Summary: Miss X complained her current accommodation is unsuitable, due to her medical needs and following an assault outside the property. She said the Council failed to properly consider this when assessing her housing and homelessness applications. We found the Council was at fault for failing to investigate Miss X’s alleged assault at the appropriate time. However, we did not find fault in the Council’s decision making on Miss X’s housing and homelessness applications. The Council agreed to provide a symbolic payment for the avoidable distress Miss X suffered.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained her current accommodation is unsuitable, due to her medical needs and following an assault outside the property. She said the Council failed to properly consider this when assessing her housing and homelessness applications.
2. The situation has caused Miss X distress, and her mental health has declined.

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. 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. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Miss X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Miss 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 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. 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;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

10. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s allocations scheme

11. In order to join the housing register, applicants must have a recognised housing need. This might include:
• People who are homeless.
• People in insanitary or overcrowded housing.
• People needing to move on medical or welfare grounds.
12. The Council places housing applications into priority bands, from Emergency to Band 4.
13. The highest priority is the Emergency Band, which includes people with urgent medical need.
14. Band 1 includes people owed the main homeless duty and have been served a notice to quit their temporary accommodation.
15. Band 2 includes people owed the main homeless duty. It also includes overcrowding for Council or partner registered tenants lacking two or more rooms.
16. Band 3 includes people owed the homeless relief or prevention duty. It also includes overcrowding for Council or partner registered tenants lacking one room.
17. Band 4 includes people who are intentionally homeless and those who are homeless but not in priority need.
18. The Council may award reasonable preference if an applicant, or member of their household, has physical, medical or a mental health condition made worse by where they live. The Council will normally ask a medical advisor to assess this.
19. The Council will cancel a housing application where the circumstances change, such as the applicant no longer being eligible or no longer qualifying.

Homelessness

20. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
21. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them [and anyone who lives with them] to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
22. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

23. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
24. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
25. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
26. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
27. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

What happened

28. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
29. Miss X contacted the Council’s housing solutions team in June 2023. According to the Council, an officer contacted Miss X after assessing she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness.
30. Miss X was assaulted outside her home in June 2024. She emailed the Council about the assault in July. It told her to contact its housing solutions team again.
31. Miss X applied to join the housing register in August 2024. She said her current home was unsuitable due to urgent medical need and overcrowding. Miss X detailed severe depression and anxiety, as well as exposure to mould and damp making the family get sick. Miss X also said she was assaulted outside her home, causing panic attacks and making her mental health worse.
32. The Council rejected Miss X’s application to join the housing register.
33. Miss X asked for a review. She said the Council’s decision was wrong because she was violently assaulted outside her home and did not feel safe living there. The home is also overcrowded.
34. The Council carried out a review but upheld its decision. It said it was satisfied the original decision was correct. It said Miss X was not eligible under overcrowding as she lived in a housing association home not registered with the Council. It also said an independent medical advisor assessed her medical information, but it did not meet the threshold for urgent medical need.
35. Miss X made a homelessness application in September 2024 when her landlord served an eviction notice due to rent arrears.
36. The Council accepted it owed Miss X the homelessness prevention duty on 7 October 2024.
37. Miss X complained about the service she received from the Council in October 2024. She said, following an assault outside her home, she was scared to stay in her property. She also said the property is in a state of disrepair and overcrowded. The Council had rejected her housing application, and she did not know why.
38. Miss X sent the Council a confirmation message from Universal Credit on 11 October 2024 confirming her rent arrears would be paid to the landlord on 25 October and a rent increase backdated.
39. Miss X’s landlord confirmed receiving a rent arrears payment from Universal Credit on 25 October, but said there were still arrears outstanding. They said once they receive the remainder, or nearly the full balance, they would withdraw the eviction notice.
40. The Council called Miss X to check the status of the backdated rent increase from Universal Credit, but Miss X had not received it yet.
41. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint on 5 November 2024. It recognised it should have investigated the reported assault in July 2024 to find out if it was reasonable for Miss X to remain in her home. It should also have decided whether to provide emergency temporary accommodation while it investigated. It should then have given Miss X a decision along with a right of review.
42. The Council also recognised it failed to investigate the assault when Miss X applied to join the housing register in August 2024. It said its rehousing and housing register team should have notified the housing solutions team.
43. The Council said it would ask its housing solutions team to contact Miss X to consider the threat of violence. It would then ask its housing register and rehousing team to reconsider her housing application in light of any relief or prevention duty the Council might owe Miss X. The Council also offered Miss X £250.
44. Miss X was dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint response. She said the Council failed in its housing duties and left her in a position which endangered her safety. She also said the offer of £250 was insufficient as the Council’s failings contributed to her anxiety and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. She asked the Council to add her to housing register and provide temporary accommodation.
45. The Council emailed Universal Credit on 3 December chasing the backdated rent payment.
46. The Council sent its final complaint response on 11 December 2024. It recognised that when Miss X applied to join the housing register in August 2024, it did not pass information about the assault on to its housing solutions team.
47. The Council said Miss X sent a housing advice form on 24 September 2024 after she was given an eviction notice. The Council contacted her on 2 October and accepted the prevention duty on 7 October. The Council said it then worked with Miss X’s landlord to prevent her family becoming homeless by reducing the arrears and asking the landlord to retract the notice. The Council recognised it did not investigate the assault when it accepted the prevention duty.
48. The Council said it would investigate the assault and decide whether Miss X’s home is suitable for her and her family to continue to occupy. It said this would determine whether it had a duty to provide temporary accommodation. It also said this decision would come with a right of review and the decision letter would explain this.
49. The Council said its offer of £250 sufficiently reflected its failings and Miss X had not suffered any financial implications by remaining in the property.
50. The Council telephoned Miss X on 11 December for an update on the assault outside her home. Miss X said the police called to say they were closing the case as they were unable to find any evidence. However, they assured Miss X they would contact the Council to give feedback on whether the property is safe or not.
51. The Council emailed the police on 12 December asking for details of its investigation.
52. The police confirmed there was a report into an alleged assault, but it was closed after initial investigation because there were no reasonable lines of enquiry identified.
53. Miss X emailed the Council in response to her personalised housing plan. She said she approached the Council due to the assault outside her home that is negatively affecting her mental health. The rent arrears is a separate matter. She said she has medical evidence she is not well mentally or physically. Miss X did not agree with the plan as she is not in a condition to look for a private rented home. She said she suffers Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and anxiety, as well as being 8 months pregnant and suffering from sciatica. Miss X assumed the Council would offer her temporary accommodation until it found her a permanent home. She said the Council had not properly considered how vulnerable she is. She also said the Police had contacted her and will email the Council stating she is not safe staying in her current home. Miss X said she felt an easy target, and the assault could happen again to her or her children.
54. Miss X contacted the Council on 7 January 2025 advising she had a court date of 20 January about the eviction notice.
55. The Council contacted Miss X’s landlord. They confirmed Universal Credit were now paying the correct rent, but there are still outstanding arrears.
56. The Council spoke to the landlord again on 14 February 2025. The landlord confirmed they would not proceed with the eviction case if Universal Credit paid the arrears.
57. The Council wrote to Miss X on 23 March 2025 after re-considering her housing application. It placed Miss X in priority Band 3, as it owed her the homeless prevention duty, and confirmed she could bid for properties.
58. Miss X asked her MP to contact the Council on her behalf about her homelessness application and alternative accommodation.
59. The Council responded to Miss X’s MP on 1 April 2025. It said Miss X is a tenant of a housing association and was previously threatened with homelessness due to non-payment of rent. It said Miss X’s caseworker gave guidance and helped manage her rent arrears.
60. The Council also said Miss X previously applied for alternative accommodation citing concerns of violence. Following an assessment, the housing solutions team closed the case due to the absence of verifiable information. And the Council had not received any further reports of incidents of violence. The Council said it did not consider Miss X was currently threatened with homelessness.
61. The Council spoke to Miss X’s landlord on 6 May 2025 who confirmed receiving a payment towards the rent arrears. They said they could set up a repayment plan for the remainder and, if agreed, they would withdraw the eviction proceedings.
62. The Council contacted Miss X’s landlord on 11 May 2025 about the mould issue she reported. The landlord gave contact details for their maintenance team for Miss X to reach out to and confirmed they will do the necessary repairs once Miss X contacts them.
63. On 29 May 2025, Miss X’s landlord confirmed a repayment plan was agreed for the recent rent arrears. The landlord therefore suspended legal action.
64. The Council wrote to Miss X on the same day, ending its homelessness prevention duty. It was satisfied the prevention duty had ended because Miss X’s home is available to her. It said her landlord issued an eviction notice due to rent arrears. However, the Council made a payment to clear the arrears, and a repayment agreement was set up through Miss X’s universal credit. As a result, the landlord suspended the eviction process. That meant Miss X was no longer at risk of homelessness.
65. Miss X had 21 days to ask for a review if she disagreed.
66. The Council cancelled Miss X’s housing application in July 2025. It said she was no longer eligible to join the housing register after the homelessness prevention duty ended.

My investigation

67. The Council told me Miss X’s housing application was initially unsuccessful because she did not meet the criteria to join the housing register. However, once the Council owed Miss X the prevention duty, she became eligible.
68. The Council said it completed checks with the Police in December 2024 to establish if Miss X’s home was safe for her to remain living in after the allegations she made. The Police confirmed they were not taking action as there was insufficient evidence. The Council had no reason to believe the property was unsuitable for the family to remain living in. It therefore concluded the duty to provide interim accommodation did not apply.
69. The Council said its housing solutions officers supported Miss X to ensure a payment plan was set up to pay rent arrears. It also negotiated with the landlord to clear a large amount of arrears to stop eviction proceedings. Miss X is therefore no longer at risk of homelessness.
70. The Council said it has advised staff of the need to refer applicants to housing solutions where a threat of violence is mentioned. It has also reviewed its staff procedures guide to administering the housing register to ensure it refers applicants to the appropriate service regarding threat of homelessness and provision of alternative accommodation on an emergency basis.

Analysis

71. Miss X said her home is overcrowded. Her home has two bedrooms. For the purposes of overcrowding, living rooms and dining rooms also count as bedrooms. At the time of her housing application, Miss X had three children. She also listed her partner on the application form. However, Miss X’s children were all under the age of 10. That means they do not count under the ‘Room Standard’ and only count as half a unit under the ‘Space Standard’ (section 324 to 326, Housing Act 1985). I did not see evidence Miss X’s home is statutorily overcrowded.
72. The Council’s housing allocations scheme awards priority for overcrowding, but only for Council tenants or tenants of registered housing providers. The housing association Miss X rents from is not one of the Council’s registered providers.
73. The Council therefore decided Miss X was not eligible to join the housing register based on overcrowding.
74. The Council considered Miss X’s medical condition, but an independent medical advisor did not consider she qualified for urgent medical need.
75. I did not see evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Miss X’s application to join the housing register in August 2024.
76. The Council allowed Miss X to join its housing register when it accepted the homelessness prevention duty. It later cancelled her application when the homelessness prevention duty ended. This decision was in line with the allocations scheme, and I have not seen evidence of fault.
77. When Miss X told the Council she received an eviction notice over rent arrears, the Council opened a homelessness application. It accepted it owed Miss X the homelessness prevention duty and it worked with her landlord to reduce the rent arrears. When the landlord withdrew the eviction notice the prevention duty ended and Miss X was no longer at risk of homelessness over the rent arrears. The Council demonstrated it supported Miss X over the eviction notice and took the steps we would expect to prevent her becoming homeless. The Council was therefore not at fault in this regard.
78. Miss X considered it was not reasonable for her to continue to live in her home due to the assault she suffered. The Council recognised it had a duty to make enquiries into the assault when Miss X reported it in July 2024, to decide whether she may be homeless.
79. The Council accepted it did not do this, which is fault. Unfortunately, the Council repeated this fault by missing the opportunity to make enquiries into the assault again in August when Miss X applied to join the housing register, and again in September after Miss X received an eviction notice from her landlord.
80. The Council did make enquiries into the assault in December 2024, about five months after Miss X first reported it.
81. The Council’s enquiries established the Police ended their investigation into the assault due to lack of evidence. The Council decided Miss X’s home remained suitable for her to continue to occupy. It did not offer temporary accommodation, and it did not consider the assault meant Miss X was homeless. That was because the Council considered there was a lack of verifiable information about the assault, and Miss X had not made any further reports of violence.
82. I appreciate Miss X asserts the Police told her it was not safe for her to stay in the property. However, I have not seen evidence the Police told the Council Miss X was at risk or that her home was not safe. I have not seen evidence of fault in the Council concluding the assault did not make Miss X homeless or in need of temporary accommodation. The Council’s failure to investigate the assault earlier therefore did not affect the result of its decisions on Miss X’s housing or homelessness applications.
83. However, in the Council’s final complaint response, it said this decision would come with a right of review. I have not seen evidence the Council explained this decision to Miss X in writing along with a right of review as promised. That was fault.

Injustice

84. It took the Council five months to start enquiries into the assault Miss X reported. This is a significant delay causing Miss X avoidable distress at what was already a distressing time.
85. The Council offered Miss X £250 in recognition of this failing. While Miss X did not suffer financially because of the Council’s delay, there was prolonged distress. I am also mindful of the fact Miss X was vulnerable, having suffered an assault whilst being pregnant, and suffering mental health problems. I therefore consider a payment of £500 is suitable remedy for the injustice.
86. The Council told me it advised staff of the need to refer applicants to housing solutions where a threat of violence is mentioned. It also reviewed its staff procedures. I therefore do not make any service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed Action

87. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Miss X for the delay investigating the alleged assault, and for failing to provide a decision letter and right of review about this.
• Pay Miss X £500 to recognise the avoidable distress its faults caused.
• Write to Miss X setting out why it considers her current home is suitable and she is not at risk from violence, giving Miss X a right of review.
88. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

89. I found the Council was at fault for failing to investigate Miss X’s alleged assault at the appropriate time. I did not find fault in the Council’s decision making on Miss X’s housing and homelessness applications.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman