Summary: Ms D says the Council failed to properly assess her housing need. We have found evidence of fault relating to a risk assessment and upheld the complaint because of that one error. We have completed the investigation because the fault did not cause a significant injustice to Ms D.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council failed to assess her housing need (relating to medical priority, overcrowding, and domestic abuse).
2. I am looking at what happened from September 2022 to September 2023.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Ms D refers to events dating back 12 years with her housing. I am looking solely at what took place from September 2022 to September 2023 in respect of how the Council assessed her request for housing priority. I understand Ms D is dissatisfied with the Council actions relating to interim accommodation matters. They do not form part of this complaint to the Council and so she will need to make a fresh complaint about those issues to the Council before coming to the Ombudsman. In addition, if Ms D is dissatisfied with how Environmental Health handled her case relating to fumes from the neighbouring commercial premises, she would need to make a complaint about their actions to the Council in the first instance.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Ms D and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
7. I issued an initial draft decision and took account of Ms D’s comments. This led to further enquiries with the Council and a revised decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

8. In 2022 Ms D lived in a two bedroom property with two children. The Council had assessed her housing need (prior to September 2022) as requiring a three bedroom property and awarding 50 points for health and wellbeing.

Events I have investigated

9. On 16 November Ms D told the Council that her former partner had been verbally abusive to her, and she had notified the Police. The Council says the case was closed on 11 January 2023 and it was “not certain any formal notification of duty ended” had been sent to Ms D.
10. At the start of May 2023 Ms D submitted a homeless application to the Council stating she could not stay in her flat partly due to fumes from a commercial premises. She did not refer to domestic abuse.
11. On 5 June Ms D told the Council it had a duty of care to her regarding domestic abuse. She did not provide any further details. On 12 June Ms D sent the Council information about change of circumstances regarding medical issues. She submitted evidence from medical and social work professionals. The case was referred to a Medical Assessor to consider on 19 June. The Medical Assessor produced their report on 3 July. It noted all the evidence provided by Ms D had been investigated both for Ms D and one of her children. It found there was no evidence that living conditions would be life threatening or cause greater harm if Ms D was not moved. It awarded low priority health and wellbeing points (50 points). The Council notified Ms D two days later and explained she needed at least 100 points before she could be eligible to bid for properties. Also, on 5 July Ms D told the Council she had bad memories of domestic abuse in the property.
12. On 13 July Ms D requested a review of the decision. Also, on that date the Council contacted its Specialist Domestic Abuse Coordinator (SDA Coordinator). It had received an enquiry from Ms D’s MP which referred to domestic abuse. Officers would contact Ms D about the domestic abuse issue. Officers were tasked to establish if there was a risk of domestic abuse for Ms D and if specialist intervention was needed. On 18 July the SDA Coordinator emailed Officers dealing with Ms D’s housing. She had spoken to Ms D and the domestic abuse was “largely historical” but Ms D felt there was some current threat because the perpetrator knew her address. The SDA Coordinator found there was not an immediate risk of domestic abuse, but noted this could change because the perpetrator knew Ms D’s location. The Council subsequently responded to an enquiry from Ms D’s MP. In relation to the issue of domestic abuse the Council stated an SDA Coordinator had spoken to Ms D who said the abuse was historic and there had been no contact from the perpetrator since December 2022. Because of this the Council did not find evidence of a high risk and the case was continuing to be progressed by the housing teams.
13. The Council’s Review Officer than assessed Ms D’s review request. They sent their decision on 7 September and detailed the evidence considered which included all the documents supplied by Ms D relating to her and one of her children. They explained the allocations policy and how she was lacking one bedroom which meant she was not awarded any points for overcrowding. In respect of the health and wellbeing assessment the Review Officer explained why they considered 50 points to be correct.

Events after the period I am investigating

14. In October the Council awarded Ms D an additional 50 points because of her homeless application. It explained to her why the points were allocated and what would happen once the Council reached a view on her homeless application.

What should have happened

15. The Council assesses applications to join its housing register. It considers an applicant’s housing need and awards points. If an applicant (or a member of the household) wants the Council to assess if they should receive medical priority points they can submit medical evidence. A Medical Assessor will consider the evidence to see if the Council should award health and wellbeing points. If the Medical Assessor finds the applicant has difficulty carrying out daily activities but the accommodation is not making the condition life-threatening, they will award 50 points and low level priority.
16. The Council will also consider if an applicant’s household is overcrowded. It assesses the number of rooms that can be used as a bedroom at the property alongside the people residing there. An application from a person with two children where one child is under nine and one over will be eligible for a three bedroom home. Points are awarded for applicants in private rental homes lacking two or more bedrooms.
17. Homeless applicants who are accepted by the Council as having an interim duty of care are awarded 50 points pending the outcome of the homeless application full assessment.
18. Where a housing applicant raises a possible risk of domestic abuse if they remain in their home the Council should carry out an assessment. An SDA Coordinator should contact the applicant and complete a risk assessment and decide if the applicant is at a high risk of domestic abuse. If the Council concludes there is not a high or immediate risk to the applicant this will not change their housing priority status.

Was there fault by the Council

19. Ms D says the Council did not assess her case correctly.
20. There is evidence of fault by the Council because it could and should have carried out a domestic abuse risk assessment at the end of 2022 after Ms D told it about an incident. There is no record to show an assessment took place or that Ms D was notified of the outcome. Instead, an assessment was carried out in July 2023 after contact from Ms D and her MP. In respect of the 2023 risk assessment the Council concluded there was no immediate or high risk of domestic abuse to Ms D and explained its findings in the response to the MP enquiry. I do not see there is fault in how that decision was reached.
21. In respect of the health and wellbeing assessment I do not see any evidence of fault. The Council and the Review Officer considered all the evidence supplied by Ms D. It explained how the decisions were made to award low level health and wellbeing priority. In making its decisions, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from Ms D and its own policies. It followed the appropriate procedures when making its decisions about Ms D’s health and wellbeing priority and I cannot therefore criticise it.
22. The Council also adhered to the correct process when assessing whether Ms D was eligible for overcrowding points. Under the allocations policy Ms D was not eligible for overcrowding points because she was classed as lacking one bedspace.
23. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether a decision was right or wrong. In this case I am satisfied the correct processes were followed.

Did the fault cause an injustice

24. The Council should have completed a risk assessment in December 2022. Whilst this fault is not acceptable, I do not see it resulted in a significant injustice to Ms D. The subsequent risk assessment in 2023 found that Ms D was not in high risk of domestic abuse and her housing priority status did not change.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman