Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to provide Miss X with assistance in helping her find accommodation when she fled her home due to violence. The Council should pay Miss X £250 for the uncertainty this caused and remind staff of the Council’s duties to homeless households.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council has failed to help her when she complained about her neighbour’s behaviour. Miss X says she has suffered from persistent noise nuisance and verbal abuse from her neighbours. She also says her son and another relative were assaulted by her neighbour’s and her son no longer feels safe at home.
2. Miss X says she has been left feeling extremely anxious and distressed as a result of the Council’s failure to help her and her family.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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. I have spoken to Ms X about her complaint and considered the Council’s response to my enquiries. This includes records of contact with Ms X.
6. I have considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies which is available on our website.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law

8. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))
9. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant. However councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, paragraphs 2.3 and 6.4)
10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
11. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;

Allocation of social housing

13. 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))
14. 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))

15. 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;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
16. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
17. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

What happened

18. Miss X and her family fled their home in October 2019 when they were involved in a violent incident with their neighbours. The Council offered Miss X temporary accommodation but Miss X went to stay with family members temporarily. The Council says Miss X “was assessed under homeless provisions and offered temporary accommodation in November 2019… [but she] declined this offer of accommodation”.
19. In December 2019 the Council awarded them Band 2 priority for rehousing as she was at risk at her current address. This was based on information provided by the Police. Band 2 is the same priority awarded to homeless households who the Council has a duty to house.
20. Miss X challenged the Council’s decision. The Council responded to Miss X’s review in January 2020 and said it could only award Band 1 priority when there was “an imminent threat to life or health of a household member”. The Council said the information it had received did not support a Band 1 award.
21. In it’s letter the Council explained Miss X could approach the Council for assistance as a homeless person. The Council also said Miss X could complain to the Ombudsman if she was unhappy with its decision.
22. In April 2020 Miss X approached the Council as homeless as she was no longer able to stay with her family and was unable to return to her home. The Council offered Miss X temporary accommodation, but Miss X declined and continued staying with relatives.
23. The Council received new information from the Police about Miss X’s situation in June 2020 and awarded her Band 1 priority. Miss X was offered a property at the end of June and her tenancy started on 19 July 2020.

My findings

24. The Council should have accepted a homeless application from Miss X when she fled violence from her home. There is nothing to prevent the Council from considering what duties it owed to Miss X as a homeless person alongside a housing application. Failure to do so was fault.
25. There have been occasions when Miss X has approached the Council seeking help with her housing because she is unable to stay with relatives. However, the Council appears not to have considered whether Miss X was homeless because she refused temporary accommodation and remained living with her relatives. A person does not have to be in temporary accommodation for a Council to consider them homeless or threatened with homelessness.
26. As the Council failed to consider what duties it owed to Miss X as a homeless person, at the very least she missed out on receiving a personalised housing plan. This would have set out the steps both Miss X and the Council could take to secure social or private housing. As a result Miss X is left with uncertainty of whether she might have been rehoused sooner if she had received this assistance.
27. If the Council had accepted a duty to Miss X as a homeless person she would have only been awarded Band 2 priority on her housing application. This is the award she was given any way and so she has not been caused an injustice as a result.
28. There is no fault in the way the Council considered Miss X’s priority banding on her housing application. The Police assessment of the risk to her and her family would normally result in an award of Band 2 priority and the Council have considered all the supporting evidence Miss X provided. Therefore, there is no fault in the way it reached its decision.
29. The Council reviewed the level of priority it awarded to Miss X when it received new information from the Police. That is a decision the Council is entitled to take.

Agreed action

30. The Council has agreed to take the following action I recommended to remedy the injustice caused to Miss X as a result of the fault I have identified:
• Write to Miss X to apologise for failing to provide her with assistance as a homeless person.
• Pay Miss X £250 for the uncertainty caused as a result the failures to provide her with support finding accommodation under duties owed to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
31. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
32. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind relevant staff that homelessness applications can be considered alongside housing applications.
• Remind staff that households do not have to accept temporary accommodation in order to be considered homeless or threatened with homelessness.
33. The Council should take this action within six weeks of my final decision and provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has done so.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault causing injustice. The action I have recommended is a suitable way to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman