Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to follow its housing allocation policy as it refused to make a direct offer of housing to her despite a social worker recommendation. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council has failed to follow its housing allocation policy as it has refused to make a direct offer of housing to her despite a social worker recommending she should be urgently rehoused. Miss X says because of the Council’s fault she has lived with the risk of domestic abuse for longer than necessary which has affected her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. 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))
8. 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))

9. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised.
10. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application and/or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
11. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Key events

12. Miss X applied to join the Council’s Housing Register in August 2024 from privately rented accommodation with her daughter.
13. The Council wrote to Miss X in September with its decision she had no identified housing need and did not qualify to join the Housing Register in accordance with its Social Housing Allocation Policy. The Council explained Miss X had no demonstrable housing need as she was applying for a two bedroom property and was considered adequately housed in her current two bedroom property. The Council’s letter set out how to apply on medical grounds and what to do if her circumstances changed and she was at risk of becoming homeless. The Council also set out Miss X’s right to request a review of the decision.
14. The Council referred Miss X’s Housing Register application to its Hardship Panel in November to assess whether she had priority on hardship grounds. The Council wrote to Miss X at the end of November to say the Hardship Panel had considered all the information contained on her file and also whether there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Miss X or a member of her household was experiencing serious hardship because of a combination of different factors which made the need for re-housing more urgent than when considered separately. The Council set out the Panel decision was that she did not meet the criteria for social housing which meant her application would be closed as the Council did not maintain a housing waiting list for those households who were considered to have no identified housing need. The Council set out how to seek a review of the decision.
15. Miss X provided a copy of a letter from her social worker in February 2025. This was a letter of support for Miss X to be urgently rehoused in a safe and secure environment and that a stable home would help support the safety and well-being of the family.
16. Following receipt of this information, the Council wrote to Miss X at the end of February with its decision to grant priority on welfare grounds. The Council confirmed Miss X was placed in Band B from 2 August 2024 with an enhanced Band A from the same date due to the length of her residence in the Borough. The enhanced priority would only apply to properties advertised on the relevant website within the Borough. The Council set out how to seek a review of the decision.
17. Miss X complained to the Council in March to seek urgent rehousing. Miss X explained she had suffered domestic abuse and was being threatened by her former partner and was pregnant. Miss X stated she had provided medical evidence and a letter from her social worker and asked why she had not been made a direct offer under the new allocation policy.
18. The Council provided a response to Miss X’s complaint at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure in March. The Council confirmed it had not implemented the new allocation policy and so was following the existing policy. The Council explained that neither policy had a criterion to make a direct nomination to applicants fleeing domestic abuse who lived in private rented accommodation. This was because tenants in the private sector did not have a secure tenancy and so could move to alternative private rented accommodation without losing the security of their tenure. The Council noted such applicants were registered as Management Transfer or Reciprocal Agreement and the relevant section of the policy applied to Council or Housing Association tenants only. The Council noted Miss X had applied to its Homeless Prevention Team and if she did not feel safe at any time at her current accommodation, she should contact her case officer who could help her with a refuge placement or alternative accommodation in the private sector. The Council confirmed it had taken Miss X’s circumstances into account and she had been awarded the highest band that could be awarded but the Council could not use the discretion available to directly nominate her for a two-bedroom social housing property as this would not be in accordance with its allocations policy.
19. Miss X contacted the Council in March to escalate her complaint. She referred to the Council’s allocation policy and disputed this applied to social housing tenants only. Miss X explained she could not afford to move to a new private rented property due to increased rents and her mental health meant she would not cope in a refuge.
20. The Council responded to Miss X at Stage 2 of its complaint procedure in April. The Council noted Miss X had been registered for a two-bedroom property on medical hardship grounds based on supporting letters from professionals. The Council had taken Miss X’s mental health and threat of domestic abuse from her former partner as key factors in reaching this decision. The Council noted applicants registered due to medical reasons including mental health did not meet the direct nomination criteria and it could not make an exception in Miss X’s case. The Council explained it could help Miss X under homeless legislation if she was at risk of domestic abuse from her former partner including temporary accommodation outside the Borough for safety and provided details. The Council also confirmed that non-affordability of private rent was not a criterion for social housing registration or direct nomination. The Council noted Miss X had been advised that management transfers and reciprocal agreements applied to social housing tenants to preserve their secure tenancy in emergencies. For private tenants needing urgent relocation, alternative private sector accommodation could be found more quickly. The Council confirmed it could not authorise a direct nomination based on Miss X’s circumstances and did not uphold her complaint.
21. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman. She highlighted section 6 of the Council’s Allocation Policy which states that in certain specified cases, an allocation may be made outside of the choice based lettings scheme. These circumstances included “where there is a recommendation from police, social services or other professional agencies for a type of accommodation to meet an individual need.”
22. In responding to the Ombudsman, the Council confirmed section 6 above only applies to social housing tenants and highlighted section 13.6 of its Allocations Policy which deals with management transfers. This states that “A management transfer will be considered for an existing social tenant where there is demonstrable evidence to support imminent personal risk to the tenant or their family as a result of violence or harassment if they remain in the property. They will be made one suitable direct offer of accommodation. The size of the accommodation will be the same as their previous tenancy.”
23. The Council explained the reason that this is offered to social housing tenants is because the Council does not want social housing tenants to be disadvantaged if they are suffering from domestic abuse by having to give up their secure tenancy for the private rented sector. Applicants who live in the private sector, could move to alternative private sector property. There would be no change in their tenure.
24. The Council further noted that Miss X’s social worker had recommended for her to move from her current accommodation and had suggested that a stable home would provide her with the security that she required but applicants could have stability in the private sector, especially as the Council usually secured at least two years fixed contract meaning social housing was not necessarily required. The Council has confirmed Miss X did not meet the direct nomination criterion. The Council says it could not accommodate the social worker’s recommendation as it was not covered in its Social Housing Allocation policy and it must ensure all applicants are treated fairly and equally.

Analysis

25. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on whether the Council should make a direct offer to Miss X. Our role is to consider if the Council has properly made its decision in accordance with its Housing Allocations policy.
26. There is good evidence the Council considered Miss X’s circumstances and the information she provided including the letter from her social worker when reaching its decision she did not meet the criteria set out in its Housing Allocations policy for a direct offer. I note the Council did accept Miss X’s application to join the Housing Register and provided priority backdated to her original application date in August 2024. The Council also advised Miss X about making a homelessness application and the assistance it could offer.
27. Miss X has highlighted section 6 of the Council’s Housing Allocations policy. I note this section sets out particular circumstances where the Council may use its discretion to make an allocation outside of the choice based lettings scheme. It should be noted this is not a requirement to do so.
28. The Council explained in its complaint correspondence with Miss X that such allocations were treated as a Management Transfer and the relevant section of its policy applied to Council or Housing Association tenants only. The Council has provided cogent reasons for this approach.
29. It may have been helpful if the Council had highlighted the relevant section of the policy that applied to Management Transfers when responding to Miss X. However, I do not consider the failure to do so amounts to fault.
30. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decisions in this matter.
31. Although I am satisfied the intention of the Council’s Housing Allocation policy has been applied correctly to Miss X’s circumstances, the Council may wish to consider amending section 6 to better reflect that such allocations are treated as a Management Transfer with a cross reference to the relevant section 13.6 when it next reviews its policy.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman