Summary: Ms B complains the Council has failed to rehouse her and her child. We found the Council was not at fault for failing to make an offer of housing. It has followed its policy and placed Ms B in its highest housing priority band. It has not made an offer due to the shortage of accommodation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Ms B, has been assisted in making the complaint by her mother, Ms X. Ms X complains the Council has failed to rehouse her daughter and grandchild despite repeated requests since 2013. Ms X says Ms B and her child remain at significant risk of harm while they stay in their current accommodation. Ms X believes the Council has breached Ms B and her child’s human rights and has directly discriminated against Ms B on grounds of race and disability. Ms X says the Council’s inaction has left Ms B and her child vulnerable and has exacerbated Ms B’s existing mental health conditions. Ms X says the Council should compensate Ms B for the distress caused by their inaction.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have limited my investigation to events from 2019 onwards, which is immediately prior to Ms B and Ms X’s complaint to us. This is because I am not persuaded that Ms B or Ms X could not have brought their complaints about the Council’s handling since 2013 to us sooner.
3. I have not investigated whether the Council’s actions amounted to race or disability discrimination because Ms B has a legal remedy for this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

8. If we are satisfied with a council’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

9. I have considered the information Ms X has provided in support of her and Ms B’s complaint and the information the Council provided in response to our enquiries.
10. Ms B, Ms 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

Relevant legislation and guidance

11. The Equality Act enables someone to make a claim to the County Court if they believe a public sector body has breached its equality duties. The County Court may award damages.
12. 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))
13. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised.
14. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
15. 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.
16. The Council’s housing allocation scheme has three bands of priority. Band one is for applicants with the highest and most urgent priority. Band two is for applicants with increased priority and band three is for applicants with a moderate need to move. Applicants within each of the bands will be allocated housing in date order, so those waiting the longest will be prioritised when using the choice-based lettings scheme to bid for properties.
17. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
18. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended but only if the applicant agrees in writing. If the applicant wishes to challenge the review decision, or if a council takes more than eight weeks to complete the review, they may appeal on a point of law to the County Court. Councils must notify the applicant in writing of the review decision. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)

What happened

19. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened. This includes events prior to the period of my investigation for context.
20. The Council accepted Ms B as homeless in early February 2012. It placed her in temporary accommodation and in priority band three for permanent housing. The Council’s records say Ms B did not declare any medical conditions in her homelessness application.
21. Ms B’s child was born in July 2012. The Council says it first became aware that Ms B had given birth in September 2014. It asked her for information about her child so it could update its records and review her housing registration. Ms B provided the information about her child to the Council in October 2016.
22. In September 2019, Ms B asked the Council’s Children Social Care Team for help with her housing situation. The allocated Social Worker contacted the Housing Team to highlight the problems Ms B was having with her mental health and difficulties she was having with getting her child to school.
23. On 11 October 2019, Ms B’s MP contacted the Council to raise concerns about her situation. The MP asked the Council to consider moving Ms B and her child as they were experiencing problems with anti-social behaviour by other residents. On 22 October 2019, Ms X contacted the Council to ask it for help with Ms B and her child’s situation. Ms B and Ms X brought complaints to us because they were unhappy with the Council’s inaction.
24. The Council wrote to Ms B on 11 November 2019. It asked her for more information about her situation and for details of the areas Ms B was willing to be moved to. Ms B provided the evidence the Council requested on 18 November 2019. This included information from medical professionals about Ms B’s mental health and from professionals providing Ms B with legal help as a former victim of domestic violence.
25. On 26 November 2019, the Council informed Ms B that it had considered her evidence and decided to increase her housing priority band from three to one (the highest priority). It offered to automate bidding for Ms B to help her with finding a new home.
26. In December 2019, the Council offered Ms B a property which it subsequently withdrew as it was in an area close to her ex-partner (her domestic abuse perpetrator).
27. In January 2020, the Council offered Ms B two further properties. The first did not go ahead because the Housing Association letting the property was unable to obtain the information it needed from Ms B to complete its tenancy assessment. The second property offer was withdrawn because the Housing Association offering it decided Ms B would not be able to afford the running costs. Ms B complained to the Housing Association about this, and it upheld her complaint, awarding her £500 for its error. The property was let to another applicant in the meantime. I understand from the Council that Ms B and her child are still living in the property she wants to move from, while she continues to bid for properties within her priority band.

Analysis

28. I understand Ms B and Ms X’s concern and frustration, but I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council. It considered information as it became available and dealt with review requests within time limits provided in guidance.
29. Ms B has been in band one since November 2019. However, the Council has limited properties available and has allocated them in line with its policy. The delay in offering Ms B a property is not due to any fault by the Council, it is because of a lack of available properties. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council’s handling has been biased or discriminatory against Ms B on any grounds, including race and disability.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman