Walsall Housing Group Limited (202413627)

Decision
Case ID	202413627
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Walsall Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lived in a 2‑bedroom first‑floor flat with her young daughter. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in 2023 and experienced reduced mobility. She said the home had become unsuitable for her health needs and she struggled to access and leave the property. She applied to move and later complained that the landlord mishandled her request by ignoring her medical forms and delaying her application.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
5. We found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Rehousing request

6. The landlord accepted it had delayed progressing the resident’s application, apologised, and offered compensation. It explained its decision and backdated her application with a higher banding.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord issued its complaint responses in line with its policy timescales and managed expectations appropriately.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 April 2024	The resident complained that the landlord failed to act on her medical evidence and unreasonably delayed her housing application despite her diagnosis of MS. She believed the landlord placed her in the wrong housing band and failed to consider her circumstances. She wanted her application progressed, reassessment of her priority banding, and a move.
22 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged delays and apologised for its poor communication. It confirmed earlier medical documents did not meet the medical‑need criteria but accepted the February 2024 occupational therapist (OT) report and the MS nurse specialist letter as valid evidence. It explained that the resident was placed in the correct band until the new allocations policy changed and it moved her to a higher band. It confirmed she could now bid on suitable ground‑floor properties. It upheld the complaint and offered £150 compensation in recognition of the delays and poor communication.
27 May 2024	The resident escalated the complaint, saying the landlord wrongly dismissed medical evidence. She said the landlord failed to give proper guidance previously, and delayed informing her that she required an OT report. She believed the landlord ignored her GP’s supporting letter and deliberately affected the complaint outcome by changing its allocations policy.
4 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It accepted that it delayed advising the resident that further medical evidence was needed, and apologised for its slow communication when assessing her documents. It explained that her earlier medical letters did not meet policy requirements and that only an OT could recommend suitable housing. It confirmed previous banding was correct under the old policy and that her current status reflected the updated policy. It explained adapted homes of the type she was seeking were limited and waiting times could be lengthy.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she felt the landlord did not act after she reported a change in her circumstances, caused unreasonable delays to her housing application, and did not consider her disability or medical needs. She explained that her first‑floor home, accessible only by stairs, was unsuitable and unsafe because of her health. The resident later moved to a new property in December 2024.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendation
The landlord should pay the resident £150 as offered in its stage 1 response. We found reasonable redress based on this amount being paid.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. The resident complained that the landlord did not act on her medical evidence and delayed her housing application, leaving her in unsafe first‑floor accommodation despite her MS. She felt her changing needs were ignored, her priority banding was wrong, and her evidence was dismissed.
9. In response, the landlord acknowledged it delayed advising her about the correct medical evidence and apologised for poor communication. It explained that earlier GP letters did not meet policy criteria, but the OT report from February 2024 and MS nurse letter from May 2024 supported a higher housing need under the updated allocations policy. It upheld the complaint, maintained her original housing registration date and confirmed she could bid for ground‑floor homes and offered £150 compensation.
10. The evidence showed the resident was diagnosed with MS in 2023 and added to the landlord’s housing register on 29 June 2023 under a silver band. In September 2023 the resident reported increased mobility difficulties. However, it is not clear what action, if any, the landlord took in response to this. The resident later supplied an OT report in February 2024 (it is not wholly clear when she was told of the need for an OT report, but appears to be around October 2023). This report confirmed she could not safely use the stairs due to severe mobility limitations, fatigue and a high risk of falls, and that she was unable to evacuate in an emergency. It also noted her home could not  be adapted to meet her long-term needs.
11. The resident attended the landlord’s office on 12 March 2024 as she had not heard back after providing the OT report. It told her she remained in silver medical band, placed her on the adapted housing list, and explained gold band required professional evidence that an applicant could not access or leave their home because of a mobility‑related medical need.
12. She disputed this decision, saying her MS symptoms clearly met the criteria, and provided further evidence in March and April 2024. Following her complaint, the landlord reviewed her case in May 2024 under its updated allocations policy (which had very recently changed), awarded the higher band, and backdated it to when her application was first made in June 2023.
13. The resident still felt she had already met the criteria in 2023 and should have been banded higher sooner. However, the landlord explained why the information she had originally provided had not been sufficient for the higher banding. It clarified that an OT assessment was necessary to evaluate functional ability and suitability of the home. The OT report, alongside the MS nurse letter, and the policy update ultimately supported the later award of higher priority.
14. Based on the evidence, the landlord should have upgraded the resident’s banding in February 2024 when she provided the OT report. It did not do so until its first complaint response in May, meaning she was on the wrong banding for approximately 3 months. Part of the landlord’s resolution for that error was to increase the banding to the correct level, and backdate it to the date of the original application in 2023. The benefit of that was that the resident’s application showed a longer period at the higher banding than would otherwise have been the case, improving her bidding priority.
15. The resident’s frustration was wholly understandable. However, the landlord acknowledged it had caused delays, apologised, backdated her higher banding, and offered £150 compensation, which broadly aligned with our remedies guidance where there has been a failing of short duration with no permanent impact. It also maintained engagement with her, reviewed her evidence and provided clear reasoning for its decisions. The landlord continued to engage with her and she eventually moved in December 2024. Taken together, the landlord’s remedies were relevant and proportionate to its service failings and their impact.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

16. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalation. When it cannot meet these timescales, the landlord will write to the resident with reasons and a revised response date, not exceeding a further 10 working days without good reason. Its complaints policy complied with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The resident complained on 22 April 2024 by letter, and the landlord acknowledged this on 30 April 2024. On 8 May 2024, it told her it needed more time to investigate and gave our details. This complied with its policy and the Code, which allow a stage 1 extension of up to 10 working days when explained in writing. The landlord therefore managed expectations appropriately. It issued the stage 1 response on 22 May 2024 within the extended timeframe it had set.
18. The resident escalated the complaint on 27 May 2024 by letter. The landlord received the escalation on 3 June 2024 and acknowledged it in line with its policy. It then issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days. Overall, the landlord handled the complaint in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

19. The landlord should ensure a robust, consistent allocations process by promptly assessing medical evidence, clearly stating any further requirements, keeping accurate records, and giving well‑reasoned banding decisions so residents understand how their evidence has been considered

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory. It provided a clear understanding of the actions it had taken.

Communication

21. Although there appeared to be some gaps in the landlord’s communication, it subsequently provided full responses to the complaint points raised and engaged with the resident by reviewing her concerns.