Summary: Mr X complains that the Council reduced his housing priority band as he refused interim accommodation which could not accommodate his dog. The Council is at fault as it did not accept the relief duty when Mr X’s section 21 notice expired and when he disclosed domestic abuse. The Council also did not consider offering interim accommodation which could accommodate his dog. The Council is also at fault as it did not notify Mr X of his right to seek a review of its decision to reduce his housing priority. These faults caused avoidable uncertainty to Mr X and his partner, Ms Y. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice to Mr X and Ms Y by apologising and making a symbolic payment of £300.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council withdrew band one priority from his housing register application as he refused interim accommodation which could not accommodate his therapy dog. Mr X and his partner, Ms Y consider they have lived in a property where they are subjected to domestic abuse for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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.
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have exercised discretion to consider whether there is fault in the Council’s decision to accept the prevention duty to Mr X. This is because as I am satisfied it is not reasonable to expect him to have sought a review of this decision.
7. I have not investigated the Council’s decision to end the prevention duty in 2023. Mr X sought a review of the Council’s decision to end the prevention duty. I therefore consider it is reasonable for him to have exercised his right of appeal to the county court if he was unhappy with the Council’s decision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision.
• Considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

9. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
10. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases.. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. Applicants in priority need include victims of domestic abuse. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
13. Housing authorities will need to be sensitive to the importance of pets to some applicants, particularly elderly people and rough sleepers who may rely on pets for companionship. Although it will not always be possible to make provision for pets, the secretary of state recommends that housing authorities give careful consideration to this aspect for applicants who wish to retain their pet. (Paragraph 17.67, Homelessness Code of Guidance for local authorities)
14. 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))
15. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s allocations scheme

16. The Council places applicants into priority bands according to their housing needs. Applicants who are owed the homelessness prevention or relief duties are placed in band one. Applicants who need to move due to domestic abuse are placed in band two.
17. Paragraph 6.6 of the Council’s allocations scheme provides that applicants can request a review of a number of decisions made by the council. This includes a decision to reduce an applicant’s priority band.
     

What happened

18. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to the consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.

Homelessness application

19. In summer 2022, Mr X and his partner, Ms Y, made a homelessness application as their landlord served a section 21 notice to end their tenancy. The Council accepted the prevention duty and produced a personalised housing plan (PHP) for Mr X and Ms Y. This set out the steps the Council and Mr X and Ms Y would take to prevent their homelessness. The Council’s steps included placing them in band one on the housing register, signposting them to housing providers and the Council’s scheme for assisting with deposits for private rented properties.
20. A few weeks later Mr X and Ms Y notified the Council that they could not stay at their property until the expiry of the section 21 notice due to an incident. The Council’s records show officers advised Mr X that they could offer interim accommodation. But the interim accommodation had a no pet policy so officers told him that he would have to find someone to look after his dog. The Council’s records note Mr X said this would be impossible.
21. Mr X and Ms Y then moved in with a relative. Mr X and Ms Y contacted the Council to request interim accommodation as they were experiencing domestic abuse from the relative. Mr X and Ms Y said they could not move anywhere without their dog who they said was a support dog. The Council’s records note an officer offered interim accommodation to Mr X and Ms Y. The record notes the officer said dogs were not permitted in interim and temporary accommodation. The officer advised Mr X and Ms Y to approach charities to see if they could arrange foster care for their dog. Mr X and Ms Y declined the offer of interim accommodation.
22. Mr X and Ms Y continued to report to the Council that they were experiencing domestic abuse. The Council’s records note that officers again discussed interim accommodation with Mr X and Ms Y. They again declined the offer as they could not take their dog. Mr X and Ms Y also considered they needed long term accommodation due to their mental health conditions.
23. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it offered interim accommodation when Mr X and Ms Y said they could not return to their tenancy as it had reason to believe Mr X and Ms Y may be homeless. This was while it made enquiries of the police and other parties to determine if they could return to their property. The Council has said it was satisfied Mr X and Ms Y could return to their tenancy so it did not consider them to be homeless.
24. The Council’s records show that it extended the prevention duty for Mr X and Ms Y in winter 2022. The section 21 notice had expired by this time. There is no evidence to show the Council considered if Mr X and Ms Y were homeless and whether it owed a different duty to them.
25. In spring 2023, the Council contacted Mr X as it was significantly in excess of 56 days since it accepted the prevention duty. The Council’s record show it discussed interim accommodation again with Mr X but he refused to consider it. The Council ended the prevention duty. Mr X and Ms Y requested a review of this decision. The Council upheld its decision to end the prevention duty and notified Mr X and Ms Y of their right to appeal to the county court.
26. Mr X and Ms Y made a further homelessness application in summer 2023. The Council decided a new application was not triggered. This is because it considered there were no significant material changes in their circumstances. The reasons for the Council’s decision included that Mr X and Ms Y had returned to their relative’s property after being removed by the police and that Adult Social Care had said Mr X was capable of protecting himself. The Council therefore did not consider Mr X and Ms Y to be at risk of domestic abuse.
27. I asked the Council how it considered the requirements of the Homelessness Code of Guidance which provides councils should give careful consideration to whether they can offer interim accommodation which can accommodate pets. The Council said it liaised with its interim accommodation providers but they would not accept pets.

Priority band

28. Mr and Ms Y made an application for the housing register in summer 2022. The Council accepted the application. The Council awarded band one priority to Mr X and Ms Y as it had accepted the prevention duty.
29. The Council reduced Mr X and Ms Y’s priority to band two in spring 2023 when it ended the prevention duty. It placed Mr X and Ms Y in band two due to the risk of domestic abuse. The Council has not provided evidence to show it notified Mr X and Ms Y of its decision to reduce their priority and their right to request a review of its decision.

Analysis

Homelessness application

30. The Council extended the prevention duty in winter 2022. But there is no evidence to show the Council reviewed Mr X and Ms Y’s circumstances and whether the duty owed by the Council had changed. Mr X and Ms Y’s circumstances had changed as the section 21 notice to end their tenancy expired a few weeks earlier. They were also continuing to report domestic abuse from their relative with whom they were staying. So, the Council should have considered if Mr X and Ms Y were now homeless and whether it owed the relief duty. The failure to do so was fault.
31. On balance, I consider the Council would have accepted the relief duty if it had reviewed Mr X and Ms Y’s circumstances and the duty owed. The Council’s records of feedback following the review of the ending of the prevention duty in 2023 suggest they may be homeless due to issues with the relative. Such issues were occurring in late 2022. So, it is likely the Council would have considered Mr X and Ms Y to be homeless and accepted the relief duty had it properly considered this matter in winter 2022.
32. The Council would have needed to consider if it owed the main housing duty when the relief duty ended. I cannot know, even on balance, if the Council would have decided it owed the main housing duty to Mr X and Ms Y. But Mr X and Ms Y would have had the right to seek a review of the Council’s decision whether or not to accept the main housing duty. They were denied this opportunity by the failure of the Council to accept the relief duty.
33. The Council offered interim accommodation to Mr X and Ms Y on a number of occasions, including in winter 2022. The Council has said that officers checked with providers whether they could accept Mr X’s and Ms Y’s dog. There is no evidence to show officers took this action. The Council’s records show it notified Mr X and Ms Y of providers’ no pet policy but there is no evidence to show officers checked with providers whether they would accept Mr X and Ms Y’s dog. There is no evidence to show officers attempted to find other accommodation which may be able to accept the dog. I therefore cannot be satisfied, on balance, that the Council considered whether it could find accommodation which would accept pets in line with the Homelessness Code of Guidance. This is fault.
34. I cannot know if the Council would have found interim accommodation which could have accepted Mr X and Ms Y’s dog. So, I cannot say the failure to accept the relief duty and failure to offer accommodation which could accept pets caused them to be at risk of domestic abuse for longer than necessary. But the Council’s failure to consider if it could find such accommodation will have caused some avoidable uncertainty to Mr X and Ms Y. They cannot know if the Council would have offered interim accommodation they could have accepted. The Council should remedy this injustice.

Priority band

35. There is no evidence to show the Council demoted Mr X and Ms Y from band one to band two because Mr X and Ms Y refused interim accommodation. The Council reduced Mr X and Ms Y’s priority as it ended the prevention duty.
36. The Council did not notify Mr X and Ms Y in writing of its decision to reduce their priority from band one to band two when it ended the prevention duty. The decision to reduce their banding was a consequence of the Council’s decision to end the prevention duty. But it is also a separate decision taken under the Council’s allocations scheme. The Council should therefore have notified Mr X and Ms Y of its decision to reduce their priority and reasons for the decision. It should also have notified them of their right to seek a review of the decision. The failure to do so is fault. As a result, Mr X and Ms Y missed the opportunity to request a review of their priority band. The Council should remedy this injustice.
37. The Council has provided evidence to show it has now amended its template decision letters to include details of an applicant’s right to seek a review of its decision to reduce their priority band.

Consideration of Mr X and Ms Y’s homelessness reapplication

38. The Council’s consideration of Mr X and Ms Y’s reapplication was flawed. The Council relied on Adult Social Care’s view that Mr X could protect himself. But whether or not a person can protect themselves is not included in the statutory definition of domestic abuse so was not a relevant consideration. The records of the officer’s call with Adult Social Care refers to Mr X experiencing domestic abuse and being scared. It is not clear why the Council did not consider the fact that Mr X and Ms Y were removed from the relative’s property as evidence that it was not reasonable for them to occupy the property. I therefore cannot be satisfied that the Council properly considered Mr X and Ms Y’s circumstances when considering their reapplication. This will cause uncertainty to Mr X and Ms Y.
39. The Council has said Mr X and Ms Y did not seek a review of its decision not to accept their reapplication. The Council’s decision letter did not notify them of any review rights. The Council should therefore notify Mr X and Ms Y of their right to seek a review of its decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. That the Council will:
1. Send a written apology to Mr X and Ms Y for the avoidable uncertainty caused by its failure to accept the relief duty, failure to consider if it could offer interim accommodation which could accommodate their dog, for their missed opportunity for the Council to decide if it owed the main housing duty and any review of that decision, for their missed opportunity to seek a review of its decision to reduce their housing priority and for failing to properly consider their circumstances when deciding if it should accept their homelessness reapplication. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £300 to Mr X and Ms Y to acknowledge the avoidable uncertainty caused by the faults identified.
3. Write to Mr X and Ms Y to inform them of their right to request a review of the decision to reduce their priority band and explain how they can seek a review.
4. Write to Mr X and Ms Y to notify them of their right to seek a review of the Council’s decision not to accept a homelessness reapplication. If Mr X and Ms Y do not have the right of review, the Council should reconsider their reapplication request.
5. By training or other means, remind officers that they should review the homelessness duty owed in the event of a change of circumstances to decide if an applicant has become homeless and the Council owes a different duty.
6. Review its procedures to ensure officers consider identifying and offering interim or temporary accommodation to applicants with pets that can accommodate their pet. This is to ensure the Council complies with paragraph 17.67 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance.

The Council should take the action at a) to d) within one month and the action at e) to f) within two months of my final decision. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

41. Fault causing injustice to Mr X and Ms Y.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman