Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to process her housing change of circumstances request and complete her medical review in good time, which affected her wellbeing. The Council was at fault. The Council delayed processing the application and did not comply with its published allocations scheme. The Council has agreed to take steps to remedy her injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council did not process her housing change of circumstances request relating to overcrowding and her medical needs. She says the Council was slow to respond to her and that she has not received any meaningful support, which has prolonged her difficult living situation and negatively affected her health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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. 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

5. I have investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with her housing change of circumstances request from September 2024. I have not investigated earlier events (from November 2022) as they are late, and I have decided there are no good reasons why Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Statutory Guidance

8. 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))
9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
10. Statutory guidance on the allocation of 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.

Southwark Council’s Allocation Scheme

11. Southwark Council’s published Allocations Scheme details its banding system, which is made up of four priority bands, with Band 1 being the highest. One of the criteria for Band 1 is being statutorily overcrowded.
12. There are two standards used to determine statutory overcrowding: the room standard and the space standard.
13. The Council issues priority stars to increase the position within a band and these can be issued for the following reasons:
• People owed a statutory homelessness duty under either s193(2) or s195(2) Housing Act 1996.
• People occupying unsanitary or statutorily overcrowded housing (as defined by part 10 of the Housing Act 1985) or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions in accordance with hazards identified through the housing health safety rating scheme as confirmed by Southwark Council.
• People who need to move on severe medical or severe welfare grounds.
• People who need to move to a particular locality in the area of the authority where failure to meet their needs would be detrimental to their health and wellbeing and cause severe hardship.
• A working household.
• Applicants who are volunteering in the community.
14. The Council’s scheme also sets out a medical, welfare and disability category, for 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. Applicants are advised to inform the Council of medical conditions through the ‘change of circumstances form’. The Council states it should respond to this form within 14 days.
15. Based on advice from a medical advisor, the Housing Choice Team Leader decides whether to award a severe or moderate medical priority.
16. Applicants with moderate health-related issues where there is a clear objective to move, are awarded Band 3 priority. Applicants with a severe medical need to move are awarded Band 2 priority.
17. If an applicant requests a review, they are advised to allow 28 working days for a response.
18. The Council’s Social Welfare Panel considers referrals and assesses whether applicants meet the criteria for an urgent social welfare priority.

What happened

19. Mrs X lives in a two-bedroomed council property with her husband and four children. In September 2024 she completed a change of circumstances form highlighting her medical conditions and asking for her youngest child to be added to her housing application.
20. In November 2024, Mrs X made a complaint to the Council, stating she had completed a change of circumstances form on three occasions, but these had not been actioned.
21. In the same month, Mrs X also submitted another a change of circumstances form concerning her medical conditions. The Housing Officer referred her documents to the independent medical advisor to seek further clarification.
22. The independent medical advisor assessed that Mrs X had a moderate requirement for a move and recommended placing her in Band 3. Despite this recommendation, the Council placed Mrs X in Band 2 because she had multiple needs in addition to being overcrowded.
23. At the end of November 2024, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It said the medical assessment had been completed, apologised for the delay and explained there had been an increase in demand for social housing. The Council informed Mrs X of her new banding, confirmed that her youngest child had been added to the application and told her she was eligible to bid for four-bedroomed properties.
24. In March 2025, Mrs X made a stage 2 complaint saying she had submitted appeals in November 2024 and February 2025 but had not received a response.
25. The Council responded in May 2025 upholding her complaint. It acknowledged that it had not carried out a review of the medical assessment. The Council also told Mrs X that her application had been awarded a work priority star for being a working household and clarified that the highest band an applicant could be awarded on medical grounds was Band 2.
26. In June 2025 an advocate supporting Mrs X asked for her case to be referred to the Social Welfare Panel.
27. In July 2025, the advocate highlighted Mrs was suffering with severe mental health issues and asked for an update on the Social Welfare referral.

My findings

28. In October 2025, in response to my enquiries, the Council said it would arrange a medical review within 28 days and that if Mrs X were awarded severe medical priority she would be awarded a priority star which giving her further priority within the band. I find the Council at fault for not arranging a review when Mrs X originally requested one, almost year earlier.
29. Although she added another child to her application in September 2024, the Council did not appear to assess Mrs X for statutory overcrowding until September 2025. At that point it calculated this on room standard only and not the space standard. I find the Council at fault for not considering this sooner and for not assessing statutory overcrowding in full.
30. Mrs X’s advocate has made several requests for her case to be heard at the Social Welfare Panel and this was not acted on. This is fault.
31. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy. However, in this case, Mrs X’s application was not prioritised in line with policy. Without completing the assessments, reviews and referrals it is unclear whether Mrs X missed out on opportunities to bid for suitable properties, in accordance with her band and priority stars.
32. There have been several opportunities for the Council to respond and rectify its maladministration, but it has failed to do so. This is fault.

Back to top

Action

33. The Council has agreed to write to Mrs X, apologising for the delay in dealing with her housing application and review, and for and not acting in line with its published housing allocations scheme. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council will consider this guidance when writing to Mrs X.
34. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment of £400 to Mrs X to recognise the delay in dealing with her assessments and reviews, which likely caused her stress and inconvenience.
35. If it has not already done so, the Council will:
• Assess Mrs X’s request for her case to be considered by the Social Welfare Panel.
• Complete its medical review.
• Carry out a full assessment of whether her household is statutorily overcrowded.
• Determine whether Mrs X and her family qualify for any additional priority stars.
• Write to Mrs X to inform her of the outcome of these assessments.
36. The Council will do these things within four weeks of the date of my final decision.
37. If, after it has done these things, the Council decides Mrs X does qualify for additional priority, then – within eight weeks of the date of my final decision – it will:
• Backdate this priority to when it should have originally been awarded.
• Review the properties which became available during the period since her increased priority should have originally been awarded, and decide whether she would have successfully secured a new property had she been given the correct priority earlier.
• If Ms X did miss out on the opportunity to secure a property during this period, make a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise this loss of opportunity.
38. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things.

Back to top

Decision

39. The Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Mrs X and her family, which the Council will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman