Summary: Ms X complains that when she needed to flee domestic abuse, the Council failed to award her the correct priority band on its housing register. The Council should have awarded Ms X a higher priority band and did not, for a period of approximately one month. This fault has caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty about whether she could have been rehoused sooner. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £150 to recognise the injustice caused. Ms X also complained the Council should have awarded her a higher priority banding than Band A. The Council was not at fault for this, as it does not offer a higher award than Band A.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that when she needed to flee domestic abuse in 2023, the Council failed to award her the correct priority band on its housing register.
2. Ms X said this caused a delay in her being matched with a suitable property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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.
6. 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

7. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
8. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
9. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
10. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I considered all comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

11. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. Following the introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act in 2021, applicants are considered to be in priority need if they need to leave their home due to being victims of domestic abuse.
13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally 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. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Housing allocations

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. 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; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3)).
16. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
17. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

Birmingham City Council’s allocations policy, January 2023

18. This Council awards priority to applicants on its housing register using a banding system. This ranges from awards of Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority).
19. The Council says it will award an applicant priority Band B for reasons including but not limited to:
• them being homeless (but not owed an interim accommodation duty); and
• them being victims of domestic abuse.
20. The Council says it will award an applicant priority Band A for reasons including but not limited to:
• them being owed a section 188 interim accommodation duty due to being in apparent priority need;
• them being owed a section 193 main housing duty; and
• them being victims of domestic abuse.

What happened

Background

21. Ms X made a homelessness application to the Council in 2022 due to domestic abuse she faced from someone living outside the home.
22. Ms X said she did not want to move into interim or temporary accommodation when the Council offered this, as it would not be suitable due to her mental health.
23. Instead the Council took measures to make her home safer through its sanctuary scheme and Ms X chose to remain living in the property while seeking alternative accommodation by joining the Council’s housing register.
24. The events relating to Ms X’s homelessness application in 2022 happened more than twelve months before Ms X complained to the Ombudsman and in any case, Ms X has not raised a complaint about these, so I have not investigated them here.
25. I am only investigating Ms X’s complaint that her banding was incorrect. However I have included the information above in this decision, as it is important context for understanding the events below.

Key events

26. The Council accepted Ms X onto the housing register on 25 January 2023. It awarded her priority Band B.
27. On 28 February 2023 Ms X contacted the Council. She said she had now left the property as it was no longer safe there. On this day, the Council both accepted a main housing duty to Ms X and changed Ms X’s banding award to Band A.
28. The Council offered Ms X temporary accommodation but she said she would prefer to stay with family than go into temporary accommodation.
29. While living with a relative, Ms X bid for properties between late February and late December 2023 in Band A but was not successfully matched with a property.
30. On 29 December 2023 Ms X requested a review of her banding. She said the Council should award her a higher priority than Band A, as she had two separate needs which amounted to a Band A award – the fact she was owed a main housing duty and was fleeing domestic abuse.
31. The Council considered her request and decided on 3 January 2024 that it would not change her banding. It said she had already been awarded the highest priority band possible and its allocations policy did not award applicants any higher band due to being in more than one reasonable preference category.
32. A few days after the decision, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. She said she should have been awarded a higher band due to having multiple “subcategories” of needs that spanned several reasonable preference criteria.
33. On 22 February 2024 Ms X was successfully matched with a property through the Council’s housing register and she lives there currently. The Council discharged its main housing duty to her with this offer of accommodation.

My findings

34. The Council’s allocations policy says that applicants will be awarded Band A on the Council’s housing register if they are owed an interim accommodation duty under section 188 or a main housing duty under section 193 and are victims of domestic abuse.
35. When the Council awarded Ms X priority Band B on the Council’s housing register on 25 January 2023, it had enough information to award Ms X Band A, according to its allocations policy but did not.
36. The Council was aware Ms X was at risk of domestic abuse at her address, that she was in apparent priority need, and as a result the Council had offered her interim accommodation in the months before. This met the criteria for an award of Band A, as set out in the Council’s allocations policy and at paragraphs 18-20 of this decision statement.
37. The Council failed to have regard to its allocations policy when deciding Ms X’s banding award in January 2023 and this was fault. If not for this fault, on the balance of probabilities, Ms X would have been awarded Band A on the housing register one month sooner than she was.
38. Ms X has now been matched with accommodation away from the risk of domestic abuse and lives there currently. I cannot say with certainty how much sooner Ms X would have been matched with alternative housing if not for this fault, as this depends on various factors, but she has been caused uncertainty about whether she would have been and this is an injustice.
39. Ms X also complained that she should have been awarded higher than a priority Band A because she believes she is eligible under two reasonable preference categories. The Council’s allocations policy does not offer banding higher than a Band A and does not award additional priority for this reason. The Council made this decision in line with its allocations policy. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the uncertainty caused by its failure to award her priority Band A one month earlier; and
2. Pay Ms X £150 in recognition of the uncertainty and frustration caused by this fault.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and the Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman