Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to meet its duties to them when they asked to be moved because of risk of harm and it assigned them the wrong housing band. We found there was fault in how the Council handled Mr and Mrs X’s homelessness application which caused them frustration and uncertainty. The Council should apologise to Mr and Mrs X and issue reminders to its staff.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council gave them the wrong priority on its housing allocation register following their homelessness application in September 2023.
2. Because of this Mr and Mrs X say they remain at risk of serious harm. Mr and Mrs X want the Council to move them to band A and allow them to bid for those properties.

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
6. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. 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

8. I considered:
• information provided by Mr and Mrs X;
• relevant law and guidance; and
• the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Jurisdiction and Guidance on Remedies.
9. Mr and Mrs X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

10. 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))
11. 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; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

12. The Council’s allocation policy says that it would place an application in band A if the applicant or a member of the household was at serious risk of harm (physical or emotional) resulting from violence or threats of violence. The policy also says this would be verified by the police and/or other agencies as necessary.
13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their application, including decisions about their housing priority.

The relief duty and interim accommodation

14. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
15. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
16. Examples of applicants in priority need include people with dependent children, pregnant women, people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability, and victims of domestic abuse.
17. The relief duty ends when the applicant accepts or refuses an offer of accommodation which is suitable and likely to be available for at least 6 months, or, failing this, if 56 days have passed.

Review and appeal rights for homeless applicants

18. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage; and
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.
19. Councils must complete reviews within eight weeks of the date of the review request, for reviews about:
• eligibility for assistance; and
• decisions that an applicant is not in priority need.
20. Councils must advise applicants of their right to appeal the outcome of the review to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

What happened

21. Mr and Mrs X have been on the Council’s allocation list in band B since 2022 because they are overcrowded.
22. Mrs X approached the Council in early August 2023. She said they needed to move because they were at serious risk of harm. Mrs X said she had been assaulted by a neighbour in July 2023. As evidence, there were two police letters confirming risk of harm. Two weeks later (18 August 2023) the Council accepted it owed the family a relief duty. The Council’s records show that at this time, their homelessness officer considered it was not reasonable for them to remain in their property. This view was supported by the police and the children’s social workers.
23. The Council made enquiries with her landlord, a housing association. The landlord told the Council it had no open complaints from Mr and Mrs X about issues with the neighbour and in the past it had advised both Mrs X and her neighbour to stay away from each other. Following this the Council told Mrs X that it did not have enough evidence to decide she was at risk of harm, and her homelessness officer told her they would close her homelessness application.
24. The Council’s notes show that a supervisor asked Mrs X’s homelessness officer to get information from the police and the family’s social worker before deciding to close her homelessness application.
25. The Council’s records show the homelessness officer did not make a request for information from the police at this time.
26. In November 2023 Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council. They said that they were in the wrong band and were left at risk for weeks despite providing evidence of this. Additionally, they said they expected the Council to respond to their homelessness application sooner and only wished to auto bid for properties in band A, rather than band B.
27. The Council answered Mr and Mrs X’s complaint in mid-November 2023. It said that:
• Mr and Mrs X were in band B under the relief duty;
• Mr and Mrs X were in band B since May 2022 for overcrowding;
• The Council activated the auto bid once it had accepted Mr and Mrs X’s homelessness application, which is a standard Council practise to ensure homeless applicants are housed as soon as possible;
• The Council had not received any evidence from the police following the assault that happened in July 2023, and because of this the Council was not able to establish the level of risk of harm to Mr and Mrs X; and
• The Council was waiting for another disclosure from the police and the social worker to be able to make a decision about the risk of harm to Mr and Mrs X.
28. Mr and Mrs X were not happy about the Council’s response and asked the Council to consider their complaint further. In early January 2024 the Council acknowledged their request. In the same month the homelessness officer said that they did not have enough supporting evidence to support Mrs X’s request to move to band A. The officer told Mrs X that this was because:
• she failed to provide the latest police report that supported her being at risk of harm from the neighbour;
• it would be faster if Mrs X sent her the evidence rather than the officer requesting it from the police;
• The allocations officer said that they considered Mrs X was experiencing antisocial behaviour rather than being at risk of harm.
29. At the same time, the homelessness officer confirmed they would close Mrs X’s homelessness application. The officer did not send any letters to Mrs X about this.
30. The Council’s notes from February 2024 show the officer was still expecting Mrs X to send the police evidence, and at that point they would be able to reopen Mrs X’s case and make a decision about any potential risk of harm.
31. In early March 2024 the Council closed Mr and Mrs X’s homelessness case because of the lack of risk of harm. They remained in band B for overcrowding.
32. In March Mr and Mrs X asked the Ombudsman to consider their complaint.
33. In late April we asked the Council if it had responded to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint further, but it said that it had not done so. The Council welcomed the opportunity to respond and said it would do it by early May 2024.
34. In its May 2024 complaint response, the Council apologised for the delay in the complaint response. It also agreed with the stage one response findings that their complaint should not be upheld.
35. Mr and Mrs X were not happy about the Council’s response, and they asked the Ombudsman to consider it.
36. We requested information from the Council in June. At the end of the month the Council met with Mrs X to discuss her circumstances. She told the Council that she considered they were still at risk, Mr X had been assaulted by a neighbour in January 2024. She said that she reported problems to the housing association but it did not take any action. Following this meeting, the homelessness officer made an information request to the police.
37. The following month the Council wrote to the Ombudsman and accepted that it:
• did not handle Mr and Mrs X’s case correctly;
• failed to send duty acceptance or discharge letters;
• failed to inform Mr and Mrs X of their review rights; and
• would reopen Mr and Mrs X’s case and review their current circumstances.
38. In mid-July the Council received letters from professionals supporting Mrs X’s request to move but not specifically because of risk of harm. The Council’s homelessness officer submitted another report to request the allocations officer increased Mr and Mrs X’s band to band A.
39. In late September 2024 Mrs X spoke to her homelessness officer again and questioned why she was not allowed to bid for properties in her current area. When the homelessness officer contacted the allocations officer, they said it was because Mrs X was considered at risk of harm, and unless the police confirmed she was not at risk of harm in the area the Council would not allow her to bid for properties within her current area.
40. In October 2024 Mr and Mrs X told us the Council had reopened their case and accepted that they should be in band A because of the risk of harm, however it changed the area in which Mr and Mrs X could bid for properties and Mrs X said that it would take her away from her local connections.
41. Around this time, the Council made another information request to the police about the reports Mrs X said she made to it. The homelessness officer contacted Mrs X again and told her that she requested more information from the police as they did not have enough supporting evidence to support her claim that she is at risk of harm.
42. In November 2024 the Council told Mr and Mrs X that it ended their relief duty and it considered it did not owe them the main duty. Around this time, the Council also issued its response to Mrs X’s complaint and accepted it was at fault for the delay in making its decision about Mrs X’s homelessness. It apologised and offered to pay her £150 for the avoidable distress.

Analysis

Homelessness

43. In July 2024 the Council accepted that it had not managed Mr and Mrs X’s case appropriately. It failed to send them all the required acceptance and discharge letters. This was fault.
44. This fault resulted in Mr and Mrs X not being aware of their review rights. It is also likely the Council would not have reopened the case had it not been for Mr and Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman.
45. The Council accepted the relief duty. This means it was satisfied Mr and Mrs X were homeless. There is no evidence the Council considered whether it was reasonable for the family to stay in the property while homeless. Failure to do so was fault. Mr and Mrs X lived with their dependent children; this means they were in priority need. The Council should have offered them interim accommodation. There is no evidence it did so. This was fault.
46. The duty to make inquiries and the burden of proof is on the Council. Instead, the Council told Mrs X she needed to provide more evidence from the police. This was fault.
47. The records show the Council decided to seek more information from the Police and social services, but it failed to do so for five months, This is fault.
48. The Council accepted the relief duty in August 2023. It should have decided whether it owed the main housing duty 56 days later. The evidence shows the Council thought it needed more information to make a decision. The Code says it should take no more than an extra two weeks to do so. So, the Council should have decided whether it owed the main housing duty by November 2023 at the latest. It did not make this decision until a year later. This delay was fault. It delayed Mr and Mrs X’s access to their review rights and caused avoidable distress, confusion, and frustration.
49. Mr and Mrs X had a right to review of the Council’s decision it did not owe them the main housing duty. Following this they could also appeal to the County Court. It was reasonable for them to use this statutory right if they disagreed with the Council’s decision.

Allocations

50. Mr and Mrs X told us they should have been in band A because of the risk of harm from their neighbours.
51. The Council told us that it had never awarded Band A to Mrs and Mrs X because it was unable to decide if there were at risk of harm because of the lack of police evidence.
52. We consider the Council was at fault for the delay in deciding if Mr and Mrs X were at risk of harm in a timely manner.
53. The Council’s case notes show there were letters from police referring to risk of harm attached to Mr and Mrs X’s requests initially in 2023, but by the time the Council considered the information in September 2024, the Council referred to it as “dated”. Had the Council made the decision sooner, it is likely it could have relied on the police information it had on file.
54. The Council said it could not decide if Mr and Mrs X were at risk of harm because it had not received information back from the police. We consider this to be fault. This is because:
• Mr and Mrs X did submit evidence from the police when they initially approached the Council in summer 2023;
• the Council’s allocation policy says that it can decide if somebody is at risk of harm based on information from the police, or other relevant agencies.
55. The Council should have made a decision, issued it to Mrs X and allow her to review it or provide more information, if this is what the Council needed.
56. However, in September 2024 the Council told Mrs X that she could not bid for properties in her area because it considered she was at risk of harm. The Council’s notes show that it wanted confirmation from the police that she could be rehoused in the same area before deciding as it considered she was at risk of harm from the neighbours.
57. This contradicts the Council’s position that it needed evidence from the police to decide she was at risk. This caused Mrs X avoidable confusion. It demonstrates the inconsistent and inadequate handling evident throughout the case.
58. Despite this, we cannot say, even on balance, if the Council would have awarded band A to Mrs X in September 2024. This is because it is possible that if it had acted without fault, it would have offered interim accommodation to Mrs X, which would have removed the risk, and she would have remained in band B.
59. Additionally, we cannot say, even on balance, that Mrs X would have remained in band A until today. It would appear there were no recent incidents with Mrs X’s neighbour, and she is not pursuing a review of the Council’s homelessness decision, which could suggest she does not feel at risk currently and therefore does not qualify for band A.
60. However, the Council’s fault caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty about what would have happened, had the Council acted without fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

61. Within one month of the date of the final decision statement, the Council will:
• apologise to Mr and Mrs X for its failure to promptly decide if it considered them at risk of harm form their neighbours and the distress and frustration this has caused them. The Council should refer to our guidance on making an effective apology;
• issue a decision to Mrs X showing its reasons for the band the Council assigned to her;
• pay Mr and Mrs X £500 to recognise the avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty the Council’s actions caused them; and
• share this case with its homelessness and allocations officers to emphasise the importance of examining the evidence submitted promptly and making timely decisions.
62. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

We found the Council was at fault for how it handled Mr and Mrs X’s case. The Council accepted our recommendations and our investigation is now complete.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman