Summary: The Council was not at fault. It considered Mrs X’s medical evidence and her family’s circumstances in line with its allocation policy when deciding not to increase her priority banding.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider medical evidence and her circumstances in deciding not to increase her housing priority banding.
2. Mrs X said these failures have meant that she and her family continue to live in overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation. She wants the Council to increase her priority banding and provide suitable accommodation as soon as possible.

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. 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. I have investigated Mrs X’s complaint between August 2024 until August 2025.
7. 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)
8. I have not investigated events prior to August 2024 as these are late and there is no good reason why Mrs X could not have come to us sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mrs 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 law and guidance

The published scheme

11. 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 a councils published policy. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

The Council’s published allocation policy

12. Section six of the Council’s housing allocation policy applies to people who require social housing in Westminster due to homelessness, overcrowding, unsafe housing, medical or disability-related needs, hardship, regeneration or downsizing, support needs, or service in the Armed Forces. The section also explains that it gives higher priority to the applicants with the greatest need, and people who are already Council tenants. The policy uses bands and points to rank applicants.
13. Band C is awarded to Council tenants who need to move due to Medical, Welfare and Hardship (MWH) priority or who have overcrowding priority.
14. Band D is awarded to non-Council tenants who need to transfer due to Cumulative Medical, Welfare and Hardship (CMWH) priority or who have overcrowding priority.
15. The Council uses four mobility categories to assess applicants’ housing needs. Category one is for people who have been diagnosed by an NHS doctor as requiring the use of a wheelchair at all times. Category two applies to people who need a wheelchair-accessible home but do not need to use a wheelchair indoors. Category three is for people with severe mobility difficulties who require either ground-floor accommodation or a home with lift access. Category four applies to all other applicants on the housing register
16. Cumulative Medical, Welfare and Hardship (CMWH) priority is for Council tenants and non-Council tenants where more than one person in the household qualifies for MWH priority.
17. Medical, Welfare and Hardship (MWH) priority is for Council tenants and non-Council tenants with MWH needs which have a severe impact on how they access the home or which make the home unsuitable for their needs.

Decisions and review rights

18. Councils must notify 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.

19. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review within 21 days of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
20. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

What happened

Background

21. Mrs X, her husband and two children have lived in a two-bedroom social housing property since 2013. After the birth of two more children, A and the youngest B, she applied in March 2024 to move to a larger home. She further submitted two Medical Assessment Forms (MAFs) for A and B - both diagnosed with autism. The Council approved the application and awarded Band C priority. It placed her on the housing register waiting list for four-bedroom properties due to overcrowding and told her she was eligible to bid for such properties.
22. In August 2024 Mrs X submitted a new MAF for B asking the Council to increase her housing register banding due to medical priority.
23. The Council decided Mrs X did not meet the criteria for medical priority and informed her she could ask for a review within 21 days if she disagreed with the Council’s decision. The Council told her she was already on the overcrowded waiting list and that this was the family’s primary concern. It said the family will eventually receive four-bedroom accommodation.
24. In September Mrs X’s GP provided a letter in response to the Council’s decision not to award Mrs X medical priority. The letter confirmed B needed a separate bedroom due to their medical condition explaining their behaviour would get more challenging as they got older.
25. In September 2024 – 34 days after the Council’s decision – Mrs X requested a review of the Council’s decision. The Council considered the request as invalid as it was submitted 13 days after the 21-day review window closed.
26. In January 2025 Mrs X’s representative at the time, Mrs Z, contacted the Council and informed it Mrs X was unhappy about the support she had received in finding her a suitable property in line with her household’s needs.
27. In March 2025 the Council revised its allocation policy. This resulted in a change to Mrs X’s points but did not affect her position on the housing register. Mrs X remained in banding priority C awaiting a move to a four-bedroom property, mobility category four. The Council confirmed that Band C was for Council residents who needed to move due to MWH priority or due to an overcrowding priority.
28. At the time the Council informed Mrs X of a new priority group - CMWH priority. The Council planned to launch the group in September 2025 and said it would then update eligible applicants’ housing register applications.
29. In March 2025 Mrs X made a housing register application for CMWH priority and submitted a MAF for B as evidence.
30. Late in March Mrs Z complained to the Council. She questioned the family’s position on the housing register following the introduction of the Council’s new allocations scheme which she said caused a delay in finding the family new accommodation. Mrs Z said that since the changes, Mrs X was unable to bid on available properties.
31. In April the Council responded to Mrs Z’s complaint. It did not uphold the complaint as it established Mrs X was able to bid on properties and the delay was due to a shortage of suitable accommodation.
32. In late May 2025 the Council issued a medical assessment outcome decision which informed Mrs X she did not qualify for CMWH priority. The Council acknowledged B’s medical condition but stated they received ongoing treatment to manage the condition. It concluded there was no medical evidence to demonstrate that the current accommodation was causing B serious negative effects or had a detrimental impact on their health. The Council informed Mrs X she had the right to request a review within 21 days if she disagreed with this decision.
33. Unhappy about the Council’s delay in moving her to suitable accommodation, Mrs X asked the Council to investigate her complaint at its stage two. She said the Council failed to consider her household’s needs especially relating to the autism diagnosis of two of her children.
34. In June 2025 Mrs X asked the Council to review the decision not to award CMWH priority.
35. The same month the Council acknowledged it received Mrs X’s review request and gave her the opportunity to provide supporting evidence within 14 days.
36. Within the deadline Mrs Z provided medical evidence on behalf of Mrs X including a letter of support from B’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) teacher and a medical report of Mrs X’s own medical issues which resulted from looking after B.
37. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at stage two. It acknowledged and apologised for its:
• delayed stage two complaint response;
• failure to consider exercising discretion when Mrs X explained her reasons for not requesting a review of the Council’s decision within 21 days;
• delay in notifying her of the CMWH priority group; and
• lack of clarity around information it provided which caused Mrs X uncertainty and avoidable distress.
38. The Council also said that, with Mrs X’s consent, it could make a referral to children’s services for A and B to be assessed to determine whether any support could be provided under the Children Act 1989. In addition, the Council advised that the family could consider securing accommodation in the private rented sector and said it could support this option by offering an incentive payment to the landlord of any identified suitable accommodation.
39. In August 2025, the Council responded to Mrs X’s request for a review of its May 2025 decision not to award her CMWH priority. It said it had considered the information she provided, including B’s MAF and acknowledged that the family’s home was overcrowded.
40. The Council decided not to change its earlier decision from May. It said Mrs X was already on the waiting list for tenants in overcrowded accommodation and was eligible to bid on four-bedroom properties, which would address the lack of space once successful. The Council concluded the family was ‘adequately housed’.
41. Following our enquiries, the Council confirmed that its use of the term ‘adequately housed’ meant that, for medical purposes, there was no evidence that the family’s current accommodation, although unsuitable due to overcrowding, was having a sufficiently negative impact on B’s health to justify awarding the family CMWH priority.

My findings

42. We expect local authorities to allocate housing in accordance with their published allocations schemes. We would not usually find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application and a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published scheme.
43. Mrs X submitted several MAFs between August 2024 and June 2025 seeking an increase from Band C priority based on B’s medical needs. The Council considered the medical and supporting evidence provided but concluded the family’s main housing need was overcrowding rather than medical priority.
44. Under the allocations scheme, Mrs X needed to provide evidence that B’s medical condition had a severe impact on how they access the home or made the home unsuitable for their needs.
45. While the Council acknowledged B’s condition, it found no medical evidence that the family’s current home had serious negative effects on them but instead said their condition was well managed and treated by the family’s GP. As a result, the Council found Mrs X was not eligible to be awarded CMWH priority. The Council made this decision in line with its allocations scheme, notified Mrs X of the outcome and her review rights. It encouraged her to continue bidding on suitable properties and offered support in securing suitable accommodation in the private rented sector. I have found no fault in how the Council considered the family's medical evidence and circumstances in deciding not to increase Mrs X’s priority banding and so we cannot question the outcome.
46. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Council has taken action to address its lack of suitable accommodation by encouraging residents to downsize from under-occupied larger homes to smaller properties and delivering new family-sized properties through its development and regeneration schemes. We will continue to monitor progress of this through our casework.

Back to top

Decision

47. I have found no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman