Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed in considering her application to join the housing register and wrongly determined she did not qualify. Ms X also complains that having reviewed its decision and accepted she qualified to join the housing register, the Council failed to properly consider her circumstances or award the correct points. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Ms X’s application or in its decision to award 75 points. However, the length of time taken to complete both the stage one and stage two reviews amounts to fault. This fault has caused Ms X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Ms X complained the Council delayed in considering her application to join the housing register and wrongly determined she did not qualify. Ms X also complains that having reviewed its decision and accepted she qualified to join the housing register, the Council failed to properly consider her circumstances and only awarded 75 points. Ms X wants the Council to award her 600 points.

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. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Ms X;
• 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

Housing Allocation scheme

5. The Council’s housing allocation scheme sets out the restrictions on who will qualify to join the housing register. This includes applicants who have not lived in Camden for five of the last seven years. There are a number of exceptions to this requirement, including where “you are fleeing violence and harassment and it would be unsafe for you to remain in the area where you lived.”
6. Applicants can request a review of the Council decision that they do not qualify to join the housing register.
7. The allocation scheme awards points based on an applicant’s housing needs and any additional needs the applicant or their household have. It states that applicants currently experiencing domestic violence or persistent harassment and need to move may be eligible for the following points:
• 600 points if they are fleeing severe harassment or violence and are in urgent need of rehousing; or
• 75 points if they are fleeing harassment or violence and rehousing would be desirable.

What happened here

8. When Ms X applied to join the housing register in June 2020 the Council asked her to complete a harassment and violence form and provide supporting evidence. An officer, Officer 1, also advised Ms X that if she had not lived in Camden for five out of the last seven years, and did not receive a harassment and violence award, she would not qualify for the housing register. As Ms X did not provide the information, the Council closed her application.
9. Ms X reapplied to join the housing register in July 2020 and completed a harassment and violence form. Officer 1 asked Ms X for details of the police officers dealing with her case so that they could follow up on the information provided. Officer 1 then advised Ms X that as they could not verify the incidents based on the information she had provided they were unable to award harassment and violence points. Ms X did not meet the residency criteria, so the Council closed her application in August 2020.
10. As Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s actions, she asked for a review. Ms X provided additional information and Officer 1 informally reassessed her application. Officer 1 advised Ms X they were still unable to award harassment and violence points. Officer 1 confirmed they had gone through the documentation Ms X had provided but did not consider it substantiated a claim of harassment. They acknowledged Ms X appeared to have a difficult relationship with her landlord. And that the landlord had been prosecuted for not having an HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) licence and not maintaining the property to an acceptable standard, but these were separate matters and not an issue of harassment or violence.
11. The Council also agreed to carry out a formal review of Ms X’s application. In October 2020 the reviewing officer asked Ms X to submit any further evidence. Ms X provided further information and then chased a response in November 2020. In December 2020 Ms X complained about the length of time taken to complete the review. The Council appointed another officer to review the decision who again invited Ms X to provide any further evidence she may have, and to confirm whether there had been any recent events.
12. The Council wrote to Ms X in January 2021 with the outcome of the review. It noted Ms X did not satisfy the residency criteria and had asked for a review under the exemption of fleeing violence and harassment and it would be unsafe for her to remain in the area. The Council confirmed it had reviewed the information and noted her correspondence mainly described tenancy issues such as HMO licensing, rent deposit, disrepair, and the cleaning of communal areas. These issues had been addressed by the landlord and were not enough to prosecute the landlord.
13. The Council also confirmed it had liaised with the police to verify the references Ms X had provided. It noted the police had confirmed that each reference was closed as there was no crime, no charges or offence committed.
14. Based on this information the review concluded Ms X did not meet the threshold for harassment and the Council could not award harassment points. It advised Ms X of her right to request a stage two review if she disagreed with this decision.
15. Ms X informed the Council the court had issued a harassment injunction that same day. The Council arranged for a stage two review of Ms X’s application and asked her to provide any additional evidence by 22 February 2021. Ms X told the reviewing officer she was waiting for information from the court and on 19 March 2021 provided a copy of a second injunction.
16. The Council concluded the stage two review and wrote to Ms X on 26 April 2021. It apologised for the delay. Having reviewed the information and considered the two injunctions Ms X had obtained against her landlords the Council was satisfied Ms X met the harassment and violence exemption.
17. It then considered the level of points to be awarded. The Council referred to the allocation scheme which states: “If you are currently experiencing … and you need to move…” and noted this suggested that an applicant is still living in accommodation, but they need to move out because of persistent harassment and violence. The Council awarded Ms X 75 points.
18. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s response which she noted had taken 81 days, rather than the 56 days set out in the Council’s procedure. She challenged the Council’s decision to award 75 points given her prolonged suffering and the fact she had obtained two harassment injunctions. Ms X asked the Council to award her 600 points.
19. The Council confirmed there were no further stages of appeal and that it was satisfied it had dealt with her case fairly and comprehensively and had followed relevant policies and procedures. Ms X remains dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns.
20. In response to my enquiries the Council states it found evidence of some harassment, but the nature of the harassment was not of the kind that would normally merit the higher award. The Council states it has awarded 600 harassment points to 156 applicants in the last 12 months.
21. Examples of cases where it has awarded 600 points include an applicant targeted by gangs; an applicant at high risk of assault from youths on the estate; and violent domestic abuse. The Council has also provided examples of other cases where it has awarded 75 harassment points. These include verbal abuse and controlling behaviour from a former partner; racial harassment from a neighbour; and abusive and threatening messages from a person with a known history of violence.
22. In Ms X’s case the Council states there was evidence of compliance by the landlord with court order and the police had closed all reports. The Council considered the court orders Ms X had obtained would continue to keep risks low.
23. In terms of the time taken to complete the reviews, the Council states there is a huge demand for reviews, so it is commonly difficult to meet the deadlines even in simple cases. It states its records show 949 applicants reported a need to move on harassment grounds in the last 12 months. The Council considers the onus is on the applicant to provide full and relevant disclosure where possible. It suggests there is a correlation between the amount of evidence it has to consider and its precision, and the length of time it takes to respond.
24. The Council acknowledges it did not make a decision on Ms X’s first stage review within four weeks of her submission of evidence. However, it suggests this delay enabled Ms X to make further representations. The Council also notes it concluded the stage two review within three weeks of Ms X providing evidence. It suggests any delay at stage one should be offset against the promptness of stage two.
25. In response to the draft decision Ms X has reiterated her view that the Council should award her 600 harassment and violence points. She asserts that her circumstances are more serious than the examples of other cases awarded 75 points and are comparable with those awarded 600 points. Ms X contends that no other applicant has had to obtain two injunctions in order to protect themselves from harassment or violence.
26. Ms X states that her landlords have since breached the injunctions and have assaulted and racially abused her. This has led to further police involvement and court action. It is unclear whether Ms X has asked the Council to review her priority following these recent incidents. If she has, we would expect the Council to do so within its stated timeframes.

Analysis

27. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether Ms X is eligible to join the housing register, or whether she should receive 75 or 600 harassment and violence points; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council assessed her application correctly. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
28. The Council initially considered Ms X’s circumstances and the evidence she had provided were not sufficient to meet the criteria for the harassment and violence criteria. Ms X disputes this but it was a decision the Council was entitled to make. The Council explained how it had considered the information Ms X had provided and why it did not consider it substantiated a claim of harassment. The Council did not dispute Ms X’s concerns about her landlord operating without an HMO licence, the issues of disrepair, or the incidents reported to the police. But it was not persuaded there was evidence of harassment and violence.
29. However, by the time the Council was considering the stage two review, Ms X had obtained two injunctions against her landlords. One in January 2021 and a second in March 2021. At this stage the Council was satisfied Ms X met the exemption criteria and qualified to join the housing register.
30. Again, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make. It was not bound by its earlier decision and the purpose of the review was to allow it to consider any additional information or evidence.
31. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to award 75 harassment points, but I am satisfied the Council took account of all the relevant evidence and followed a proper decision-making process. We expect the Council to apply its policy consistently, and the examples of other applicants awarded 75 and those awarded 600 suggest the Council does adopt a consistent approach.
32. While I do not consider there to be fault in the way the Council reached its decisions on Ms X’s application, I do consider the time taken to review Ms X’s application amounts to fault.
33. The Council’s allocation policy confirms it has a two stage review procedure. Applicants can request a stage one review within 21 days of receiving the decision and the Council will respond within 14 days of receiving the request and any further information. The Council will then respond to stage two requests within 56 days of receiving the request. The policy confirms that these timescales can be extended in exceptional circumstances.
34. It is clear from the documentation that the Council did not meet these timeframes. There was delay at both stages. The Council acknowledges it did not make a decision at stage one within four weeks of receiving her evidence. This is not in any event the correct timeframe, as the review should have been completed within 14 days of receiving the evidence, not four weeks.
35. The Council states it completed Ms X’s stage two review within three weeks of receiving her evidence, but the documentation does not support this assertion. Ms X provided a copy of the latest injunction on 19 March 2021, but the Council did not complete the review until 26 April 2021, over five weeks later.
36. While the Council can extend its timeframes in exceptional circumstances, there is no evidence to suggest the Council considered Ms X’s circumstances were exceptional. Or that it informed her of a revised timeframe. The Council has confirmed it received almost 1000 applications to move based on harassment grounds in the last 12 months.
37. The Council has also confirmed it is not unusual to miss its timeframe for reviews. This is clearly not acceptable. I recognise the Council receives a large number of review requests, many of which may not be straightforward. But we would nevertheless expect it to ensure it has the resources and procedures in place to meet the timeframes it has set. The failure to do so is fault.
38. The delays in completing the reviews will have added to Ms X’s distress and anxiety and put her to unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve this matter. However, there is no evidence that but for the delays Ms X would have been able to successfully bid on a property. All of the properties Ms X bid on were offered to applicants with higher points than Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £100 in recognition of the distress and anxiety the delays in completing her review requests caused, and the time and trouble she was put to.
40. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint.
41. The Council has also agreed that within two months of the final decision on this complaint it will produce an action plan to identify ways of improving its review response times and ensuring it meets its published timeframes. This should include a timeframe for any action.

Back to top

Final decision

42. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Ms X’s application or in its decision to award 75 points. However, the length of time taken to complete both the stage one and stage two reviews amounts to fault. This fault has caused Ms X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman