Summary: The Council is at fault as it delayed in taking a homelessness application when Ms X left her property due to domestic violence and delayed in reactivating her housing application. The delays caused significant distress to Ms X as she could not make an informed decision about postponing major surgery and she was housed in unsuitable accommodation for five months longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Ms X and making a total payment of £2000 to her.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:

1. has not provided sufficient help, support and advice and suitable housing since she was locked out of her property by her violent partner, despite it knowing about her serious health problems.

2. failed to provide Ms X with support in claiming housing benefit and has wrongly billed her for rent arrears incurred at the hostel which Ms X considers should be paid by her housing benefit.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have not investigated the Council’s decision to move Ms X to temporary accommodation. This is because the Council was acting in its capacity as Ms X’s landlord. The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints about the actions of the Council in its role as a social landlord.
3. I have investigated how the Council dealt with Ms X homelessness application, how it considered rehousing her under its housing allocations scheme and how it dealt with her housing benefit claim. These matters fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I have:
• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Ms X;
• Discussed the issues with Ms X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Ms X and the Council to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
8. The Council’s housing allocation scheme provides it must give reasonable preference to certain groups when it decides how to allocate housing. The scheme also provides 600 points will be allocated if a person is fleeing domestic violence and needs to move.

What happened

9. Ms X is a Council tenant and held a joint tenancy with her partner. In June 2019 the Council moved Ms X to temporary accommodation as she was fleeing domestic violence. Ms X has said she was homeless and sleeping in her car at this time as her partner had locked her out of their home. The temporary accommodation is a hostel. Ms X considers the hostel to be unsuitable as she required major surgery and it would not be a suitable place for her to recover from the surgery. This is due to lack of adequate cooking and washing facilities and Ms X says it was not clean. Ms X postponed her surgery until late January 2020 which she says has worsened her prognosis.
10. Ms X had a non-molestation order against her partner. She also applied to the court for an occupation order. This is a court order which gives the applicant the right to live in a property. Ms X’s application did not proceed.
11. In late August 2019 the Council made a homelessness referral. A note on the referral states Ms X was made homeless in June 2019 and she now needed to make a homelessness application as her partner was given their property by the courts. Ms X attended a meeting with an officer A, housing officer, for an assessment of her housing. The Council’s records note that the officer informed Ms X of the likely decision and that it would discharge its duty with private rented accommodation. The Council has clarified this meant it would offer private rented accommodation to relieve Ms X’s homelessness. The records note Ms X did not want private rented accommodation and that officer A advised Ms X she needed to pursue her council accommodation and seek legal advice.
12. The Council has said officer A did not advise Ms X on joining the housing register and accessing social housing as he considered Ms X may have enforceable rights as a secure tenant.
13. In response to my enquiries the Council has said its approach when a tenant is fleeing domestic violence is to provide temporary accommodation without the tenant having to apply as homeless. Its neighbourhood housing officers will work with tenants when they are placed in temporary accommodation to resolve their housing issues.
14. In late November 2019 and early January 2020 the Council tried to make an appointment with Ms X to reopen her housing application so she could access social housing. Ms X could not attend the appointments due to ill health. Following a meeting with Ms X in mid January 2020, the Council reopened Ms X’s housing application. It allocated 600 points to Ms X as she has priority due to fleeing domestic violence. The Council also allocated a further 100 points to Ms X.
15. In response to my enquiries, the Council has said the median average points held by applicants who were offered one bedroom properties at the time of Ms X’s complaint was 320 points.
16. Ms X has also been offered support by the Camden Safety Net team.
17. In making her complaint to the Ombudsman, Ms X has said she considers the Council did not offer sufficient support and advice to her about her housing when she was placed in the hostel. As a result she had to live in unsuitable housing and had to postpone her surgery.

Housing benefit

18. Ms X had claimed housing benefit at the address she shared with her former partner. Ms X has said her housing officer told her she would continue to receive housing benefit to pay her rent at the hostel.
19. The Council was notified by the department for work and pensions (DWP) that Ms X had moved from her home address. The Council suspended her housing benefit claim. Following further information from DWP the Council sent a change of address form to Ms X to complete. She returned it approximately two weeks later. The Council awarded housing benefit to Ms X a few days later and backdated it to the date she moved into the hostel which cleared her rent arrears. Ms X is still required to pay the amenity charge of £22.80 per week as her housing benefit does not cover this charge

My assessment

20. On balance, I consider the Council delayed in taking a homelessness application from Ms X and this is fault. The Council’s procedure for tenants fleeing domestic violence is to move them to temporary accommodation without the need for them to make a homelessness application. But the homelessness code of guidance provides councils must take a homeless application if it has reason to believe a person is homeless or threatened with homelessness and this is a low threshold. Ms X could not occupy her property as she was fleeing domestic violence so she appears to have been homeless at this point. So, I consider the Council should have taken a homelessness application and advised Ms X on her housing options at the time it placed Ms X in temporary accommodation in June 2019. The Council did not take a homelessness application until late August 2019 which is a delay of two months.
21. The Council delayed in considering whether Ms X could be rehoused under its housing allocations scheme. Ms X required a move as she was fleeing domestic violence and was suffering from ill health so it is likely she would have been eligible for 700 points in June 2019. However, Ms X was seeking an occupation order at this time so it was appropriate for the Council to wait until the outcome of the application was known before reopening her application. The Council was aware Ms X’s application did not proceed in August 2019. So, it should have reopened Ms X’s application at this time. The Council only considered Ms X could be rehoused under the allocations scheme in late November 2019. This is fault.
22. It is also not clear why officer A considered Ms X had enforceable rights to her council property when he assessed her housing circumstances in August 2019. Ms X had already applied for an occupation order which did not proceed so it is questionable why the Council considered she had enforceable rights at this time. As stated above, the Council should have considered rehousing Ms X under its allocations scheme at this point in time and it missed the opportunity to do so when assessing Ms X’s housing circumstances in August 2019.

Housing benefit

23. I cannot consider whether Ms X’s housing officer gave her sufficient information or support with notifying the housing benefit section that she had moved. This is because the housing officer was assisting Ms X in the Council’s capacity as her landlord. In any event the Council has paid Ms X housing benefit claim at the hostel and backdated her claim to clear her rent arrears.

Injustice to Ms X

24. The Council’s delay in taking a homelessness application from Ms X together with the delay in considering rehousing her under the allocations scheme meant Ms X was not fully aware of her housing options and possible timescale for being rehoused. Had the Council taken a homelessness application, it would have advised Ms X on her housing options, including making an application for bidding, timescales for rehousing and options in the event her application for an occupation order was unsuccessful. It was Ms X’s choice to postpone her surgery. But Ms X could have made a more informed decision about whether she should postpone her surgery as she would have been aware of her housing options and possible timescales
25. On balance, I consider hostel accommodation was unsuitable for Ms X in view of her health. Ms X required major surgery and a hostel was unlikely to provide a suitable environment for Ms X to recover from surgery due to factors including hygiene, noise and access to facilities. The Council’s delay in considering rehousing Ms X under the allocation scheme caused Ms X to live in unsuitable accommodation for five months longer than necessary. Ms X has significantly higher level of points than those offered properties at the time of her complaint. So, on balance, I consider Ms X would have successfully bid or the Council would have made a direct offer within a few weeks of Ms X’s housing application being reopened. Had Ms X been rehoused sooner it is likely she would have been able to proceed with her surgery sooner. The Council should remedy this injustice.

Agreed action

26. The Council will:

1. Send a written apology to Ms X for the distress caused to her by the delay in taking a homelessness application and consequent delay in making her aware of her housing options, delay in reactivating her housing application and for being housed in unsuitable accommodation for five months longer than necessary.
2. Make a payment of £250 to acknowledge the distress caused by the delay in taking a homelessness application and making Ms X aware of her housing options which meant she could have made a more informed decision about her postponing her surgery.
3. Make a payment of £1750 to Ms X to acknowledge she was placed in unsuitable accommodation for five months longer than necessary. This payment is in accordance with our guidance on remedies and is at the higher end of what we usually recommend. This is to acknowledge the significant injustice to Ms X as she required major surgery.

4. Review its procedures to ensure the Council promptly takes a homelessness application when a person can no longer occupy their property due to domestic violence or other reasons and reactivate their housing application if appropriate. The Council should inform the Ombudsman of the action taken to improve its practice in this area

27. The Council should take the action at a) to c) within one month and the action at d) within two months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

28. The Council is at fault as it delayed in taking a homelessness application when Ms X left her property due to domestic violence and delayed in reactivating her housing application. The delays caused significant distress to Ms X as she could not make an informed decision about postponing major surgery and she was housed in unsuitable accommodation for five months longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman