Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided that Mrs B should be awarded priority Band 2 on its housing register.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains that the Council should have given her additional priority on its housing register because she is at risk of domestic violence. She says that she does not have enough priority to move and is living in fear of further violence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• considered the documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

6. 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))
7. 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))
8. The Ombudsman normally will not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s allocations scheme

9. Priority band: The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
10. Band 1: So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Exceptional Need Band 1 where the applicant is at risk of suffering domestic abuse, extreme violence or harassment whose facts and circumstances demonstrate to the Council that the threat is immediate and it is not safe for the applicant to remain in their present home.
11. Band 2: So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 2 where:
• the applicant is homeless and owed the main duty because they have been assessed as being in priority need and unintentionally homeless.
• the applicant needs to move due to threat of domestic abuse, violence or harassment but who are not in immediate danger.

Suitable accommodation

12. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.
13. Applicants can ask a council to review its decision that the accommodation offered is suitable. A request for a review must be made within 21 days, or longer if allowed by the Council.

Key events and analysis

14. The Council placed Mrs B and her children in bed and breakfast accommodation when they were homeless. Mrs B was accepted on to the Council’s housing register and awarded priority Band 2, due to homelessness.
15. In January 2021, Mrs B requested a review of the banding decision. She said that she was a victim of domestic violence and should be awarded Band 1.
16. The Council carried out a review and decided that Mrs B should not receive an Exceptional Need to Move award due to domestic violence because Mrs B had not provided any evidence to show that it was not safe for her to remain in her current accommodation. The only evidence provided was from several years earlier when she was living elsewhere. The Council upheld its earlier decision to award Mrs B priority Band 2. I have found no evidence of fault in the way this decision was reached.
17. Shortly after the review, the Council provided Mrs B with alternative accommodation. Mrs B complained to the Ombudsman that the Council should have awarded her additional priority because the accommodation was near to the perpetrator of domestic violence.
18. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mrs B to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation if she considered it was unsuitable due to its location. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that Mrs B requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation, or that she has provided any evidence to show that she is not safe in her home and the threat is immediate. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council here.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman