Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault with the Council’s handling of Ms X’s management transfer applications and homeless application after she experienced domestic abuse. The Council has agreed to apologise, award Ms X Band A priority, make payments to remedy injustice, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her urgent need to move to escape domestic abuse. She says the Council:
1. Wrongly refused to agree a management transfer from her existing tenancy
2. Failed to work in joined up way across departments and services
3. Failed to give her advice and information about her options for her tenancy when she moved into temporary accommodation
4. Did not attend a MARAC meeting to discuss her case
2. As a result, Ms X says she has accrued substantial rent arrears, experienced avoidable distress and uncertainty, and missed opportunities to move to settled accommodation sooner.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. 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)
4. The LGSCO considers 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)
5. The LGSCO investigates complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner of failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
7. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
8. When considering complaints, 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 the LGSCO is 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)
10. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Scope of our investigation

11. 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 and Paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
12. Ms X’s complaint concerns matters from 2021 onwards. However, she only became aware of the matters in late 2022, and complained to the Council and the Ombudsmen in good time after that.

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

13. Ms X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
14. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.

Back to top

What we found

Homelessness law and guidance

15. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
16. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. This assessment must include:
1. The circumstances that have caused them to become homeless or threatened with homelessness
2. Their housing needs
3. Their support needs (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.7)
17. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
18. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
19. If, at the end of the relief duty, a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

MARAC

20. A multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) is a meeting where agencies share information on high risk domestic abuse cases. The meetings can include representatives from the police, health, child protection, housing, probation and other relevant specialists. The MARAC provides a plan to safeguard the adult victim.

Housing allocations

21. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
22. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This means housing applicants can express an interest in available properties. This is called bidding.
23. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority).
24. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards:
• Band A to management transfer applicants. These are existing tenants of the Council who need to move “from a situation of immediate risk”.
• Band B to applicants owed the main housing duty
25. The Council’s scheme divides applicants into queues based on their housing need. Of relevance to this complaint, this includes a homelessness queue and a council interest queue. The Council interest queue includes management transfers. The Council uses a quota scheme to make properties available to applicants on the different queues.
26. The Council’s scheme says applicants for a management transfer who cannot remain in their homes because of the risk of violence can make a homeless application regardless of its decision to grant a management transfer.

What happened

27. In June 2021, Ms X approached her Estate Manager (EM 1) for help. She said she had experienced domestic abuse which had recently escalated into a physical assault. Ms X’s IDVA (Independent Domestic Violence Advisor) told the Council in a letter that it would be considering Ms X’s case at a MARAC in July.
28. Ms X asked the Council about emergency accommodation. EM 1 advised her to approach the homelessness service about this. EM 1 agreed to send Ms X a copy of a housing application to consider a management transfer.
29. Ms X approached the homelessness service, which provided her with interim accommodation. The records show Ms X told the Council her IDVA was liaising with EM 1 about a management transfer but she wasn’t sure of the status. The homelessness service emailed EM 1 to ask about the progress of a management transfer and likely timescales for this. EM 1 said they would send Ms X a form that day. Ms X completed and returned the form. The Council has not been able to provide a copy of the form, but internal emails suggest it received it by the end of July 2021.Ms X applied for dual housing benefit to cover the rent on her tenancy and her temporary accommodation. Ms X received dual payments for 52 weeks.
30. In late July, the Council contacted Ms X’s IDVA to ask for more information about the risk to Ms X. It also said it was waiting for various documents from Ms X to support her application. The IDVA told the Council that the MARAC in July supported a need to move.
31. In late August, EM 1 sent an internal email with a completed form requesting a management transfer. The approving manager said they would “have to” approve the request because of the domestic abuse, but asked for more information about the perpetrator and the outcome of the MARAC.
32. In September, the Council said in an email that it needed to know the outcome of the MARAC to progress the management transfer.
33. In October, Ms X emailed the Council with details of the areas she wanted to live. She said she had already provided this information to EM 1. There is no evidence the Council decided whether to approve Ms X’s request for a management transfer.
34. In early March 2022, the Council sent Ms X a letter accepting the relief duty to her and provided a copy of her personalised housing plan. In late March, the Council accepted a main housing duty to Ms X. The homelessness service emailed EM 2 to say now it had accepted this duty, Ms X needed to resolve her tenancy. The Council recorded that it sent Ms X a Tenants Notice to Quit form the same day.
35. Ms X made a new application for a management transfer in May.
36. In September, Ms X’s new IDVA contacted the Council to say they understood the Council needed more evidence to support Ms X’s management transfer. The IDVA pointed out that they and Ms X had already provided this information several times.
37. In early November, the Council approved Ms X’s request for a management transfer. Ten days later, the homelessness service responded to say that because it had now accepted a main housing duty to Ms X, she could not also pursue a management transfer. The homelessness service said the EM should have discussed ending the tenancy with Ms X in March.
38. EM 2 recorded in an internal email that they had not discussed the tenancy with Ms X. EM 2 said their understanding was that a management transfer was still possible.
39. Ms X told the Council she would not have pursued a homelessness application if she had known it would affect her ability to pursue a management transfer. The tenancy team asked the homelessness service to confirm that accepting the main housing duty meant Ms X could no longer have a management transfer. The team’s manager said “[t]his has not been the case in the past and feels at odds with people experiencing DA not being disadvantaged by this or losing their security of tenure.”
40. The homelessness service replied to say that this had always been the case. When someone applies as homeless and pursues a management transfer, whatever completes first is the “housing outcome”. They said this was because once it accepted the main housing duty, the applicant joined the homelessness rehousing queue on the housing register. They said former tenants who fled domestic abuse would be granted the same tenancy type to ensure they were not disadvantaged.
41. The homelessness service said it had explained this to Ms X in June 2021 and she wanted to proceed with a homeless application. It said its email to Ms X in March 2022 accepting the main housing duty advised her to contact her EM to resolve her tenancy.
42. In December 2022, the Council told Ms X’s IDVA in an email that as Ms X was in temporary accommodation, she was no longer at risk in her tenancy and so a management transfer was not appropriate. It said Ms X was not disadvantaged because the Council would still provide her with housing under its main housing duty.
43. Ms X complained to the Council in June 2023. She said:
• She completed a form for a management transfer with EM 1 but EM 1 repeatedly lost the form and supporting documents. The Council did not respond to her complaint about this in July 2021.
• She was assigned different EMs at different times and this led to confusion about whether she could pursue a management transfer
• No one connected to her housing case attended the MARAC in July 2021
• She had been asked to give up her tenancy without being offered anywhere else
44. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage one of its process in July. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
• EM 1 had pursued a management transfer in August 2021 but Ms X did not respond to requests for information so it did not progress this
• “unbeknown” to the area team, Ms X moved to interim accommodation in June 2021. Had it known about this, there would have been no need for a management transfer
• Ms X requested a further management transfer in 2022. The Council agreed and processed this. But then the homelessness team explained it had already accepted the main housing duty and so the option of a management transfer “fell away” as she was no longer in immediate danger
• The Council had discussed Ms X’s options with her in June 2021 and she chose to proceed with a homelessness application
• When it accepted the main housing duty in March 2022, the Council told her to contact her EM to resolve the tenancy
45. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two. The Council responded in late August. It said:
• It failed to respond to her original complaint in 2021
• It should have written to Ms X at the temporary accommodation, not her tenancy.
46. Ms X complained to the Ombudsmen.

Findings

47. We have set out our findings on the complaint in the order they appear in paragraph one.

Management transfer

48. The Council’s management transfer policy states its purpose is to assist tenants who need to “move from a situation of immediate risk.” It does not specify timescales or deadlines by which it must make a decision about an application. The policy provides for a right of appeal about the decision. Under the Council’s allocations scheme, applicants approved for a management transfer get Band A priority.
49. The Council’s domestic violence policy explains that managers attending MARAC should contact relevant housing officers and managers informing them that a MARAC referral has been made for a specific resident, and those staff must then provide information relevant to the resident’s housing situation for the manager to feed back to MARAC. Following the meeting, the attending manager will notify the housing officers and managers of the MARAC outcomes and actions.
50. In its complaint response the Council explained that Ms X’s 2021 transfer application did not proceed because it was waiting for further information from her about the original incident, and clarity about suitable areas for her to move to. However, the Council’s internal emails show that it had discussed these issues with her by early September 2021, and also with her IDVA. It was aware at that point there had been no police action in relation to the incident, and that other details about it were scarce. It was also aware from its discussion with her of her family’s needs, and that she had expanded her potential move area. An internal email dated 2 September 2021 states that the one outstanding issue was the MARAC outcome, which the housing officers did not know at that point. Accordingly, the Council’s explanations for not completing the 2021 transfer application are not supported by the evidence, particularly in regard to its claim it was waiting for information from Ms X.
51. Multiple internal emails show the Council considered the MARAC outcome to be integral to its decision about the transfer application. The indication is that this was the last piece of information required. The MARAC minutes confirm housing staff attended. In line with the Council’s policy, the staff who attended should have reported back to the housing officers the outcome and any decisions. The minutes do not show any specific actions or decisions about Ms X’s housing situation. Conversely, the IDVA (who had also attended) told the Council the MARAC had supported Ms X moving. The housing officers’ emails amongst themselves show they were not aware of the MARAC outcome. It is apparent, therefore, that the Council did not follow its policy. If it had, the officers should have known the outcome, whether it supported a move or not.
52. The Council said in its complaint response that it did not know Ms X had moved into temporary accommodation. It said that if it had known this there would have been no need to consider a management transfer. The evidence shows the Council did know Ms X was in temporary accommodation. This is shown by emails in June 2021 in which the housing officers asked the homeless team if she had moved to temporary accommodation, and it confirmed on 15 June that she had. An internal email on 22 July also notes the temporary accommodation address, as does the Council’s internal management transfer form dated 24 August. Accordingly, at the time it was considering the 2021 application the Council was aware of Ms X’s current housing situation, and its subsequent explanations were not supported by the evidence.
53. The Council’s explanation is further shown to be inaccurate by Ms X’s 2022 application. It eventually approved that application, despite the application clearly stating she was still in temporary accommodation.
54. The Council’s management transfer policy does not set any timescales for making a decision. The first application appears to have been received by the end of July 2021, but was still being considered at the end of October, a period of nearly 3 months. The second application is dated 19 May 2022, and an internal email states the Council started working on it in June 2022. In a letter to Ms X’s MP in early June 2022 the Council acknowledged her dual housing benefit was soon to end, and committed to ensuring her application was processed “without any further undue delay”. Despite its commitment and the clear practical need to make a decision promptly, the Council did not make its decision on that application until 4 November, a period of over 5 months.
55. While its policy does not have decision deadlines, in the absence of mitigating evidence the time taken by the Council to consider both the 2021 and 2022 applications was unreasonable by any relevant standard, given its policy’s stated purpose of being for tenants at immediate risk and the clear need for urgency shown by Ms X’s circumstances.
56. While it could be argued that the Council’s decision on the application in 2022 suggests it would have made the same decision in 2021, there is not enough evidence to support that conclusion. Some of the internal emails are ambiguous or contradictory as to whether the Council considered the transfer appropriate . The relevant policy itself is open to question about the specific meaning of ‘immediate risk’. In Ms X’s case she had moved into temporary accommodation, and so arguably was no longer at immediate risk (this point was made by the Council in its complaint response). Conversely, the Council had accepted there was a risk to Ms X if she returned to her own home, which is why it accepted her as homeless. Furthermore, the evidence is clear that the MARAC outcome was a factor in the Council’s decision, but the meeting minutes (which showed no recommendations) do not align with the IDVA’s recollection that a move was supported.
57. Overall, the Council did not handle Ms X’s 2021 transfer application reasonably based on the information it had, and did not follow its policy in regard to the MARAC. The time it took to consider both the 2021 and 2022 applications was excessive, and not in line with the spirit and intention of its policy. It is not possible to know what decision would have been reached in 2021, but it was important that a decision was made either way. A decision at that time would either have allowed Ms X to bid for properties using the enhanced management transfer process, or would have allowed her the right to promptly appeal it. Those options were lost to her, which was a serious failing.

Homelessness and tenancy advice

58. The Council says it gave Ms X advice and information about her tenancy in June 2021 when she first approached as homeless. There is no evidence of this advice. There is no evidence the Council sent Ms X a personalised housing plan or notified her of the duty it owed until March 2022, eight months after she approached. In fact, there is no evidence of any contact between Ms X and the homelessness team between July 2021 and March 2022. LGSCO finds this was fault.
59. Ms X told us she understood she was in temporary accommodation waiting for a management transfer. She approached the homelessness service on advice from EM 1, who had confirmed internally that this was the route for Ms X to be accommodated temporarily pending a management transfer. The Council’s failure to send Ms X a copy of its assessment and a letter accepting the relief duty to her in June 2021 likely added to this confusion. The Council said internally that it intended to offer Ms X social housing to preserve her security of tenure. However, there is no evidence it ever told her this. LGSCO finds this was fault. It caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty, which is an injustice.
60. The Council should have been taking reasonable steps to relieve Ms X’s homelessness from July 2021. As she was a tenant, this should have included pursuing a management transfer. After its email to EM 1 in June 2021, there is nothing to show the homelessness team took any steps to follow this up or support Ms X to pursue this. LGSCO finds this was fault.
61. Once it accepted the main housing duty in March 2022, the Council told Ms X and EM 2 that Ms X needed to end her tenancy. This was fault. Ms X only needed to give up her tenancy before being offered another one (Hammia v London Borough of Wandsworth [2005] EWHC 1127 (Admin)). The Council should have given Ms X advice and information to enable her to make an informed decision about her tenancy. Failure to do so was fault.
62. The Council said she could no longer pursue a management transfer once it accepted the main housing duty. There is no basis for this approach and it was fault. It appears that the Council believes this because of the way its allocations scheme works. Once it accepted a main housing duty, Ms X went into the “homeless queue”. Ms X cannot be in two queues at the same time. However, there is nothing in the allocations scheme or the Council’s policies which precluded Ms X remaining in the council interest queue while owed the main housing duty. A management transfer in the council interest queue provided a higher priority and was the best chance of Ms X receiving an offer. The Council should have considered this. LGSCO finds its failure to do so was fault.
63. The Council approved Ms X for a management transfer in November 2022. We have found fault with the Council for telling Ms X and the tenancy team Ms X could not pursue this. HOS found the time taken by the Council to have been unreasonable. LGSCO expects councils to process applications to the housing register within eight weeks. Absent any timescale in the Council’s management transfer policy, we have applied this timescale here. We asked the Council to tell us about properties allocated through the Council Interest Queue. This showed that applicants awarded Band A for a management transfer were successful in securing a move in around two to four months. Therefore, had the Council processed and continued Ms X’s May 2022 management transfer as it should have, it is likely she would have secured a move by, at the latest, December 2022. Instead, Ms X remains in temporary accommodation. This is a significant injustice to Ms X.
64. Ms X owes rent on her tenancy and on the temporary accommodation. Her dual housing benefit ended in summer 2022. It is likely this is what prompted her second management transfer application. Internal emails show the Council knew Ms X had dual benefit and that this would not continue. Since the dual benefit ended, Ms X has accrued significant debt because she cannot meet two rent obligations. Ms X is liable for the rent while she remains a tenant. However, but for the fault we have found, Ms X would have moved 16 months ago. This is 16 months of dual rent she should not have had to pay. The resulting debt is therefore a significant and avoidable financial loss to Ms X.

Joint working

65. HOS’ and LGSCO’s findings demonstrate miscommunication and confusion among the tenancy and homelessness teams throughout this case. HOS and LGSCO find these failures in joint working to be fault.
66. The Council’s domestic abuse policy expects services to work together and record information centrally. There is no evidence the Council did so in this case.
67. The homelessness service should have worked with the tenancy service to resolve Ms X’s housing as soon as possible. The homelessness service may have been able to provide information and input relevant to the Council’s determination of the 2021 management transfer application. At the very least, it should have followed up on the outcome. Instead, Ms X lives with avoidable uncertainty.
68. The tenancy and homelessness teams clearly had different understandings of the interplay of management transfers and homelessness. This led to the Council approving a management transfer in November 2022 only to withdraw it a few weeks later. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and confusion, which is an injustice to Ms X.

Conclusion

69. HOS finds maladministration because the Council:
• Failed to follow its domestic abuse policy on providing feedback from MARAC meetings
• Failed to make a decision on Ms X’s 2021 management transfer application
• Delayed approving Ms X’s 2022 management transfer application
70. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty, and denied her review rights.
71. LGSCO finds the Council at fault for:
• Failing to provide proper advice and information about Ms X’s housing options when she first approached as homeless
• Delay accepting the relief duty and issuing a personalised housing plan
• Failure to take any steps to help Ms X relieve her homeless, and in particular, failure to take steps to progress the 2021 management transfer application
• Wrongly telling Ms X and the estate manager that Ms X needed to end her tenancy and could not pursue a management transfer once it had accepted the main housing duty
• Wrongly preventing homeless applicants who are also tenants from remaining in the council interest queue on the housing register.
72. This caused Ms X avoidable distress, missed opportunity, and financial loss.
73. LGSCO and HOS find the Council failed to work in a joined-up way across its tenancy and homelessness services. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and confusion.

Back to top

Action required

HOS orders

74. Within four weeks of our final decision the Council should apologise to Ms X for the faults identified by both Ombudsmen in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology.
75. The HOS orders that within four weeks of our final decision, the Council should pay Ms X £1250 compensation. This is comprised of:
• £500 for failing to make a decision on Ms X’s 2021 management transfer, causing her uncertainty and distress.
• £750 for the unreasonable length of time to reach a decision in regard to Ms X’s 2022 management transfer application.
76. The Council is ordered to review its management transfer policy with the findings in this investigation in mind. It must assess the lack of decision timescales, and explain how it intends to ensure it provides decisions in a timeframe appropriate to the nature and purpose of its policy. It must also consider whether it needs to further define what the policy means by the term “immediate risk”, and eliminate the apparent ambiguity identified in this report. Within 12 weeks of this report, it must provide a copy of its review to the Ombudsmen explaining its conclusions and how it intends to implement any changes it identifies.
77. The Council should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above orders.

LGSCO agreed action

78. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• Award Ms X Band A for a management transfer in the council interest queue, backdated to the end of July 2022;
• Pay Ms X £500 in recognition of the significant and avoidable distress caused by the fault in the Council’s homelessness service;
• Pay Ms X £1,600, being £100 for each month she has remained in temporary accommodation since she should have moved in recognition of her missed opportunity to move sooner; and
• Pay Ms X, or her nominated creditor, the value of 16 months rent on her tenancy.

79. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services within three months of the final decision:
• Remind relevant staff about the domestic abuse policy and the need to record and share information between services using the centralised system.
• Remind relevant staff that the Council has a duty to take reasonable steps to help an applicant relieve their homelessness, and these should be set out in a personalised housing plan shared with the applicant as soon as a duty is owed.
• Amend the domestic abuse and management transfer policies to reflect that a tenant does not have to end their tenancy to be owed the main housing duty.
• Provide training and/or guidance to relevant staff to ensure that existing tenants fleeing domestic abuse can retain Band A management transfer priority regardless of any homelessness duties owed.
80. The Council should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

81. We have completed our investigation. The Ombudsmen find fault with the Council. The action we have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman