Summary: After the Council disclosed Ms X’s address to a third party, putting her at risk of harm, it delayed information sharing and failed to properly consider whether it owed Ms X a homelessness duty. In recognition of the uncertainty Ms X has been caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £400 and take action to improve its services. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to write off Ms X’s rent arrears, or its decision she was not eligible to join the housing register.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. provided her with social housing which was in a poor condition;
2. disclosed her address to a perpetrator of domestic abuse, putting her and her children at risk in their home; and
3. failed to make sufficient efforts to help her move to alternative accommodation after her address was disclosed, including by writing off her rent arrears so she could apply for properties on the housing register.
2. Ms X said the Council’s actions have caused her significant distress, uncertainty and financial loss.

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. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) can act as a tribunal when considering data breaches. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
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

What I have and have not investigated

Complaint 1a

8. In Ms X’s complaints to the Council she complained about the condition of Property B. For the reasons set out in paragraph five, we cannot investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint.

Complaints 1b and 1c

9. The Council reported its breach of Ms X’s personal data to the ICO and the ICO concluded there had been a data breach. The ICO took no further action as it was satisfied with the steps the Council had already taken to mitigate the impact of the breach. This included asking for the information to be deleted and making service improvements so a similar breach did not occur in future.
10. Ms X could have complained to the ICO herself about the data breach and as outlined in paragraph six, the ICO can act as a tribunal when considering data breaches. However I do not consider it was reasonable for Ms X to do this as it was not an alternative, relevant route for her complaint.
11. Ms X’s complaint was about the impact of the data breach on her housing situation and the actions she felt the Council should have taken in response, including writing off her rent arrears. The ICO’s role does not extend to considering the housing implications of a data breach in this way. Instead Ms X appropriately complained to the Council about the issues with her housing and so I have investigated complaints 1b and 1c.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. I considered all comments made on draft decisions before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

14. 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)
15. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them or anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
16. It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to domestic abuse against them or a member of their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 21.20)
17. 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)

Allocations

18. 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))
19. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
20. North Tyneside Council’s allocations policy says an applicant may be ineligible for housing through its allocations scheme if they are in rent arrears. It says applicants will be advised of this decision in writing and informed of the conditions they must meet before they can re-apply for the scheme.

Child protection

21. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.

MARAC

22. A MARAC is a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference where professionals meet to share information about people at significant risk of domestic abuse and decide on plans for their safety. Housing, health, police and other professionals may attend.

What happened

Background

23. Ms X experienced domestic abuse, so the Council moved her and her children from their home, Property A, to an alternative property, Property B. The Council provided Ms X with Property B as a direct let.
24. Ms X’s family had been subject to child protection proceedings for several months and these continued while the family moved into Property B.

Key events

25. Ms X accepted Property B but had concerns about its condition. As a result, Ms X decided to carry out works to Property B before her family moved in. Ms X did not end her tenancy at Property A while she carried out these works.
26. After Ms X’s tenancy began at Property B and not long after she moved in, children’s services accidentally disclosed Ms X’s new address to the alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse. It did this by sending out a document which was not properly redacted.
27. Once children’s services became aware of the data breach, it reported its own breach to the ICO. Children’s services then attempted to contact Ms X multiple times, including by attending the property. However Ms X stopped engaging with children’s services at this time. The Council continued its ongoing parenting and risk assessments in relation to the family under its child protection duties.
28. Children’s services informed the Council’s housing department about the data breach two weeks after it happened. Once the housing team became aware, a housing officer contacted Ms X and met with her at her home. The case notes from this date record that the housing officer discussed whether Ms X had any contact with the perpetrator and offered to put in place some measures that may make her home safer. Ms X declined this.
29. The ICO investigated the data breach by children’s services. It concluded it was satisfied with the steps the Council had taken to mitigate the impact of the breach and to prevent recurrence of the breach in future, so decided to take no further action.
30. In the meantime, Ms X had accrued rent arrears due to owing rent on the two properties at once. Ms X said she could not afford to pay these arrears and complained to the Council. She said as the Council had now disclosed her address and she needed to move again, her arrears from her previous property should be written off, as she could not obtain housing through the Council’s allocations scheme while in arrears. The Council’s housing department and children’s services department responded to Ms X’s complaints separately.
31. Children’s services accepted fault and apologised to Ms X and her children for the data breach. It set out several service improvements it had made including renewed training for staff, changes made to its case recording systems and learning from her case shared across all social work teams.
32. The Council’s housing department did not uphold Ms X’s complaints. It said she did not meet the criteria set out in its allocations policy to bid for properties on its housing register due to the arrears owed. It told her what steps she could take to become eligible to bid for properties, which included making a plan to pay down the arrears. It said in the meantime it was satisfied she was suitably housed at Property B.
33. Before the housing department sent its final complaint response, a MARAC was held in relation to Ms X and the perpetrator of domestic abuse. The MARAC recommended various safety planning actions but did not make any recommendations regarding Ms X’s housing.
34. As part of our enquiries, we asked the Council if its housing department considered whether it owed Ms X a homelessness duty at any point since the perpetrator became aware of her new address.
35. The Council said it did not consider whether it owed Ms X a homelessness duty, as Ms X had not presented as homeless. It said it offered to put in place measures to make Ms X’s home safer when a housing officer visited her at her home and as this was declined, no further support was provided.

My findings – Children’s services

Data breach and poor communication

36. The Council’s children’s services team took two weeks to inform the Council’s housing department of the accidental disclosure of Ms X’s address. This delay in sharing information with key professionals was fault and if not for the fault, Ms X may have been offered additional support sooner. The uncertainty caused is an injustice to her. I have recommended a service improvement to prevent recurrence of this fault in future.

My findings – Housing

Failure to consider homelessness duties

37. The Council’s housing department failed to consider whether it owed Ms X a homelessness duty once it became aware that an alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse now knew her address.
38. The Council said it offered some measures that may make her home safer but it did not consider whether she was owed a homelessness duty because Ms X did not present as homeless. Homelessness applications do not need to be made in a particular format. Ms X told the Council she was at risk in her home, wanted to move and could not obtain alternative accommodation through the allocations scheme due to her arrears. This was sufficient for the Council to consider whether it owed Ms X any homelessness duties but it failed to consider this.
39. We cannot know, if not for the fault, whether the Council would have decided it owed Ms X a homelessness duty or whether Ms X would have been moved to an alternative property. This is for several reasons. The Council may have considered the question and decided Ms X was not homeless. It may have offered Ms X accommodation that she declined, or the Council and Ms X may have concluded the property could be made safe through other means. Assessing what may have happened if not for the fault is further complicated by the fact that a later MARAC report and several subsequent children’s services assessments did not conclude Ms X needed to be moved due to the risk from the alleged perpetrator.
40. However the Council failed to consider whether it owed Ms X a homelessness duty at a critical time. This was fault and caused further avoidable uncertainty to Ms X.

Housing register

41. The Council decided Ms X could not join its housing register and bid for alternative properties because of her rent arrears. It informed Ms X of its decision and informed her of the steps she would need to take to become eligible to join the housing register in future. The Council acted in line with its allocations policy and we therefore should not be critical of it. The Council was not at fault.

Rent arrears

42. Ms X fell into rent arrears when her tenancy began at Property B and Ms X did not end her former tenancy. It was Ms X’s responsibility to end her previous tenancy and so there is no evidence to suggest Ms X’s arrears are the fault of the Council. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to write off Ms X’s rent arrears.

Back to top

Action

43. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council should:
1. Demonstrate that it has apologised to Ms X for the avoidable uncertainty it caused her when it delayed sharing information about her data breach and failed to consider whether it owed her a homelessness duty; and
2. Demonstrate that it has paid Ms X £400 to recognise the injustice caused by the faults above.
44. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council should:
1. Demonstrate that its housing team and children’s services team have met to discuss this case and consider how information sharing following data breaches can be improved in future; and
2. Remind all housing staff that homelessness applications do not need to be made in a particular format. If someone contacts the 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 is under a duty to make enquiries into what, if any, homelessness duty it may owe them.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I have found fault causing injustice and the Council has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman