Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide Ms X with accurate advice and information about her housing options when she had to leave her home because of a risk of violence. The Council also failed to issue a homelessness decision giving Ms X a right of review and took too long to deal with her complaints. Ms X experienced significant and avoidable distress and uncertainty as a result. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness and housing transfer applications. She says the Council:
1. Delayed processing her application for an emergency transfer;
2. Failed to provide information for her referral to the Pan-London Housing Reciprocal;
3. Delayed providing housing advice to help her move out of the area;
4. Failed to provide interim accommodation for 10 months;
5. Delayed making decisions on her homeless application; and
6. Took too long to respond to her complaint.
2. As result, Ms X says she and her child spent months sofa surfing, at risk of violence and without the support she needed.

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 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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
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

What I have not investigated

7. I have not investigated the complaint at b) in paragraph one. In referring Ms X to the Pan-London Housing Reciprocal, and in providing any information requested by the Reciprocal, the Council was acting in its role as Ms X’s landlord. The restriction in paragraph five therefore applies.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
9. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
10. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
11. Ms X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and guidance

12. 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.
13. 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)
14. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
15. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
16. 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)
17. 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)

What happened

18. To protect the anonymity of Ms X and her family, I have included only the facts and details necessary to understand my decision. Some events are described intentionally vaguely.
19. Ms X is a tenant of the Council. There is a tenancy management organisation (TMO), separate to the Council, which provides tenancy management services on the estate.
20. Ms X contacted the Council in October 2023. She said an incident requiring police involvement with a member of her family (Person Z) meant she and her children were no longer safe in their home. Ms X applied for a transfer and went to stay with family in another borough.
21. In early November, the police completed a risk assessment form for the Council. This recommended a move out of the borough. The report said that because Person Z was in custody, risk to them was managed. It said the police were not aware of any risk or threat to Ms X and her family. It assessed the risk as “standard”. This is defined by the form as meaning: “there is little or no risk of repeat violence, abuse or harassment. It is not believed that the incidents will be repeated or that the family is in any danger.”
22. In mid-November, the Council’s housing panel considered Ms X’s request for an emergency transfer. It approved the request and awarded Band A2, its highest priority. It said Ms X could bid for properties anywhere in the borough except the area of her current tenancy. Ms X asked the Council for more help and advice. She explained that she was not safe anywhere in Lambeth. She wanted advice about how to move out of the borough.
23. Meanwhile, children’s services assessed the family following Person Z’s arrest. This said:
• There is “risk of reprisal” towards Ms X and her family.
• Ms X was afraid of returning to her tenancy. This fear increased after a violent incident towards someone else connected to her family nearby.
• Ms X’s decision to try to move out of the area was “a positive and protective measure” for the family
• The risk of physical harm to the children had decreased because Ms X was not living in Lambeth
• A safety goal was for the family to move to alternative accommodation in a safe area, with their address shared only on a “need to know” basis.
24. After attempting to get advice from her allocated housing officer at the TMO without response, Ms X emailed the Council. She said she needed help and to understand her options. The Council replied in early December. It said there were no emergency routes to housing in other areas, but Ms X could consider:
• registering for Homefinder, which allows people to look for social housing anywhere in the country;
• an application to the Pan-London Housing Reciprocal (PLHR), which facilitates moves to other boroughs when there is risk of violence or domestic abuse;
• giving up her secure tenancy and approaching another council as homeless; and/or
• giving up her secure tenancy and renting in the private sector in an area she can afford.
25. In reply, Ms X asked for support to apply to the PLHR. She said she did not want to lose her secure tenancy, but it was not reasonable for her to continue to live there.
26. Ms X followed up a week later to ask for an update. The same day, the social worker allocated to Ms X’s children said the family needed to move urgently and the case would be considered by senior managers to ensure progress.
27. In mid-December, Ms X complained to the Council. She said:
• she had received no support from her allocated housing officer at the TMO.
• she received no advice or support from the Council despite repeated requests.
• she was struggling to keep up with bills and rent on a property she could not live in
28. The Council responded in mid-January. It said the complaint was about the tenancy management organisation and so it had passed the complaint to it to respond. In reply, Ms X asked for information about who would respond and when she could expect a response. There is no evidence the Council replied to this email.
29. In response to Ms X’s MP, the Council said it was clear the family needed to move. The Council said Ms X could approach another borough as homeless and that she did not need to give up her tenancy to do this.
30. In March, the Council completed a homelessness assessment with Ms X. It asked Ms X to provide various documents, which she did. The Council discussed interim accommodation with Ms X. However, the Council refused the officer’s request for accommodation. A manager noted that while children’s social services had indicated the family needed to move, the police risk assessment did not. It recorded the risk as standard. The Council therefore did not consider Ms X was homeless and so did not owe an interim accommodation duty.
31. The officer told Ms X the Council would not provide interim accommodation. However, the reason the officer gave Ms X was that it would not fall within the homelessness service’s budget. The officer told Ms X the TMO should pay to accommodate her.
32. In Summer 2024, both we and the Housing Ombudsman asked the Council to deal with Ms X’s complaint. The records show that there was confusion and disagreement about whether the Council or TMO should deal with the complaint.
33. In August, the police sent the Council an updated risk assessment. This said the family’s address had been leaked online, putting them at risk. The assessment recorded the risk to be “medium” and said the police “fully support a move” to a new address. The Council started a new homeless application as a result. It provided Ms X with interim accommodation in a different area. The records show it produced a letter accepting the relief duty. There is no evidence it sent this to Ms X.
34. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in mid-August. It said:
• It was sorry for the delay responding to the complaint.
• The Council decided Ms X did not meet the threshold for interim accommodation in March 2024 based on the police risk assessment.
• Once the police provided an updated assessment in August, it provided interim accommodation.
• Ms X had high priority to bid for properties in Lambeth
• If the Council accepted the main housing duty, the likely outcome would be an offer of private rented accommodation in another area
• It upheld the complaint because of the delays and poor communication Ms X experienced.
• “We have emphasised effective communication with our other departments particularly our Allocations, Housing Advice and Housing Management Teams to prevent similar issues from arising in the future.”
35. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two. She said:
• It took the Council 10 months to offer her interim accommodation
• The complaint response said the Council did not think there was enough risk to require interim accommodation in March, but this was not what the Council told her at the time. It told her it was for the TMO to pay for any interim accommodation.
36. The Council accepted the main housing duty in early November. It responded to the stage two complaint later that month. It said:
• Homelessness and housing management are different services and Ms X received mixed messages
• The officer raised Ms X’s expectations in March that she would be offered interim accommodation and wrongly told her it would not provide this for budget reasons
• When the risk assessment changed, the Council provided accommodation
• It upheld the complaint because of the poor communication and conflicting advice Ms X received.

My findings

37. I set out my findings on the complaint in the order they appear in paragraph one.

Emergency transfer

38. Ms X applied for an emergency transfer in early October 2023. The Council approved it just over a month later. Any delay did not cause Ms X significant injustice. This is because awarding priority banding only allowed Ms X to bid for properties in Lambeth and it is not safe for her to live in Lambeth.

Housing advice and information

39. Ms X told the Council she needed to leave her property in October 2023. There is no evidence the Council considered whether she might be homeless or threatened with homelessness at any time before March 2024. This was fault.
40. The Council purported to give Ms X advice about her options in December 2023, but this was incomplete and inaccurate. It told her she would have to give up her tenancy if she applied as homeless, which was not true. It failed to tell her she could apply as homeless to Lambeth. This was fault.
41. The family’s situation was complicated. If the Council later identified suitable long term private rented sector housing, and Ms X refused this because she did not want to give up her secure tenancy, the Council may have ended any homelessness housing duty on the grounds she had refused a reasonable offer of housing. However, if she did give up her secure tenancy, this would mean she no longer qualified for the PLHR. This means she would lose the possibility of a transfer to social housing in another London Borough. As a homeless applicant, whether in this Council’s area or elsewhere, it is likely she would be offered private rented accommodation rather than social housing to discharge the housing duty.
42. On the other hand, there was no guarantee that a suitable property would be identified quickly via the Housing Moves or Pan London Housing Reciprocal schemes. And, in the meantime, she would be sofa surfing with her children whilst paying rent and bills on a council property they could not live in.
43. There is no evidence the Council considered asking another borough to agree a reciprocal (where two councils agree to make a property available to the other). Nor did it advise Ms X to consider applying for social housing in another borough, such as where she worked.
44. In these circumstances, I would expect the Council to give comprehensive advice about the options so Ms X could make an informed decision about what to do. This should have involved joint working between the allocations and homelessness teams, which did not happen. It would be good practice to confirm the advice in writing so Ms X could consider the options and seek expert advice if she wished to do so. The Council did not give comprehensive advice at any point. This was fault.
45. In an investigation several years ago, we found the same fault with this Council in very similar circumstances. We recommended the Council produce an information sheet for secure tenants who need to leave their homes because of a risk of violence. We said this should set out their options and the consequences of each and explain the Council’s role. The Council agreed to this recommendation and produced a factsheet. There is no evidence it shared this with Ms X or that any of the officers involved knew of it. This was fault.
46. The Council also agreed to our recommendation to improve how its allocations and homelessness teams worked together to give appropriate advice in these cases. This was three years before Ms X approached the Council for help. Despite this, the Council again identified in response to Ms X’s complaint that it needed to improve communication across departments to prevent similar issues from arising in the future.
47. This demonstrates a concerning lack of progress in the intervening years.
48. The records show Ms X repeatedly asked the Council for help and advice. Instead, she was left confused about her options at an already difficult time. This is an injustice to Ms X.

Interim accommodation

49. The Council has a duty to provide interim accommodation if it has reason to believe an applicant might be homeless, eligible, and in priority need. The Council should have considered whether to provide interim accommodation in October 2023. Failure to do so was fault. It should have revisited this in November, when the police provided a risk assessment. Failure to do so was fault.
50. When we find fault, we then consider whether that fault caused an injustice. In this case this means the question is whether, but for the fault I have found, the Council would have provided Ms X with interim accommodation in October or November 2023. I cannot say that it would have done so. The Council’s assessment of the risk in March 2024 was based on evidence available in October and November the previous year. It is likely it would have made the same decision had it considered the evidence sooner.
51. The Council did consider whether to provide interim accommodation in March 2024. As it accepted, it raised Ms X’s expectations about providing accommodation. It decided not to do so based on the police risk assessment. This assessment was five months old by this point. The Council should have sought updated information to inform its decision. Failure to do so was fault.
52. There is uncertainty about whether, had it done so, the Council would have provided Ms X with interim accommodation. This uncertainty is an injustice to Ms X.

Homelessness decisions

53. If a council has reason to believe an applicant might be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold is low.
54. The Council had reason to believe Ms X might be homeless in March 2024. It decided she was not at risk in her property. This was, in effect, a decision that she was not homeless. The Council should have issued this decision in writing. Failure to do so was fault. It denied Ms X her statutory right to review, which is an injustice.

Complaint handling

55. The Council initially decided Ms X’s complaint was for the TMO and passed it on. This was fault. Although part of Ms X’s complaint was about the conduct of the housing officer at the TMO, it was also about not getting the advice and support she needed with homelessness and allocations. The Council should have dealt with Ms X’s complaint in December 2023. It did not do so until August 2024, after we got involved. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and time and trouble, which is an injustice.

Back to top

Action

56. To remedy the injustice to Ms X from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. Agree with Ms X the areas she feels safe living in, approach those councils to discuss a reciprocal exchange, and write to Ms X with the outcome of these approaches; and
3. Pay Ms X £750 in recognition of her significant and avoidable distress and uncertainty.
57. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
58. We have made extensive service improvement recommendations to this Council in recent years, and it has an action plan in place to improve its housing services. However, given the failure to implement the learning and improvements of our previous investigation into the same issue (see paragraphs 45 and 46 above), the Council should also:
1. Share a copy of this decision with staff in homelessness, allocations, and tenancy management to identify the learning from this complaint.
2. Produce a protocol for joint working and information sharing among housing allocations, homelessness, and tenancy management, including what should happen when an existing tenant needs to leave their home or the borough. Provide training to all relevant staff on the agreed procedures and include the protocol in any induction or training of new staff.
3. Review the factsheet previously produced for secure tenants who need to leave their homes due to risk of violence and update it as required. Share this with staff in homelessness, allocations, tenancy management and with any other relevant stakeholders, such as housing associations and tenancy management organisations. Ensure the factsheet is accessible to the staff who need it and consider publishing it on the Council’s website or otherwise publicising it to tenants.
59. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Decision

60. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman