Summary: We shall not investigate Ms X’s complaint about not having higher priority for rehousing. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting Ms X’s priority.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not give her housing application Band A priority and that it offered housing to people with lower priority than she has. She says this has resulted in her family sleeping on the floor in overcrowded accommodation and suffering stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I shared my draft decision with Ms X and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s family has five people of mixed sexes sleeping in one room in someone else’s home. Ms X’s housing application has Band B priority on the housing register. A social worker asked the Council’s housing department to award Band A priority because a child in the family seemed to have low mood/depression and anxiety. The social worker also expressed concern the child would suffer significant harm if the family’s accommodation did not change, described arguments in the family including one where the child produced a knife and described other difficulties in the home.
7. The Council should deal with such referrals within 10 working days. It apologised for taking around a month to reply to this referral. I consider the apology is sufficient remedy for the impact of the delay.
8. The Council refused to give Band A priority. It reviewed the decision at Ms X’s request and confirmed its decision.
9. The most relevant points of the Council’s procedure for such referrals say:
1. The Council can give Band A priority where housing will, ‘Prevent likelihood of significant harm to a child in the family. The significant harm must relate to the safety of a child and specific aspects of the current accommodation.’
2. ‘The referral will not be accepted if other rehousing options are available, or if the applicant has applied for assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.’ (Part 7 relates to homelessness.)
10. Ms X suggests the Council refused the referral because the Council’s children’s services section had not been involved with her family for long enough. That seems to be a misunderstanding. The housing section told the children’s services section it would expect a higher level of children’s services involvement to meet the threshold for Band A. The housing section had asked if the children were currently subject to ‘child in need’ or ‘child protection’ plans. The children’s services section advised they were not, as it had assessed the family and closed the case. So I do not see evidence the refusal related to how long children’s services was involved. Rather, it related to the nature of that involvement, which the Council judged did not indicate the child’s needs reached the threshold for awarding Band A. I see no fault in that.
11. Commenting on my draft decision, Ms X said the social worker who made the referral said there was a likelihood of significant harm to her child. However, it was for the Council’s housing section, not the social worker, to decide whether the threshold for Band A priority was met. If there is a likelihood of significant harm to a child, it is usual for the Council to take child protection action. The housing section established no such action had been taken or was currently happening in this case. It was entitled to take account of that. So I am satisfied the Council properly reached its decision the threshold for Band A was not met.
12. The Council also said it had repeatedly advised Ms X she does not have to live in her current circumstances and that if she applied as homeless it would arrange suitable accommodation, either homelessness temporary accommodation or privately rented accommodation. Ms X said she and her child worried about the potentially insecure nature of such accommodation and Ms X also worried about affording private rent. The Council says it would have a legal duty to arrange affordable housing for a homeless person and that it has offered Ms X advice about benefits that might help her to afford accommodation. Therefore the Council decided point b) above applied in this case as other rehousing options were available.
13. I note Ms X’s concerns about homelessness temporary accommodation and private rented accommodation. Nevertheless, the law provides the homelessness system to deal with situations such as this and the Council can also help with finding private rented accommodation. I do not fault the Council for taking account of those points.
14. Commenting on my draft decision, Ms X said the Council previously advised her to stay where she was to be more successful getting permanent accommodation. So she argued it was wrong for the Council now to say other rehousing options were available. However, the Council’s advice Ms X shared with me was only about maximising the prospect of getting long-term social housing. The policy on Band A referrals refers to ‘other rehousing options’. That does not mean only social housing. The options of private rented accommodation and homelessness temporary accommodation are available. There was no fault in the Council taking account of that and refusing to award Band A priority.
15. Ms X says if she applied as homeless now, her housing register application would get less priority for homelessness than it currently has for overcrowding. That does not mean there is fault in the Council saying Ms X has other rehousing options. It is for Ms X to decide whether to use those options to relieve her family’s overcrowding or to continue living in overcrowded circumstances in the hope of getting social housing.
16. Ms X says it is the Council’s policy, not the law, that she would be offered temporary accommodation if she applied as homeless. Equally, the law does not prevent the Council providing temporary accommodation and offering privately rented housing rather than giving homeless people social housing immediately. This point does not persuade me there was fault in the Council deciding Ms X had other rehousing options.
17. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision to refuse Band A, based on the criteria in its procedure and the information it had about Ms X. Therefore I cannot criticise the decision, albeit Ms X disagrees with the decision.
18. Ms X’s response to my draft decision also said the Council had told her, ‘it will take 5 years to be housed.’ The email Ms X cites did not actually say that. It said the ‘the typical waiting time is about 5 years assuming you bid widely for all available properties’ but it also said, ‘Priority is based mainly on level of need, not waiting time’ and, ‘We cannot say how soon it will be before you are shortlisted for a property or will be in a position to accept a property. This very much depends on who else bids and is shortlisted.’ The email, taken as a whole, did not say Ms X would get social housing within five years.
19. Ms X complained the Council had already housed people who joined Band B after her. She identified five properties where that happened and asked the reasons. The Council said those five properties were suited to people with particular disabilities or medical needs and were given to applicants with those needs. I see no evidence of fault here.
20. Ms X says the Council is wrong to offer social housing to people in homelessness temporary accommodation before it houses people in her situation. However, the Council has a legal duty to give reasonable preference to people it owes a homelessness duty. From what the Council has said, it expects it would take the same approach to Ms X if she were to apply as homeless.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We shall not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely any investigation would find fault by the Council but for which Ms X would have received Band A priority or would have been rehoused ahead of the people who received the five properties Ms X mentioned.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman