Summary: There was no fault by the Council. It handled Ms B’s request for a transfer in accordance with its housing policy. It followed up Ms B’s complaints about noise but she withdrew these. It was correct to tell Ms B to report serious threats to the Police. Ms B did not respond to some of the Council’s communication and so it has offered to re-engage with her to look again at her housing issues.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains about how the Council dealt with her housing situation and noise and antisocial behaviour she has suffered. In particular, Ms B says the Council:
• Failed to properly consider her request to transfer out of London due to abuse, threats and harassment she suffered;
• Failed to take action to stop the noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour she suffered;
• Blocked her housing bidding account so she could not make bids in March 2020;
• Failed to collect refuse from her property from January to August 2020; and
• Instructed the Police to break into her property in December 2020.
2. Ms B says that as a result of the Council’s shortcomings, she has had to seek housing outside of London but has been unable to find any.

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 considered the information provided by Ms B. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. Both parties have been invited to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered any comments I have received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s housing allocations policy

6. A council tenant under-occupying a property is eligible for a direct offer of alternative accommodation from the Council, or can bid for a preferred property on the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme. The Council also gives priority to tenants in other circumstances. These include tenants who have to move because:
• they are in serious danger if they stay in their property due to harassment. This will be decided by a panel of council officers.
• They are at serious risk of harm either to themselves or others in their present accommodation. A tenant would be eligible for a move on these grounds, if they were receiving significant support from social services, they cannot find accommodation for themselves, and their wellbeing is seriously affected by their housing situation.
• They have a medical condition that is so severe that it is impossible for them to live in their current home.

What happened

7. Ms B is a secure council tenant and has lived in the same three-bedroom property since 2002. She had been living with her adult children, but one has moved out. The Council has not been able to establish whether her other child still lives with her.
8. In January 2020, Ms B told the Council that local people were threatening to kill her, and that people were trying to break into her property. The Council contacted Ms B to assess whether it could put a case to its panel for emergency rehousing in accordance with its housing allocations policy. But Ms B told the Council she was not experiencing these issues and no longer needed rehousing. The Council’s records suggested that Ms B has a diagnosed mental illness.
9. In February 2020, Ms B asked the Council to move her to a smaller property. The Council advised her to bid on two-bedroom properties. Under its occupation scheme, she was also eligible for help with moving her belongings and with connecting appliances and services.
10. Ms B’s application suggested that either she or a person of her household had a medical condition and the current accommodation was causing this to worsen. At the beginning of March, the Council sent Ms B a form asking her for more medical information, but it says Ms B did not complete this.
11. Between February and April 2020, Ms B made complaints to the Council about noise and antisocial behaviour of her neighbours. Initially these reports were about loud banging and drilling. The Council offered to visit but each time, Ms B said this was not needed as it had stopped.
12. Again, Ms B complained about a number of her neighbours and others in the area, that they were making racially motivated threats and victimising her. The Council advised her to contact the Police about this.
13. The Council’s records show it contacted its adult social care team as officers were concerned Ms B needed more support. A gas engineer had attended the property but says he had to leave as Ms B was being aggressive. This meant the boiler was switched off. At Ms B’s request. the Council’s residents services officer attended the next gas engineer appointment and the boiler was restored.
14. The Council’s internal correspondence shows it was liaising between its various teams including housing support services, council tax, adult social care and mental health.
15. In June 2020, Ms B successfully bid on a property. The property was held for her. Ms B tried to bid on other properties, but the Council’s system would not allow it as she was the first property was still being held for her.
16. The Council referred Ms B for help from its Mental Health Team, for support with completing forms and accompanying to appointments, and with prompting to help her manage her personal care. However, the Council says that Ms B declined support from its adult mental health access team. As concerns for Ms B increased, the Police attended with mental health professionals and forced entry to Ms B’s property. The Council agreed to change the locks without charge.
17. In October 2020, the Council wrote to Ms B offering her an appointment to view the property. Ms B did not respond to attend the appointment. At that time, the Council noted the Ms B wanted to live outside the borough.
18. In November 2020, Ms B bid on another property. She was not successful here and the property was let to someone with higher priority. In March 2021, Ms B bid on a housing association property, but again she was not successful as it was too large for her needs.
19. In November 2020, Ms B told the Council she had left the property and would not be returning. In December, the Police visited Ms B’s property on the basis of concerns about Ms B’s health. They accessed the property and not finding Ms B, held the keys at the police station. Ms B complained to the Council that it had told the Police to break down the door of her council property.
20. Ms B returned to the property in June 2021. She tells me that she was away from the area from August 2020 until she returned. She was trying to get housing in another area but could not. When Ms B returned she found the locks had been changed and her boiler condemned. She has made a fresh complaint to the Council about that.
21. Ms B remains concerned about threats from her neighbours and wants to move from the area. She has made several complaints to the Council that it has not helped her move despite this. The Council has responded that she should continue to work with the Police on this. The Council has offered to meet with Ms B again to discuss her housing options in order to try to help her.

Was there fault by the Council?

22. It is clear that Ms B needs to move. Her property is too big and she remains very concerned about the neighbours and threats she says have been made. However overall, there was no fault by the Council.
23. It assessed her housing need against its under-occupation policy. This resulted in Ms B successfully bidding on a property but she did not take the tenancy. It checked whether it could add any priority for medical reasons, but could not because Ms B has not given the Council any medical information.
24. Ms B thinks the Council should increase her priority on the basis of her allegations that she has been threatened by the neighbours. However, it seems that Ms B initially told the Council that this had not happened. Ms B has made allegations since then, and given their seriousness, the Council was correct to tell Ms B to report these to the Police. My understanding is that these have not been substantiated and the Police have advised Ms B to contact her GP for support. The lack of evidence means the Council cannot give Ms B any additional priority on that basis.
25. Ms B wants to move out of London but this was not initially clear to the Council. The Council’s case notes are clear that it has engaged with all appropriate services in order to try to help Ms B. However, it recognises that Ms B has had difficulty communicating with it and so it has offered to re-engage with Ms B to try to help her with her housing issues. I have no basis to find the Council has mishandled her housing issues to date, and for Ms B to meet with the Council again appears to be the best way forward.
26. The Council only suspended Ms B from bidding on properties when she had successfully bid on a property that was being held for her.
27. There is no evidence the Council instructed the Police to break into Ms B’s home. The Council would not be in a position to do so and the Police has specific powers of entry. It appears this happened because the Police was concerned about Ms B and her family.
28. Ms B has not given me any information about the Council’s failure to collect refuse.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman