London Borough of Hackney (24 017 197)
Category : Housing > Allocations
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 20 Mar 2025
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove her housing register social priority status, place her in emergency accommodation outside the borough, and the advice it provided about her housing options. Miss X can appeal the housing register decision with the Council, and it is reasonable for her to do this. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision to offer accommodation outside the borough, or the advice it has provided.
The complaint
- Ms X complains the Council removed her housing register social priority status, placed her in temporary accommodation outside the borough, and about the advice provided related to her housing options.
- Ms X wants the Council to offer her suitable housing in her preferred area and to review its policy on housing people outside the borough.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:
- there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
- it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Miss X has a Council tenancy in the borough. On Police advice, Miss X presented to the Council as homeless as her secure tenancy was unsafe. The Council accepted Miss X onto the housing register and provided social priority status. Social priority is applied where people have a Council tenancy but due to specific circumstances, have an urgent need to move. In addition, Miss X was placed in emergency accommodation outside the borough.
- In September 2024, the Council accepted Miss X’s homeless application and that it owed her the main housing duty. Miss X remained in her emergency accommodation awaiting an offer of social housing.
- The Council reviewed Miss X’s social priority. As the Council had accepted her homelessness application and that it owed her the main housing duty, it decided she was no longer eligible for social priority on the housing register. It advised her she had a right to appeal this decision.
- We will not investigate the Council’s decision to remove Ms X’s social priority status. The Council advised Miss X that she had a right to appeal this decision, if she disagreed with it. It is reasonable for Miss X to use this right.
- In its complaint response, the Council explained to Miss X that due to high housing demand and lack of available properties, it will often make offers of housing located outside the borough. Given Ms X’s circumstances at the time and the need for emergency accommodation, it is unlikely we would find fault in this decision. Therefore, we will not investigate this matter.
- The Council has explained to Miss X that moving forward, she will need to consider whether to return to her Council tenancy if safe to do so, or to give up her Council tenancy, remain on the housing register and await a further offer of housing. In its complaint response, it set out the reasons for this decision and the housing options she may wish to consider. The Council appears to have provided appropriate advice to Miss X and, as the Council has accepted Miss X’s homeless application and the main housing duty, it is unlikely we would find fault with its position. It is for Miss X to decide how she wishes to proceed.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has the right to appeal the decision to remove her housing register social priority and there is insufficient evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman