Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing and homelessness applications. We found the Council to be at fault because there were delays in the process and Miss X was given incorrect advice. This caused Miss X distress and uncertainty about her housing situation. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. We did not find fault with the Council’s decision about Miss X’s eligibility to join the housing register.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council handled her homelessness and housing applications. Specifically, she complains about:
1. failure to accept her onto the Council’s housing register, with additional priority, despite being at great risk of danger;
2. poor administration including delay and inconsistent advice; and
3. failure to process her earlier homelessness applications.
2. Miss X says this meant she was forced to recount traumatic experiences numerous times when the Council lost information about her. She also claims the Council’s actions resulted in her and her children living in an unsafe situation for far longer than they should have done. This caused significant distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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.
6.  
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. Miss X raised several areas of dissatisfaction that she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate. My complaint summary above sets out what I consider to be the most significant issues that were considered by the Council during its complaint handling. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.
9. I have not investigated 1(c) above. This is because this part of Miss X’s complaint is late. I will not exercise my discretion on this matter because I see no reason why Miss X did not bring her complaint to the Ombudsman sooner.
10. I have investigated what happened from December 2023, but have referred to earlier events for contextual reasons only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. 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

Relevant law and policy

Homelessness

13. 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.
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to secure that accommodation for them. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Housing allocations

15. 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))

The Council’s allocations scheme (the Scheme)

16. This states:

• an applicant must have lived in the Council area for at least three years to be able to join the housing register. This is referred to as the “local residency rule”.
• the Council may, in exceptional circumstances, and at the Council’s complete discretion, waive this local residency rule. The Council will do so where, in the Council’s opinion, not doing so would result in discrimination/breach of public law duties. This decision will be made by a senior officer. This may include households who are, or have, experienced domestic abuse.

17. The Scheme says that priority between applicants is ordinarily decided using a points scheme. All applicants are awarded points according to an assessment of their circumstances by the Council. Points may be awarded to applicants for the following:

• 1900 points are awarded to applicants deemed to be, “at serious risk of harm”. These points can only be applied for by the Council’s Children’s Services, Adult Services or the police. The referral will be considered by a panel, and points will only be awarded where there is a serious and immediate risk of harm from another to a child or adult in the household, unless an urgent move can be obtained (and other circumstances not relevant to this complaint).
• 100 points are awarded to applicants who can join the housing register because the Council has accepted they are homeless and they are owed the main homelessness duty.

Housing and domestic violence

18. It is not reasonable for a person to continue to live in accommodation if it is probable this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against them. (Housing Act 1996, Section 177)

What happened.

19. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “Analysis” section of this decision statement.

Contextual information

20. Miss X, and her four children, lived in a two-bedroom, upper floor flat in a different London borough to the one that is the subject of this investigation (Borough A). Her landlord was a social housing provider (the Provider).
21. In 2022, Miss X was the victim of a domestic violence incident that resulted in her former partner (Mr D) being convicted of an offence.
22. In 2023, Miss X was informed Mr D’s electronic tag had expired. Miss X was fearful for her family’s safety. She was concerned Mr X posed a significant threat was keen to move away from Borough A. She wanted to move into the Council’s area that was near to her children’s schools and wider support network.

Events I have investigated

23. In December 2023, Miss X made a homelessness application to the Council. She was offered temporary hotel-style accommodation in recognition of the potential risk posed by Mr D.
24. Miss X explained she preferred to remain at her current address and apply to join the Council’s housing register instead. She had read the Scheme and believed she was entitled to join the housing register with 1900 priority points because she was at serious risk of harm from Mr D. Alternatively, she was willing to participate in house swap.
25. The Council agreed to:

• discuss a possible house swap with the Provider; and
• attempt to find non-hotel style temporary accommodation.

26. Miss X was told to call contact the Council immediately if there was an emergency and she would be moved straight away.
27. The following month, the Council attended a multi-agency meeting held in Borough A about potential risk to Miss X from her Mr D. Shortly afterwards, Miss X contacted the Council. She was told temporary accommodation may be available the following month. Miss X said she could wait until then to move.
28. In March 2024, the Council advised Miss X that the temporary accommodation was no longer available. She was offered a hotel instead. Miss X again refused this option, repeating her preference for a home swap.
29. During the next four months, discussions took place between the Council, Borough A and the Provider. In July 2024, the Council told Miss X:

• she had to join Borough A’s housing register to gain extra priority points;.
• she was not eligible to join the Council’s housing register because she did not satisfy the residency requirement of three years;
• she was still able to progress a homelessness application with the Council and would be eligible for temporary accommodation, but it would be out of area;
• if she accepted this accommodation, she would have to give up her tenancy in Borough A; and
• she could be accepted onto the Council’s housing register because of her homelessness, with priority 100 points.

30. Miss X made a formal complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept her onto the housing register. She also complained about poor communication and delay. She referred to legislation that was intended to support victims of domestic violence, that she believed had been disregarded by Council officers.
31. In response, the Council accepted it was at fault because:

• Miss X was incorrectly advised on one occasion to withdraw her homelessness application and apply to join the housing register. Instead, she should have been told to apply to join Borough A’s housing register; and
• the Council took too long to act when Miss X contacted the Council in late 2023.

32. By way of remedy, the Council agreed to consider her case at the next housing panel (the Panel). The Panel would decide whether to exercise its discretion to allow her onto the register with additional priority points.
33. In September 2024, the Panel decided Miss X was not at serious risk of harm. This meant she was ineligible to join the housing register.
34. Miss X requested a review of this decision.
35. In response, the Council explained:

• it accepted her homelessness application;
• there was no evidence of Mr D posing a current risk to Miss X; and
• it was Miss X’s choice to access support in the Council’s area (as opposed to Borough A).

36. Disappointed by this outcome, Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. Since doing so, Miss X moved alternative, settled accommodation facilitated by the Provider.

Analysis

Application to join the housing register

37. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We 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.
38. Under the Council’s Scheme, an applicant can only join the housing register if they satisfy certain criteria. I understand Miss X believes the Council disregarded government guidance about how victims of domestic violence should be treated.
39. In this case, the Council determined Miss X could join its register based only on her homelessness. The Panel determined her circumstances, including the risk posed by Mr D did not warrant it making an exception to its residency rule. Miss X was provided with an explanation for this decision when she requested a review.
40. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
41. It is therefore not my role to determine whether the Council should have reached a different decision about Miss X’s eligibility to join the register. I am satisfied the correct process was followed, and the Council had due regard to the relevant guidance.
42. On this basis I do not find the Council was not at fault for rejecting Miss X’s application to join its register based on serious risk of harm.

The Council’s handling of Miss X’s request for housing assistance

43. I am satisfied the Council took far too long to make this decision, and in the meantime gave Miss X inconsistent and confusing advice.
44. The records show Miss X told the Council in December 2023 that she believed she was entitled to join the register with 1900 points or participate in a house swap. It was not until July 2024 that she was told she was ineligible to join the register. I see no reason why Miss X was not told this sooner. This would have enabled Miss X to have challenged this decision, as she did.
45. The Council also said it would discuss her situation with the Provider about a possible house swap. Again, it took several months to clarify this was unlikely due to limited supply in the Provider’s housing stock. Miss X was also given incorrect advice about giving up her current tenancy.
46. Overall, I find there was fault with the Council’s handling of Miss X’s request for housing support. This caused Miss X distress and uncertainly over several months. She was also put in the position where she had to recall distressing events when trying to explain her position to the Council. This was avoidable, had the Council been clear from the outset about the residency criteria. This injustice requires a remedy.
47. However, I cannot determine with any degree of certainty how this fault directly impacted on Miss X’s housing situation. The Council made prompt and regular offers of temporary accommodation in response to her feeling unsafe. Miss X chose to stay where she was because she had an understandable preference for permanent housing.
48. Since bring her complaint to us, Miss X has moved to settled accommodation. I cannot say whether this would have happened sooner because it is likely this depended on supply of suitable housing and Miss X’s specific housing needs.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. The Council has agreed to take the following action within six weeks from the date of my final decision.
1. Apologise in writing to Miss X.
2. Pay Miss X £300 as a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty she experienced due to the Council’s handling of her request for housing support.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I found the Council to be at fault. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the personal injustice to Miss X. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman