Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness and housing register applications. The Council was at fault for not properly considering whether Mr X was homeless after he reported domestic abuse, and for a delay in dealing with his housing register application and his request for a review of the housing register decision. The Council should apologise, pay him £150 for the uncertainty and frustration caused, and provide guidance to relevant staff.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing case. He said:
• he asked the Council for housing assistance in June 2021, but was never told the outcome;
• after disclosing domestic abuse, he was referred to the Council’s domestic abuse service but they did not support him;
• the Council delayed dealing with his housing register application and he has not been awarded the correct priority band; and
• the Council wrongly disclosed personal information to a third party.
2. Mr X said these failings, and particularly the data breach, caused him significant distress, and he remains living in accommodation in which he does not feel safe.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have not investigated the complaint about the disclosure of personal information to a third party. We would normally expect a complainant to refer complaints about data breaches to the Information Commissioner, which Mr X has done.
4. When I spoke to Mr X he said he wanted the Council to pay him more than the £250 it had offered to remedy the distress caused by the data breach. I am not able to recommend the Council makes a payment to remedy his distress because Parliament did not give the Information Commissioner the power to do that, and it is therefore, not appropriate for me to do so. Since I am not able to achieve a worthwhile outcome, I have not considered this further.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
8. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
9. 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

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered:
• the information Mr X provided;
• the information the Council provided in response to our enquiries;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
11. Mr 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 law and guidance

Homelessness

12. Section 179 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.
13. 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) 
14. A person who has accommodation is to be treated as homeless where it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy that accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 6.4)
15. Where a council is satisfied a person is homeless and eligible for support, it has a duty to take reasonable steps to help the person secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. This is the relief duty.
16. Where a council has reason to believe an applicant may be eligible for assistance, homeless and have a priority need, it has an immediate duty under section 188 to provide interim accommodation whilst it makes is enquiries. Having “having reason to believe” is a lower test than “being satisfied”.
17. After completing enquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

Housing register

18. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  Most councils operate a housing register that records details about the applicants waiting for housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
19. This Council’s allocations policy prioritises applicants using three bands: band A is awarded to applicants with the highest needs and band C to those with the lowest need. Within the band, they are prioritised based on the “effective date”, which is usually the date of their application to join the housing register.
20. Band A may be awarded where the applicant needs to move urgently because of a critical medical or welfare need, or critical safeguarding circumstances. It may also be awarded to tenants who have been approved for an emergency transfer due to harassment, hate crime or domestic violence.
21. Band C may be awarded where applicants are living in accommodation where they share facilities with others not part of their household.
22. The Council operates a choice-based letting system, which means applicants can bid for properties of their choice.

Back to top

What happened

Homelessness

23. Mr X approached the Council for assistance in July 2021 after losing his job. He said his accommodation was no longer affordable and debts were building up. He was given advice about applying for benefits to assist with his housing costs and was assisted with the application. The record stated Mr X was not at risk of homelessness for financial reasons.
24. Mr X also said he was a victim of domestic abuse. The Council offered to refer him to it domestic abuse service. Mr X initially declined, but later agreed to this and the referral was made in late July.
25. The record does not show whether the housing officer considered if it was reasonable for Mr X to continue to occupy his accommodation due to any risks associated with the domestic abuse, nor did they make a decision about whether Mr X was homeless at that point. In response to my enquiries, the Council said Mr X did not complete its standard homelessness application form or sign a consent form to enable it to make enquiries. Mr X disputes this. He said he did complete an application and sent the documents the housing officer asked him to provide.
26. In August, Mr X was assessed by the domestic abuse service. He said he had separated from his partner but there was ongoing emotional abuse, and he was afraid of further violence. The records show the support worker offered to refer him to a refuge or sanctuary scheme or for legal advice, but Mr X declined these. Mr X said he did not want assistance to report the domestic abuse to the police. Mr X agreed to a referral to a specialist organisation, organisation B, for counselling support. The record stated the support worker told him they would report back to the Council and that, as there was nothing further they could offer, they would close the case.
27. Mr X disputes this account. He said he did not refuse support and he had asked the support worker to confirm the information in writing, but they did not do so. There is no record to confirm he asked for information in writing. In response to my enquiries, the Council said its domestic abuse service would confirm information in writing and send copies of their assessment on request but did not do this routinely due to the risks if emails were accessed by perpetrators.
28. In October 2021, Mr X reported that he did not feel safe in his accommodation due to the trauma he had experienced there. He asked for a further referral to the domestic abuse service. The domestic abuse service said it could not carry out a further assessment because there were no new facts or information, and because Mr X was now working with organisation B. However, it said it was willing to talk to Mr X and revisit the options discussed previously.
29. Unfortunately, the Council initially sent the email asking about a further referral to a third party. The third party immediately contacted the Council to point out the mistake and agreed to delete the email. The Council told Mr X what had happened, following which Mr X complained. He said the breach had caused him significant distress.
30. There is no record the Council considered whether it was reasonable for Mr X to continue to occupy his current accommodation in light of the further information he provided in October 2021. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said neither the officer dealing with the case, not their manager work for it now so it could not ask them to explain what happened, but they may have got distracted by the complaints from Mr X. The Council said it accepted should have taken steps to progress the case and either made a homelessness decision or decided to treat it as an “advice only” case. Instead, the case was left in limbo.
31. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said it would contact Mr X to discuss his current situation and either progress the case or issue a decision. It contacted Mr X in early November 2022 to carry out a telephone assessment, following which it wrote to him with its decision. It decided Mr X was not homeless and set out its reasons for concluding it was reasonable for him to continue to occupy his accommodation. It explained he could ask for a review within 21 days, but it did not receive a request for a review.

Housing register application

32. In December 2021 Mr X submitted an online application to the housing register. The Council rejected this in April 2022, on the basis it was not completed correctly.
33. The Council accepts there was a delay in considering the application, which it said was due to a backlog after implementing the online application process. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had made significant progress in reducing the backlog and had recruited temporary staff to address the outstanding applications.
34. In July 2022, after Mr X had made a stage 2 complaint, an officer assisted him to complete the application. The Council accepted the application and awarded band C, with a priority date of December 2021, which is when Mr X initially made an application.
35. Mr X told us he had emailed the Council to say he considered he should be in band A. At the time the Council responded to my enquiries, it had not yet carried out a review of its decision, due to the backlog mentioned above.
36. In early January 2022, it provided evidence it carried out a review and wrote to Mr X with its decision on 9 November 2022. It upheld the original decision but provided a health assessment form for Mr X to complete if he wanted it to consider if he was eligible for medical priority. At this point, it was waiting for Mr X to provide further information so it could assess his position on health grounds.

Back to top

My findings

Homelessness

37. The records indicate Mr X initially told the Council he was at risk of homelessness for financial reasons. The Council assisted him to claim appropriate benefits and decided he was not at risk of homelessness on financial grounds.
38. If that was the extent of the enquiry it would have been appropriate for the Council to treat the matter as an advice request. However, Mr X also reported he had suffered domestic abuse. The Council referred him to its domestic abuse service, which was appropriate. But there is no record to show it considered whether Mr X was homeless because, although he had accommodation, it was not reasonable for him to continue to live there. It did not explore this with Mr X either when he first asked for assistance in July, on receiving the assessment information from the domestic abuse service in August, nor when Mr X told it he still did not feel safe in his accommodation in October 2021. The failure to properly consider whether he was homeless, and either accept a relief duty or issue a decision that he was not homeless, was fault.
39. I cannot say, even on balance, whether the Council would have decided he was homeless, and I note that it has recently decided he is not homeless. But Mr X is left with uncertainty about whether he would have received housing support but for the fault.

Domestic abuse service

40. The domestic abuse service records indicate it offered some support, which Mr X declined, and offered to make a referral to organisation B, which he accepted, and which it made. There is no record that Mr X asked it to send information in writing, and the Council has explained why it would not do this unless there was a specific request. Although Mr X does not feel the domestic abuse service helped him, the records do not indicate any fault.

Housing register application

41. Mr X made an online application to the Council’s housing register in December 2021. The Council accepted there was a delay in assessing Mr X’s housing register application between December 2021 and April 2022, which was fault for which it has already apologised.
42. When it accepted the application in July 2022, it awarded a priority date of December 2021, which means Mr X was not adversely affected by the delay. Although Mr X suffered some uncertainty during this period, I am satisfied an apology is a sufficient remedy for this.
43. Mr X was unhappy with the priority band the Council awarded and asked it to review its decision. There was a delay in carrying out the review, for which the Council has apologised, but it upheld its original decision. It has said it will consider whether Mr X is eligible for medical priority once Mr X has provided appropriate information and evidence.
44. The Council has explained the steps it has taken to deal with the processing delays in relation to new applications and review requests, and I am satisfied that no further recommendations are needed to address this.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty caused by its failure to properly consider whether Mr X was homeless. It will pay him £150 to remedy that uncertainty, and the frustration caused by the delay in considering his housing register application and review request.
46. Within three months of the final decision, the Council will provide guidance or training to relevant staff about the need to:
• consider whether an applicant may be homeless when they report domestic abuse;
• clearly record how they have considered this, and
• issue decisions in writing in line with relevant law and guidance.
47. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault causing injustice. I have recommended action to remedy the injustice caused and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman