Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not complete a reassessment of his housing allocation following new medical evidence. We find the Council at fault for the time taken to complete a reassessment, causing distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and remind relevant staff that, when a decision is delayed pending further enquiries, it should provide a clear update explaining the reason for the delay and the expected next steps.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not complete a reassessment of his housing allocation following new medical evidence.
2. Mr X says he feels ignored and his health has been impacted as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mr X first complained to the Ombudsman in March 2025. We did not consider the complaint at this stage as the Council had not issued its final response. Once the Council complaint procedure was complete, Mr X brought his complaint back to the Ombudsman in June 2025.
7. I have investigated the Council’s actions from March 2024 up to its stage two complaint response. Although some events occurred more than 12 months before the final response, I have exercised discretion because the complaint process was ongoing during this period.
8. I have not investigated events before March 2024, as they fall outside the usual 12-month time limit and I do not consider it appropriate to extend my discretion further.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

11. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

Review rights

12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Review procedure

13. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)

The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

14. Section 3.6.0. states “Applicants who indicate in their application that they consider their (or a member of their households) health or disability is seriously aggravated by their current housing conditions should provide as much information as possible on their medical needs to ensure a correct assessment. Applications involving a health-related issue will be assessed by the council with advice from either the applicant's doctor and/or the council's medical advisor(s) as appropriate. The criteria for awarding medical points within the scheme will be applied.”
15. “Where further information is required, officers of the council may make further enquiries into the issue, subject to the applicant's consent. Applicants will then be advised of the medical priority awarded in accordance with the scheme.”

Priority banding

16. Wandsworth Council operates a four-band system (A-D) to prioritise housing applications based on need, with Band A being the highest priority and Band D the lowest.
17. The position within a priority band is based on the date an application was registered. Applicants will be contacted when the council are in a position to make an offer, which can take a long time even if you have high priority.
18. Band Definitions:

• Band A (Highest Priority): Urgent, exceptional housing need (300+ points).
• Band B (High Priority): Serious housing need (150–299 points).
• Band C (Medium Priority): Medium housing need (50–149 points).
• Band D (Lower Priority): Lower housing need (1–49 points). 

What happened

19. In March 2023, Mr X made a homeless application to the Council. The Council accepted the homelessness duty and later placed him on the housing register.
20. In September, the Council sent Mr X a letter confirming his housing application had been assessed and registered on the homelessness queue. It assessed Mr X as needing two bedrooms and placed him in priority Band A.
21. In November, the Council sent Mr X a further letter. It said the previous letter was sent in error and that it had assessed him as needing a studio property. The Council said it had considered advice from two medical reports in making this decision.
22. In December, a review request was submitted by Mr X crisis support worker. It requested the decision be reconsidered based on his medical conditions and mental health vulnerability.
23. In February 2024, a medical psychiatric adviser completed an assessment. The report found no evidence that Mr X required 24 hour care. The adviser recommended a one bedroom, ground floor property.
24. In March 2024, the Council wrote to Mr X and said he was assessed as needing one bedroom and remained in priority Band A. The Council listed the medical evidence it considered and confirmed it had referred the information to the Council Medical Adviser (CMA) and Council Psychiatric Adviser (CPA).
25. In October, Mr X’s social prescriber submitted new medical evidence, including a GP letter and an Occupational Therapy assessment. This triggered a reassessment of the decision.
26. In mid and late November, Mr X contacted the Council for an update. He contacted it again in December after receiving no response.
27. In March 2025, the Council wrote to Mr X to confirm the assessment outcome remained at one bedroom. It accepted he needed a ground floor property where no lift was available, or any floor if a lift was available. The Council did not agree a second bedroom was required and said an overnight carer could sleep in the living room.
28. In late March, Mr X complained to the Council. He said the Council had provided contradictory information, failed to consider medical advice properly and delayed reassessing his application.
29. In April, the Council issued its complaint response. It apologised for an administrative error that initially referred to a two bedroom need. It acknowledged the review took eighteen weeks and said this was because it carefully considered the medical evidence and made further enquiries.
30. In late April, Mr X escalated his complaint. He said he was dissatisfied with the outcome because he had provided medical evidence which, in his view, showed a need for two bedrooms.
31. In June, Mr X requested a further review of the bedroom assessment. He submitted supporting documents including a GP letter recommending a two-bedroom, ground floor property.
32. In July, the Council completed a further assessment. It agreed Mr X needed a ground floor, wheelchair-accessible property. However, it upheld its view that a second bedroom was not medically essential.
33. In late July, Mr X refused an offer of a one bedroom property because he considered it was unsuitable for his needs.
34. In August, the Council completed another reassessment and changed Mr X’s assessment to two bedrooms. It based this decision on Mr X’s entitlement to full housing benefit, his need for overnight care, and the Equality Act.

Analysis

35. The Council’s housing allocations scheme does not set a timescale for completing reviews. Statutory guidance suggests eight weeks is reasonable. The reassessment was triggered in October 2024 and Mr X was chasing updates from November. The Council did not issue its decision until March 2025. This was an eighteen-week delay. This was fault.
36. Mr X remained in the highest priority band throughout. The March reassessment did not change his assessed bedroom need, so he did not miss any properties. However, the delay caused Mr X significant distress and uncertainty, as he was left without clarity about his housing position for an extended period.
37. The evidence shows the Council completed reassessments when Mr X sent new information. It referred the medical evidence to its CMA on each occasion. This was in line with its allocations policy. The Council considered whether a second bedroom was “medically essential”, including whether Mr X met the threshold in its allocations scheme for an additional bedroom for an overnight carer.
38. The Council considered advice from the CMA, who concluded Mr X did not require a second bedroom. Advice was provided by different professionals on each referral.
39. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s conclusions. However, the Council was entitled to consider advice from its medical adviser and to reach its own judgement when applying its allocation scheme. The evidence shows the Council followed the correct process, reviewed new information when received, and considered medical advice before deciding. I therefore find no fault in the Councils decision-making. The Ombudsman cannot criticise decisions reached through a correct process.
40. Since Mr X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council carried out a further reassessment in August. Based on the information available at that time, it decided Mr X is eligible for a two bedroom property.

Back to top

Action

41. To remedy the injustice caused by the above fault, within four weeks of the date of our final decision, the council will:
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
• Remind relevant housing staff that where a review or reassessment decision is delayed pending further enquiries, they should provide the applicant with a clear update explaining the reason for the delay and the expected next steps.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

43. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman