Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to rehouse her after placing her in an unsuitable property and about her priority banding. She also complained about harassment from her neighbour. We have found the Council to be at fault because it did not offer to carry out a review of her priority banding. To remedy the injustice to Miss X, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to her and review its practices. We did not find fault with the Council’s original offer of accommodation or how is dealt with her complaints about harassment.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to offer her unsuitable housing and failure to rehouse her because was not awarded the correct priority banding. She also complains about the Council’s failure to address harassment from her neighbour.
2. She says she has an urgent need to be rehoused because she is vulnerable and unsafe in her current home, causing significant anxiety and distress.

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 an organisation’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 spoke with Miss X and reviewed the information she provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and reviewed the relevant law and policy.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. l considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocations

8. 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))
9. The Ombudsman may 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.
10. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
11. The Council’s housing allocation policy two bands of priority:

• Band A - Exceptional reasons to move.
• Band B - In need of accommodation.

12. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. Councils should inform applicants of their right to request a review of a decision.

What happened

13. In 2020, Miss X was homeless and living with her young child in a women’s refuge. In June 2021, the Council offered her a ground floor flat (the Flat). Miss X briefly viewed the Flat before she moved in but did not realise the potential for access to her property via public garages to the rear.
14. In September 2021, Miss X reported concerns about being spied on by an unknown male through a window and throwing stones at her window. She feared for the safety of herself and her child. She asked to the Council to rehouse her somewhere more suitable, particularly as she had previously experienced domestic violence.
15. An officer visited the Flat and suggested some additional fencing around the rear of the property would address the security problem. Miss X was told the situation would not entitle her to be rehoused without further supporting evidence about the possible safety risk.
16. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to offer her the Flat, particularly as she was not specifically told about public access from the garages. She also enquired about the fencing that had been discussed previously.
17. In response to her complaint, the Council agreed to either:
1. install the fencing; or
2. allow her back onto the housing register with Band B priority.
18. The Council acknowledged it would have been preferrable had information about the public access was available to Miss X prior to her agreeing to move in. The Council said it would look to improving practices in this area.
19. Miss X told the Council she wanted to re-join the housing register. The Council also installed the fencing that same month.
20. Due to her priority banding and limited housing stock in Miss X’s preferred area, she has not been rehoused. Despite the fencing, she still feels unsafe and vulnerable, particularly as she says she is being stalked by her neighbour. Miss X has provided both the Council and the Ombudsman with several photographs that she says show the neighbour near the Flat.
21. Miss X says the Council has done nothing to address the problem with the neighbour and the Council should increase her priority band to acknowledge unsuitability of the Flat.
22. In response the Council says it has fulfilled its obligations to Miss X by:
1. Allowing her to rejoin the housing register;
2. Offering her early access to its mutual exchange scheme that is usually the quickest way to source alternative accommodation;
3. Installing the fence; and
4. Offering to make a referral to a local voluntary agency, offering support with tackling possible anti-social behavior from her neighbour.

Analysis

Suitability of the Flat

23. Miss X says that she should not have been offered the Flat because of the open access to the rear. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether or not the Flat was suitable. This is a matter for the Council to decide.
24. While I acknowledge Miss X’s safety concerns are heightened because of her previous experiences, I do not find the Council to have acted with fault when it offered Miss X the Flat. I say this because:

• Miss X viewed the property prior to moving in.
• The Council had not received any complaints before regarding security and so did not knowingly mislead Miss X as to the Flat’s suitability.
• Miss X did not request a suitability review of the accommodation when she was offered the property.
• When Miss X became aware of the security issue and reported this to the Council, the Council properly considered her concerns under its complaints procedure and offered an appropriate remedy (fencing) that addressed the issue of open access to the rear of the Flat.
• The Council also allowed Miss X to rejoin the housing register.

Priority banding

25. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide what priority banding Miss X should be awarded. That is a decision for the Council to make based on the evidence provided. It is instead the role of the Ombudsman to look at the way in which the Council has made its decision.
26. When Miss X was allowed to rejoin the housing register, the Council was not obliged to place her in the highest priority banding as she expected. However, I have not seen evidence that the Council explained why her circumstances did not meet the criteria for Band A, nor did it issue a formal decision that explained she had a right to request a review of this decision. The Ombudsman expects councils to advise housing applicants of their review rights. The failure to do so in this case was fault.
27. During the course of this investigation, the Council has now carried out a review of this decision. I welcome this.

Anti-social behaviour

28. From the case records I have read, I am satisfied the Council followed the correct approach by asking Miss X to provide evidence of the anti-social behaviour she was experiencing. The Council is dependent on evidence if it is to pursue any action against Miss X’s neighbour. I am satisfied it considered the photographs she submitted but explained they were not clear enough to take any action against the alleged perpetrator. She was also advised to report her concerns to the police and offered to make a referral to an appropriate voluntary agency.
29. From what Miss X has said, it is likely the harassment she has experienced is a matter for the police to deal with rather than the Council.
30. I find no fault in the Council’s approach in Miss X’s case.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. The Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the date of the final decision.

• Apologise to Miss X for its failure to issue a formal decision with review rights in response to the request for higher priority banding;
• Make a payment of £150 to Miss X to recognise the distress, inconvenience and uncertainty caused by this fault. This recommended payment is in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies; and
• Review its processes to ensure that it issues a formal decision with review rights in response to all priority decisions under its allocations policy.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have found the Council to be at fault because it did not allow Miss X to challenge its decision about housing priority. The Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman