and was not told he could ask for its review.
If the Council had followed the right process and had arranged a medical assessment for Mr X without delay it is more likely than not that it would have moved him to priority banding two by the end of 2023. This is because there is no evidence Mr X’s medical needs changed between October 2023, when he had asked for the change in his allocation priority and September 2024, when eventually the Council carried out his medical assessment.
The Council’s bidding records show that even if Mr X had bid for suitable properties within priority banding two between October 2023 and October 2024, it is unlikely he would have been successful as the properties were allocated to the applicants with higher priority than Mr X would have been within banding two. Mr X might have missed out on the properties after October 2024 as only in January 2025 the Council told him that his priority banding had changed from the beginning of October 2024.

Remedies

The Council offered to backdate Mr X’s priority banding two to October 2023, which is what we would expect in the circumstances.
In recent complaints about similar issues to those raised by Mr X the Council agreed to carry out some service improvements including:

in October 2024 – to provide guidance to staff to ensure that rights of review are clearly stated in decision letters, where appropriate;
in January 2025 – to remind officers of the Council’s role as a final decision maker where cases are referred for medical advice and of the need to give adequate reasons for all decisions;
in February 2025 – to provide training or guidance to officers to ensure its medical assessments follow the process set out in its allocation scheme.

We recognise it will take some time for the Council to address its failings when considering applications for a change of the allocation priority banding due to medical needs. We will be monitoring the effectiveness of the Council’s actions through our casework.

Action

To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council complete within four weeks of the final decision the following:

apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused to him and his family by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended;
backdate the effective date of Mr X’s priority banding two allocation to October 2023;
pay Mr X £750 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused to him by the Council’s failing.

The Council will provide the evidence that this has happened.

We also recommend the Council within three months of the final decision:

review its electronic system to identify reasons for missing Mr X’s priority change application and the supporting documents. The Council will address the issue to ensure the system works properly;
through the review of the process and staff training ensure that after each review of the allocation scheme priority banding the Council’s decision is sent to the applicant in writing and without delay with the advice on the right to ask for its review, where appropriate;
submit this decision to its scrutiny committee for a review.