Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in offering alternative housing which she required on personal safety grounds. While it could be argued it took longer than it should have for Ms X to move to a new property, this is not due to fault by the Council. Ms X’s actions, in requesting consideration of a move to a three bedroom property was the reason for it taking longer.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed in offering alternative housing which she required due to risks when a sexual abuse perpetrator was released from prison.
2. Ms X says the situation has been stressful and time consuming. She wants to move house so she can get on with her life and the delays have prevented her from doing this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms X is a sexual abuse survivor. She lives with her 15 year old son and three year old daughter. The sexual abuse perpetrator, who was a family member, was released from prison in October 2018. Conditions of his release prevent him from entering Ealing until January 2020. As the perpetrator knows where Ms X lives, she wants a move to ensure her safety after his licence conditions end.
7. Ms X was placed on the housing register in July 2018 in Band C on the basis she was overcrowded and required a three bedroom property.
8. As Ms X required an urgent move, her case was referred to the Council’s Social Welfare Panel in September (SWP) 2018. The SWP felt a move out of the area would be appropriate and it deferred its decision to allow the safer communities team to discuss rehousing options with Ms X. Ms X did not want a move outside the area and so the SWP reconsidered her case at its meeting in October 2018.
9. The SWP decided Ms X’s case met its threshold for a management move and so her application was awarded Band B priority. Under the Council’s allocations policy, management moves are awarded on a like-for-like basis which means a property of the same size and type. The SWP also decided that a direct offer of rehousing would be made in February if Ms X had not successfully bid by that time.
10. The information provided shows Ms X did not place any bids for rehousing between November 2018 and 12 February 2019. I do not know if this is because no suitable properties were advertised or for other reasons. The allocations team received a referral for a direct offer in February 2019.
11. Ms X continued to raise the issue of wanting a three bedroom property. She explained her daughter had medical issues which meant she needed her own room. The Council agreed to refer Ms X’s case back to the SWP in March 2019.
12. The SWP was asked to consider using its discretion to exempt Ms X from the like-for-like rules on management moves. In reaching its view the SWP considered further evidence, including medical evidence, submitted by Ms X and also the view of the Council’s medical advisor. The SWP decided there was no basis to make an exemption and allow Ms X a larger property. The Council’s medical officer noted Ms X’s daughter is only three years old and does not have a diagnosed medical condition. It was decided there was not sufficient evidence to show a third bedroom was required.
13. In June the Council made a direct offer of a two bedroom property to Ms X. Ms X viewed the property on 11 June. On 17 June, an advocate acting for Ms X asked the Council to allow Ms X to delay signing the tenancy and for it to reconsider the medical evidence in connection with her request for a three bedroom property. The medical officer considered the new medical evidence provided by Ms X and took the view a separate bedroom for Ms X’s daughter was not medically required.
14. Ms X signed the tenancy for a two bedroom property in July 2019.

Analysis

15. Ms X complains about the delay in offering her alternative housing. She feels her circumstances have not been properly considered. Ms X has two children and so requires a three bedroom property. She was on the housing register from July 2018 on this basis.
16. However, Ms X requires a move on safety grounds. She was the victim of sexual abuse by a family member who knows where she lives. On his release from prison he is prevented from entering the Ealing area but this restriction ends in January 2020. Ms X wanted to ensure the safety of herself and her family and so needed to move urgently.
17. The Council agreed to give Ms X extra priority due to the risk to her safety. This decision was made by the SWP. Ms X says she was not aware until she received the decision of the SWP that a management move could not be to a three bedroom property. She feels the disruption, expense and distress of a move now to a two bedroom property only to have to move again to a three bedroom property, has not been properly considered by the Council.
18. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Ms X’s request for an urgent move. The SWP decision in October 2018 recognised the issues around the perpetrators release from prison and Ms X’s safety and well being. It also correctly applied its policy when stating a management move was to a similar type and sized property. While I appreciate why Ms X would prefer one move and for that move to be to a three bedroom property, I find no fault in the Council’s initial decision.
19. Ms X’s case went back to the SWP in March to consider whether to treat her case as an exemption and allow her to move to a three bedroom property. Ms X submitted medical evidence which was considered. The SWP also considered her representations about the disruption and distress that her family would experience if she had to move twice.
20. I am satisfied the Council properly used its discretion to further consider Ms X’s case. I appreciate she is unhappy with the outcome of the SWP in March 2019 but I find no fault in how it reached that decision. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to reconsider the evidence and reach a view on the case. Our role is to consider the administrative process and ensure proper consideration was given. The Council has done this and it is entitled to make its own decision. As there is no evidence of fault in the process leading to the decision not to allow Ms X to have a management move to a three bedroom property, I cannot criticise the decision taken.
21. The Council then allowed Ms X to submit further medical evidence before she finally signed for a two bedroom property under the management move criteria. There was no obligation on the Council to do this as it had already fully considered her case.
22. I am not persuaded there has been any unreasonable delay by the Council in this case. Ms X was given priority for a management move in October 2018 but did not sign her new tenancy until July 2019. I have considered the Council’s actions during this period and there is no evidence of unreasonable delay. The evidence shows a period of time when Ms X did not make any bids. It then shows she requested a reconsideration of her three bed need by the SWP. I am not persuaded this is fault. When Ms X was then given a direct offer, she again requested reconsideration which did delay her taking a new tenancy but this was not fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman