Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to award her the correct priority under its housing allocations scheme and delayed dealing with her homelessness. The Council was at fault as it failed to consider whether it owed her the relief duty and to offer interim accommodation, delayed reviewing her banding request and delayed determining her housing priority. This caused her uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and review its procedures. It has already provided guidance to staff.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. failed to award her the correct priority under its housing allocations scheme and repeatedly suspended her application which Ms X says meant she missed out on the offer of a suitable property.
2. delayed dealing with her homelessness after Ms X fled domestic abuse so she remains without suitable accommodation.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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.
5. 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)
6. Most homelessness decisions carry a right of review, followed by a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.
7. 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

8. I have considered the information provided by Ms X and have discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I have considered information provided by the Council in response to our initial enquiries and the relevant law and guidance.
9. I gave Ms X and the Council the opportunity to comment on the drafts of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

10. Part 7 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.

Duty to make enquiries

11. Where the council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it should make enquiries to enable it to decide if they are eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)

Relief duty and personalised housing plans

12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless then the council will owe the ‘relief duty’. This requires the council to take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person for at least six months. The relief duty usually lasts for 56 days.

Interim accommodation

13. If the council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and in priority need, it has an immediate duty under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 to provide interim accommodation, whilst it makes its enquiries. An applicant is in priority need if they are pregnant, have a dependant child or (from July 2021) they are fleeing domestic abuse.

Review rights

14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions including a decision that they are not in priority need. If the decision is upheld at review, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.

Housing allocations

15. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  Many councils maintain a housing register which records those waiting for housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
16. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

This Council’s allocations policy

17. The Council runs a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. It places applicants into one of five bands: A to E, band A is the highest.
18. Band A includes applicants who are living in accommodation that is two bedrooms short, those with an urgent need to move due to serious imminent personal risk and rehousing is the only option. Band C includes those who need to move on welfare grounds as agreed by the Council. Band D includes those owed the main housing duty who are in priority need and not intentionally homeless. Those owed a relief or prevention duty by the Council are placed in band E.
19. For each property, bids are ranked in order of local connection, priority band, date of priority banding then date of registration.
20. The policy sets out that:
• An applicant must have a local connection i.e., must have lived continuously in one of the legacy districts for at least two years immediately preceding the date of application. If they have lived outside the area for a single period exceeding four months they may no longer have a local connection. The policy allows for exceptions including for those owed the main housing duty and those required to live outside the district area for reasons out of their control who had a local connection immediately prior to moving away.
• An applicant must not do something which worsens their housing circumstances. For an applicant to have worsened their circumstances there must be evidence that it would have been reasonable for the applicant to have remained in their previous accommodation. If an applicant is assessed as having worsened their housing circumstances they will be placed in band E for 12 months after which they can request that their application is re-assessed.
• Before an offer of accommodation is made the Council will contact the applicant to verify all relevant information on their housing application. It advises that unannounced visits, where appropriate, may be carried out.
21. The Council was formed in April 2020 when four former district councils came together (Aylesbury Vale, High Wycombe, Souths Bucks and Chiltern). The allocations policy still operates based on these districts in terms of local connection. Applicants owed a prevention or relief duty under homelessness legislation are treated as having a local connection across the whole Council area, which means they can bid for properties in any of the districts. Otherwise, applicants can only bid on properties in the district where they have a local connection.

What happened

22. The following chronology is a summary of what happened. It does not refer to all correspondence and contact with Ms X.
23. In January 2023 Ms X left her private tenancy with her young child as she was fleeing domestic abuse. In February 2023 Ms X approached this Council (Council A) to join the housing register. On the application she stated she was homeless and staying with friends. The Council issued a letter accepting its duty to prevent her homelessness (prevention duty). In March 2023 it wrote to Ms X to request information about her circumstances and awarded Ms X band E on its housing register in the meantime. Ms X contacted the Council several times to request an update on her application.
24. In April 2023 the Council awarded Ms X band C on the housing register based on welfare need due to the alleged domestic abuse. Ms X was still able to bid across the whole Council area as the Council also owed her the prevention duty. At that time the Housing officer made a bid on Ms X’s behalf. However, Ms X says the Housing Association declined her for the property based on affordability. Ms X also spoke with the Housing officer. The Housing officer noted Ms X was mainly bidding on houses. They advised her to bid on flats too as houses were very popular.
25. The Council wrote to Ms X later in April 2023. It advised it had ended the prevention duty as 56 days had passed and she had not become homeless. This meant Ms X was still in band C but was now only able to bid on properties in one district. I have seen no evidence she was advised of this.
26. In late June 2023 Ms X emailed her housing officer at Council A as she considered her banding should be higher and she wanted a banding review. The officer spoke to Ms X and explained she was in band C due to her circumstances. At this point the housing officer told Ms X she had lost her local connection as she had lived outside the area for over four months. Ms X complained to Council A. The Housing officer noted they ‘also discussed if she went down the homeless route which she had mentioned about that if we accepted a duty towards her she would only get a one off offer which she would be expected to take otherwise the Council would discharge duty towards her’.
27. In July 2023 Council A’s homelessness prevention team requested information from Ms X. She told it she was already homeless and sofa surfing. The Council says it offered Ms X accommodation, but she was keen to try and stay with friends and to keep applying through the housing register. I have seen no evidence Ms X was offered specific accommodation. The Council wrote to Ms X accepting its duty to prevent her homelessness. Ms X was awarded a local connection across all the Council’s area.
28. In August 2023 Ms X complained to the Council about her banding. An officer called Ms X to discuss her complaint. They noted Ms X had a local connection prior to fleeing her home due to domestic abuse and had temporarily been sleeping on a friend’s sofa. Following this the officer spoke with a manager who agreed to apply an exception to the local connection rule and to count it as a temporary absence as Ms X was fleeing alleged domestic abuse. The manager agreed to award Ms X band A as the property where she was staying was short of two bedrooms. Her local connection remained across all the Council’s area.
29. The Housing officer telephoned Ms X as she had been shortlisted for a flat. Ms X said she did not want to be considered for the flat because since her banding had increased, she considered she had more scope to wait for accommodation which would better suit her and her child. The officer advised they would need to verify her circumstances once she was shortlisted. The officer noted Ms X said one of her friend’s relatives sometimes got aggressive towards her therefore she was sometimes ‘sofa surfing’ staying at other addresses.
30. Ms X was shortlisted for another property, so the Council arranged to carry out a verification check of her circumstances. An officer tried to visit Ms X at her friend’s property in August 2023 as part of the verification process. Ms X was not present. Ms X’s housing officer visited later that same week and spoke with Ms X’s friend who said she was not there but visiting a relative. The officer noted very few of Ms X’s belongings in the property. The officer later spoke with Ms X who said her friend was very upset by the visit. Ms X said she had stayed at a friend’s the previous night as part of an arrangement to allow her ex-partner to see his child. Ms X said she took her belongings with her when she stayed elsewhere. The housing officer requested further information about where Ms X was staying, where her belongings were stored and other documents to verify her address. The Council suspended Ms X’s application whilst it investigated.
31. Ms X contacted the Council several times in late August and early September for an update on her application. It requested further information to verify her address. In early September 2023 Ms X told Council A she had been staying in her car and did not understand why her application was not now live. Following this she provided the information the Council had requested, including statements from three addresses she said she was staying between, including two in another Council’s area, Council B.
32. Council A responded to Ms X’s complaint in early September 2023. It advised it had considered her circumstances and made an exception to its local connection policy as she was fleeing domestic abuse. It upheld her complaint based on the time taken to evaluate her banding. It advised her it had awarded her band A in August and this would be verified at the point an offer was being considered.
33. In September the Council received information from Council B that Ms X had approached it as homeless, and it had offered her a property. Council A rejected Ms X for the shortlisted property as it had not managed to verify her application.
34. Ms X’s Housing officer spoke with her later in September and advised they were still conducting enquiries. During the conversation Ms X said she had also approached Council B for housing. Ms X said a property had become available through Council B but she did not feel it was suitable. Ms X said she had signed some paperwork but had later declined the property.
35. Ms X had an online meeting with the housing officer and a family support worker at Council A. During the call she confirmed she had signed a tenancy with Council B which she had since ended. The housing officer advised her not to do this as she could be seen to be knowingly worsening her circumstances and so would be banded an E and would likely be found intentionally homeless. They recommended she retract her notice. Ms X advised she had a relationship breakdown with another relative who lived near the property and so did not wish to live there. Council A suspended her application and made a referral to its fraud team. Ms X later confirmed she would not be moving into the property with Council B.
36. Ms X remained unhappy and asked to go to stage two of Council A’s complaints procedure. She provided further information about the offer at Council B which she said was unsuitable due to its location, as her relationship with a relative who lived near there had broken down, and because she was in a state of emotional breakdown at the time she signed the tenancy. She also sent photographs showing disrepair at the property.
37. The Council did not consider the complaint at stage two as the application was being considered under a different process.
38. The Council wrote to Ms X in late October 2023. In the letter the Council said it had explained the prevention and relief duties to Ms X and she declined interim accommodation as she wished to keep her current banding on the housing allocations scheme. It set out options for Ms X including contact arrangements should she require interim accommodation, details of the Council’s rent in advance scheme and details of local housing advice services.
39. In November 2023 Ms X approached the homeless prevention team and advised she was sleeping in her car. It accepted it had a duty to help resolve Ms X’s homelessness (the relief duty) and offered her interim accommodation which Ms X refused. It then wrote to Ms X ending its duty to provide interim accommodation as she had refused a suitable offer. During November, Ms X was interviewed under caution by Council A. Following this, it put Ms X’s housing application into band E due to her deliberately worsening her circumstances. At this stage the Council still owed Ms X a prevention duty and she was still able to bid across the whole Council area.
40. The Council wrote to Ms X in November 2023 to advise it was “minded to” make a decision she was intentionally homeless. A manager met with Ms X and her support worker in December 2023. Ms X again refused interim accommodation and the manager requested updated medical information. The manager noted Council B had said it provided temporary accommodation to Ms X from early July but Ms X said she had not stayed there. Ms X also requested a statutory review of the banding decision.
41. An officer spoke with Ms X in December 2023 as part of the statutory review. Ms X confirmed she had viewed a property in Council B’s area in early September 2023 but had concerns about disrepair although she had not raised these at the time due to her mental health issues. She confirmed she signed the agreement but did not understand what she was signing. She also discussed her concerns about a relative who lived in that area, with whom she had an altercation in November 2023.
42. In early January 2024 the Council wrote to Ms X to end the relief duty and to advise it had decided she was intentionally homeless as she had signed a tenancy and then handed in her notice for a property with Council B which was suitable, affordable and available to her. It set out Ms X’s right to request a statutory review. At this stage the Council revised Ms X’s banding so she no longer could bid across the whole Council area and had a local connection to one district only. However, the Council failed to update its system or to advise Ms X of this so she was still able to see and bid for properties across the whole Council area.
43. Later, in January 2024, the Council completed a statutory review of its decision on her banding. In its response it referred to Ms X’s approach to Council B. It noted applicants can make multiple applications to housing authorities but that applicants must communicate this with both authorities. It noted:
• In March 2023 a domestic abuse charity submitted a statutory referral to Council B on Ms X’s behalf.
• Council B offered her interim accommodation in April 2023 which Ms X refused as she was staying with a friend.
• In June 2023 Ms X requested temporary accommodation from Council B. It carried out a risk assessment documenting areas of risk to Ms X.
• Council B advised it placed Ms X in two hotels in late June 2023 and then offered her self-contained temporary accommodation in early July 2023.
• Council B offered Ms X a two bedroom property in early September 2023 for which she signed the tenancy and which was not in an area noted for risk at the time of the offer.
• The reason Ms X gave to Council B for surrendering that tenancy was that she was due to be made an offer by Council A. She had already surrendered the tenancy when she raised concerns about her relationship with a relative and there were no police reports of any incidents or risks from the relative at the time she signed the tenancy, nor did she raise any concerns about this with Council B at that time.
• There was no evidence Ms X told Council B she gave up the property due to its condition.
• It had due regard to her disability and concluded she was aware of her actions and the consequences when she surrendered the tenancy.
44. It noted that, in September 2023, Ms X told Council A she was sleeping in her car and failed to advise Council A she had been offered a property by Council B. It said it had found no evidence Ms X had previously notified Council A of her approach to Council B. It remained of the view Ms X had knowingly worsened her circumstances and so fell into priority band E in line with the housing allocations policy.

Findings

45. When Ms X approached Council A in February 2023 it accepted her on the housing allocations scheme and took a homelessness application. Ms X had told the Council she was sofa surfing and homeless. She was not living in settled accommodation. Council A decided it owed Ms X a prevention duty which it ended after 56 days. It did not consider whether she was homeless on the basis it was not reasonable for her to continue to sofa surf. The Council was at fault. It failed to properly consider whether it owed Ms X the relief duty and failed to offer her interim accommodation.
46. Again, in July 2023 the Council accepted it owed Ms X a prevention duty and not a relief duty, despite the fact she was not in settled accommodation. This was again fault. It was not until November 2023 that the Council accepted it owed Ms X a relief duty and a duty to arrange interim accommodation.
47. However, on balance, I consider Ms X would not have accepted interim accommodation if it was offered at that time. This is because Ms X refused an offer of interim accommodation made by Council B in April 2023 and also refused an offer of interim accommodation by Council A in November 2023. She told Council A she preferred to wait for an offer of social housing.
48. In addition, I do not consider this caused her a disadvantage in relation to the housing allocations scheme. This is because applicants owed the main housing duty are placed in band D by Council A and those owed a prevention or relief duty are placed in band E. Ms X was placed in band C due to her welfare need as a victim of domestic abuse. This means the Council’s fault did not negatively impact Ms X’s banding on the housing allocations scheme.
49. Also, in July 2023 Ms X discussed homelessness with her housing officer who explained she would be made one offer of accommodation. The Council also wrote to Ms X in late October 2023 and explained that it could offer Ms X interim accommodation as it had reason to believe Ms X may be eligible for assistance, homeless and in priority need but Ms X declined this offer. On balance, I am satisfied Ms X chose not to pursue a homelessness application further at the time to enable her to continue to bid for properties through the housing allocations scheme.
50. When the Council ended the prevention duty Ms X could no longer bid across the entire Council area but was limited to bidding on one legacy district only. The Council failed to advise Ms X of this, and this was fault. In January 2024 when it ended the relief duty the Council again failed to advise Ms X that this would affect her local connection, which would again be limited to one legacy district only. It also failed to update the system. This was fault. This caused Ms X distress and frustration as she was able to see and bid on properties outside her local area but was unsuccessful due to the lack of local connection. In response to an earlier draft of this decision the Council has confirmed that it has revised its homelessness duty banding letters to explain that if the homeless duty is ended or discharged their application will be reassessed against the housing allocations policy and the local connection may be affected. This is appropriate to prevent recurrence of the fault.
51. The Council decided in late June 2023 that Ms X no longer had a local connection under the housing allocations scheme as she had lived outside the area for four months. Ms X was fleeing domestic abuse and sofa surfing between friends. When making that decision, the Council failed to properly consider whether Ms X should keep her local connection due to her exceptional circumstances. This was fault. In response to an earlier draft of this decision the Council has provided evidence to show it has reminded staff that where an applicant approaches the Council as fleeing domestic abuse, they should consider whether it is appropriate to apply an exception before removing the local connection criteria. This is appropriate to prevent a recurrence of the fault.
52. Ms X emailed her housing officer in June 2023 to request a review of her banding. The officer discussed this with Ms X but there is no evidence Ms X accepted this discussion as a response to her review request or that she withdrew her request for a formal review. The Council was at fault for its failure to put Ms X’s request forward for a statutory review. Ms X had to submit a complaint for the Council to formally review her banding. This delayed her banding review and caused Ms X distress and frustration.
53. In response of September 2023 to Ms X’s complaint, the Council reviewed Ms X’s local connection. It made an exception to the policy, based on Ms X’s individual circumstances. This was appropriate. At the same time, it reviewed her banding and awarded band A based on her circumstances at that time. The complaint response clarified this would need to be verified at the point it made her an offer.
54. Even on balance, I cannot say that had the Council evaluated all Ms X’s circumstances sooner it would have reached the same decision on her banding review, that Ms X would have successfully bid for a property, and the application would have been successfully verified by the Council at that time. There are too many variables for me to reach a substantive conclusion that Ms X missed out on a property because of the Council’s faults. I must also take into account that Ms X successfully bid for a property in August 2023, which she refused, and that she accepted then declined a property offered by Council B. However, the Council’s faults leave Ms X with an enduring sense of uncertainty over whether things would have been different had the Council reviewed her banding sooner, which is an injustice to her.
55. In January 2024, the Council decided Ms X was intentionally homeless. This is not something I will investigate. This is because Ms X has a right to a statutory review of that decision, and it is reasonable for her to use that right. If Ms X remains unhappy with the review decision it is open to her to challenge it at court on a point of law.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £500 to acknowledge the uncertainty caused by the Council’s faults.
57. Within two months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to provide training/guidance to remind staff that where it has reason to believe someone may be eligible for assistance, homeless and may be in priority need, it has a duty to provide interim accommodation while it makes inquiries into what duty it owes. Reason to believe is a low bar. An offer of interim accommodation should be a specific property that is actually available to the individual and suitable for their household.
58. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault causing injustice which it has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman