Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to urgently rehouse her. The Council is at fault as it failed to offer temporary accommodation to Miss X when it accepted the main housing duty. It also failed to consider the risk to Miss X when deciding if it should award band 1 priority which will have caused some avoidable uncertainty to her. But these faults did not cause significant enough injustice to Miss X to warrant seeking a remedy for her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has failed to urgently rehouse her and her children despite her being at high risk of domestic abuse. Miss X considers that as a result she and her children lived in unsuitable and overcrowded accommodation and with the risk of domestic abuse for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have:

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

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

5. 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))
6. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
• (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

7. 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 schemes

8. The Council’s housing allocations scheme of 2018 was in force when Miss X first approached the Council in 2022. The Council introduced a new allocations scheme in 2023.
9. The 2018 and 2023 schemes prioritised applicants for allocations by placing them into priority bands. The relevant bands to Miss X’s complaint are as follows.

2018

10. Band 1 – people who have reasonable preference and are granted additional preference such as an exceptional need to move. This included applicants who are at risk of domestic abuse whose facts and circumstances demonstrated that the threat was immediate and it was not safe for the applicant to remain in their present home. This will be based on verification by senior police officers or other agencies as necessary in conjunction with a council approved risk assessment.
11. Band 2 – people who need to move and fell within one of the reasonable preference categories. This included applicants who need to move due to the threat of domestic abuse but who are not in immediate danger as determined by an appropriate approved risk assessment by the referral agency.

2023

12. Band A – applicants who the Council has reason to believe are homeless and in priority need and applicants to who the Council owes the main housing duty. This band also includes victims of domestic abuse who are homeless or owed a homelessness duty and/or have been identified as high risk victims at a local Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) within the last three months.
13. MARAC is a non statutory process which brings together statutory and voluntary agencies to jointly support victims of domestic abuse who are at high risk of serious harm. The core MARAC agencies include the police, mental health services and adult social care. (Paragraph 433 Domestic Abuse Statutory Guidance).

What happened

14. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to my consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.
15. The police moved Miss X and her children to a relative’s home in the Council’s area following an incident of domestic abuse. The police considered it was not safe for Miss X to remain in her home.

Homelessness application

16. Miss X made a homelessness application when she moved to the Council’s area. The Council’s records show it accepted the relief duty and offered interim accommodation to her which she declined. The Council subsequently accepted the main housing duty. There is no record to show the Council offered temporary accommodation to Miss X when accepting the main housing duty. The Council’s records show an officer contacted Miss X several months later to discuss her housing situation. The records note Miss X declined temporary accommodation at that time. Miss X has now accepted temporary accommodation.

Housing register application

17. The Council considered Miss X qualified for the housing register and was eligible for a three bedroom property. It wrote to Miss X and notified her of its decision to award band 2 priority for overcrowding. It also advised Miss X of her right to seek a review of this decision. Miss X then submitted a change of circumstances form which the Council considered. It notified Miss X that she had been placed in band 2 for threats of abuse and overcrowding. The Council notified Miss X of her right to seek a review of this decision.
18. The Council’s records note Miss X submitted a further change of circumstances form with additional information. This included a letter from the police force based in the area she moved from. The letter said that Miss X needed to move to a location which was not known by her former partner in order to prevent future harm or trauma. Miss X also submitted a letter from a domestic abuse support service. The letter said Miss X’s former partner continued to harass her at the locations where she lived and worked.
19. The Council’s records show it considered the information provided by Miss X and noted the involvement of several agencies including the domestic abuse support service. The records note that Miss X had a non-molestation order and there appeared to be no involvement with MARAC. The Council decided on that basis the band 2 priority already awarded was appropriate and reasonable and Miss X’s application did not warrant band 1 priority.
20. Miss X contacted the Council to advise that MARAC would be considering her case. The Council advised Miss X to upload the MARAC outcome to its housing application system for it to be considered by officers. There is no evidence to show Miss X uploaded the information.
21. Miss X made a complaint to the Council about how it had dealt with her housing register application, including the information from MARAC. The Council did not uphold her complaint. It also advised that the Council had not received the MARAC information from her. The Council asked her to upload this information.
22. The Council introduced a new housing allocations scheme in early 2023. In accordance with the new scheme, the Council awarded band A (previously band 1) to Miss X as the Council owed the main housing duty and because she was overcrowded. Correspondence with Miss X confirmed she had also been placed in band A due to the threat of domestic abuse.
23. The Council then received the minutes from MARAC but this did not affect Miss X’s priority as she had already been placed in band A.
24. The Council’s records show that some months later Miss X contacted the Council due to further incidents of domestic abuse. The Council advised her to request temporary accommodation which she declined. Miss X provided a referral from the police but this could not improve Miss X’s overall priority as she already had band A priority. In response to my enquiries, the Council has said it asked Miss X to provide the referral to ensure it considered all of Miss X’s circumstances.
25. Miss X has bid on a large number of properties but has been unsuccessful. The Council has said the changes to its allocations scheme have resulted in a large number of applicants in band A. The average waiting time for a three bedroom house is 85 weeks and 38 weeks for a three bedroom flat.

Analysis

Homelessness application

26. The evidence shows the Council offered interim accommodation to Miss X when she first made her homelessness application. The Council should have offered temporary accommodation to Miss X when it accepted the main housing duty. The failure to do so is fault. But I do not consider the fault caused significant injustice to Miss X as it is unlikely she would have accepted temporary accommodation at that time. I say this as Miss X declined the Council’s later offer of temporary accommodation.

Council’s consideration of band 1 priority.

27. The allocations policy applicable at the time said that priority decisions about the need to move due to domestic abuse should be based on information from the police (or referral agency) in conjunction with a Council approved risk assessment. The Council did not follow this process and this is fault. The Council considered the police’s letter. But there is no evidence to show the Council considered the risk posed by Miss X’s former partner knowing her location, the reports that he was continuing to harass her and potentially breaching the non-molestation order. The Council should have consulted the police for a risk assessment to be carried out before making its decision. The failure to do so is fault.
28. I cannot know, on balance, if the Council would have awarded band 1 priority even if it had considered the risk of Miss X’s former partner being aware of her location and continuing to harass her. So, I cannot say the Council would have awarded higher priority sooner to Miss X. This fault will have caused some avoidable uncertainty to Miss X. But it was open to Miss X to seek a review of the Council’s decision not to award band 1. I therefore do not consider it is proportionate to recommend a remedy for Miss X.
29. There is no evidence to show Miss X submitted the information from MARAC or that it was sent by Miss X’s home local authority before the Council changed its scheme. So, I cannot say the delay in considering the information from MARAC is due to fault by the Council.
30. Following other complaints to the Ombudsman, the Council has taken action to improve how it assesses risk when making decisions on priority bands. It is therefore not necessary to recommend further service improvements.

Back to top

Final decision

31. The Council is at fault but this did not cause significant enough injustice to Miss X to warrant a remedy from the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman