Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to properly consider her housing needs leading to a delay in awarding her the correct priority on the housing register. We found fault in the actions of the Council, which caused Miss B uncertainty and possibly the opportunity to obtain more suitable housing sooner. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and establish if she did miss out on any suitable properties due to the delay.

The complaint

1. Miss B complained that the London Borough of Wandsworth (the Council) in respect of her housing application, delayed in awarding her the correct medical points and failed to properly understand the nature of her disability. Neither had the Council addressed the problem she could not exit the building unaided in the event of an emergency. She says this has caused and continued to cause her severe distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Miss B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Miss B 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

The published scheme

6. Every local housing authority 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))

Reasonable preference

7. 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))

Council’s housing allocations policy

8. The Council operates a four band system (with A being the highest and D the lowest) with points and separate queues for different needs. Band A includes cases with 300 points or more, those awarded priority rehousing status and urgent cases approved by senior management. Band B includes case with 150 to 299 points and cases needing adapted housing due to physical disability. Band C is for cases between 50 and 149 points. Within each band cases are considered in date order of entry into the band.
9. Households lacking one bedroom attracts 50 points, those lacking two bedrooms,150. Applicants with medical needs with a major relevance to their current or future housing needs are eligible for 150 points, those with a moderate relevance, 75. Any other household member with medical needs may receive an additional 5 points.

What happened

10. Miss B has physical and mental health conditions which affect among other things her mobility. She uses a wheelchair to get about. She has been living in a two bedroom second floor flat with no lift access and several flights of stairs, with her 4 children for several years. Two of her children also have medical conditions. She cannot access the bathroom or other rooms in the flat with her wheelchair. She sleeps in the living room. She had applied for larger accommodation in 2017 and was on the housing register for a three bedroom property in Band C with 75 medical points, 50 for overcrowding and five extra medical points for her children. (since November 2023).
11. In late September 2024 she asked the Council to review her housing application on medical grounds. The Council’s medical adviser said it would be useful to see a report from a physiotherapist or occupational therapist. On 18 December 2024 the Council decided there was no change to her application.
12. Miss B requested a review of the decision and on 24 December. She was in hospital at this point. She provided a letter from the hospital confirming a neurological condition and supporting a move to more accessible housing on her discharge from hospital. The letter said she was housebound, she could not manage stairs, could not access the shower and was sleeping on the sofa. It also noted one of her children had asthma which was exacerbated by the damp and mould in the property.
13. On 9 January 2025 an Occupational Therapist (OT) visited Miss B’s property (she was still in hospital) to assess her situation. They noted Miss B has significant difficulties accessing the flat both externally (narrow ramp access) and internally (multiple flights of concrete steps prone to slipperiness) and that she would be at risk in the event of needing to evacuate the property. She could not access the bathroom or the shower and there was no suitable equipment which would improve the situation. She could not move between rooms as the doors were not wide enough for a wheelchair. They also noted there was mould throughout the property.
14. The Council’s medical adviser recommended a ground floor property or a property on a higher floor with a lift and a shower with a seat but nothing else specific. On 28 January the Council confirmed its previous decision. It said the medical adviser had not recommended any additional medical points.
15. On 6 February Miss B requested a review. She was now back home. A physiotherapist said that Miss B could mobilise independently with a frame for short distances but there was insufficient space in the flat to do so easily. They felt that if some furniture was moved it may be possible to get through the living room door. Miss B also provided a letter confirming her mental health condition and how being stuck in one room in the flat was exacerbating this condition.
16. On 12 February 2025 the Council advised her to make a homeless application if she needed emergency housing due to the unsuitability of her current housing, Miss B declined, saying temporary accommodation would not be suitable for her and her household’s needs.
17. In March 2025 the Council’s medical adviser said they noted Miss B’s difficulties on stairs and other problems at the current accommodation, but they still considered 75 medical points was appropriate.
18. On 26 March the Council sent Miss B its review decision. It confirmed the medical adviser’s view that 75 points was appropriate as her mobility issues had a moderate relevance to her current and future housing needs. The decision made no mention of her inability to access or use the bathroom or any other rooms in the flat or get into or out of the property.
19. In May 2025 Miss B complained to the Council and to us.
20. On 20 May the Council awarded 25 points for unsatisfactory housing conditions due to the mould. It backdated this to 2 November 2023 when it first had the information to make this decision. She was now in Band B at position 20.
21. In early June 2025 Miss B provided more medical information about her situation and one of her daughters who required a separate bedroom due to her medical conditions.
22. On 18 June the Council responded to her complaint. It noted Miss B had refused social care assistance in February 2025 and that the physiotherapist had said in February 2025 that if she moved furniture, she may be able to get through the living room door. The Council had now awarded her the maximum 150 medical points to reflect the major impact on her life of not being able to use the stairs or enter or exit the property. She was now in Band B with 230 points.
23. On 10 July 2025 Miss B requested a stage two review of her complaint. She also sent a consultant’s letter confirming that Miss B could only walk very short distances unaided and relied on a wheelchair for all other mobility. She needed wheelchair accessible accommodation on the ground floor with three bedrooms. She also had complex mental health needs which impacted her mobility.
24. A second OT visited Miss B in July 2025 and wrote a report. This confirmed that Miss B could only walk very short distances unaided in the lounge only, her wheelchair would not fit through any internal doors, and the walking frame would not fit through the bathroom or toilet doors, and she could not access them safely. It also said she could not get outside due to the stairs.
25. The Council responded to the complaint at stage 2 in early August 2025. It said her daughter’s medical circumstances had been considered previously and 5 extra medical points awarded. The Council was currently considering medical information submitted in respect of her second daughter and it would obtain a copy of the recent OT report. It partially upheld her complaint for not considering the second daughter’s needs sooner.
26. In response to my enquires the Council confirmed that on 19 November 2025 it had placed Miss B’s application in Band A with effect from 25 September 2025, following the receipt of medical information about her daughter meaning the household required four bedrooms. She was in position 9.
27. The Council also confirmed that following the OT visit in July 2025, Miss B had been referred to the London Fire Brigade regarding an evacuation plan. The first referral had been in February 2025 when she was still in hospital. The case was closed as she said she would not be returning to the property. Following the second OT visit in July a second referral was made on 30 July 2025. Following several cancelled visits the fire brigade visited on 23 September. They installed two more smoke detectors and gave advice on all aspects of fire safety. In respect of her inability to leave the property the advice was to move to another room, close the door and wait for the fire brigade. The doors would give 15 to 20 minutes protection, and the fire brigade would be there in 5 to 6 minutes.

Analysis

28. The Council decided Miss B’s first review request in December 2024 without obtaining any medical evidence. The medical adviser had requested a physiotherapy or occupational therapy report, but none was forthcoming. It is not clear whether it asked Miss B to provide any medical evidence to support her request, but in any event, none was provided. I find no fault here.
29. By late December 2024 Miss B was in hospital and provided a medical report detailing her condition, the impact it had on her mobility and the unsuitability of her current accommodation, including her inability to move around the accommodation, leave it unaided, manage any stairs or access the bathroom. It also mentioned the damp and mould. An OT also provided a report confirming the unsuitability of the property for Miss B’s needs. Despite this evidence confirming that Miss B was in effect confined to one room, unable to wash or cook for herself, the medical adviser did not award any more medical points concluding that her condition was only of moderate relevance to her housing needs. The adviser gave no reasoning. The Council in its review decision simply adopted the medical adviser’s view with no reasoning and did not mention Miss B’s inability to get in or out of the property or wash herself or explain why it had discounted the medical evidence from the hospital and the OT report. This was fault as the review decision made on 28 January 2025 did not follow from the evidence provided and Miss B did not understand why it had been made.
30. The second review carried out in March 2025 repeated the same fault: even though more medical information had been provided, the medical adviser and the Council discounted all of it without explanation, simply saying they noted Miss B’s difficulties but concluded her needs were only moderate. At this point she was confined to one room, could not use the toilet, wash herself unaided or prepare food and was completely unable to exit the flat in an emergency or to lead an independent life. Even with assistance from someone else, the block did not have a lift so transporting a wheelchair up and down two flights of concrete stairs would have been difficult even for a non-disabled person. Again, there is no mention of the specifics of her needs or why the evidence she had provided had been discounted.
31. In May 2025 the Council noticed it had made a different mistake with her claim and failed to award points from unsatisfactory housing based on medical information about her daughter provided in November 2023. This was fault which meant there was a delay in placing her in Band B. The Council backdated her Band B status to 2 November 2023 and said she was now position 20 in the queue. This caused uncertainty to Miss B as to whether she had missed out on any more suitable properties during this period.
32. Following Miss B’s complaint, the Council reviewed her case again. By this point Miss B had submitted another medical letter, and the Council had an email from social services, but neither document provided any new information. On the basis of the complaint the Council again reviewed her application and awarded 150 points for her medical need, deciding they were of major relevance to her housing needs. I consider had sufficient information by 9 February 2025 when it had the hospital letter and the OT assessment to reach this decision. Nothing had changed between then and June 2025 and it was fault to not to properly consider the situation at the earlier point. However, this decision would not have changed her priority as she was now in Band B with an entry date of 2 November 2023.
33. The recent decision to place her in Band A was made on the basis of information provided in September 2025 so the higher priority could not have been awarded at an earlier point.

Back to top

Action

34. In recognition of the injustice caused to Miss B, I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision, should:
• apologise to Miss B and makes her a symbolic payment of £500 for the uncertainty caused by the delay in properly considering her case, and
• check to see if Miss B missed out on any three bedroom properties between 2 November 2023 and 20 May 2025: ie did any suitable properties go to applicants with a later entry date in Band B than Miss B? If there is evidence she did miss out on a property, the Council should pay Miss B an additional £250 per month from the date she would have been rehoused to 20 May 2025.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman