Summary: We have decided not to investigate this complaint about the priority band awarded because the Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness and housing register applications when the police told her it was not safe to remain in her home following an assault. Ms X said the Council gave her incorrect advice, made repeated requested for documents over several months, delayed in making a decision about her priority band and its priority band decision was wrong.
2. Ms X says the Council’s failings meant she was homeless longer than she needed to be and she incurred around £4,000 of excess mileage costs as she had to stay with a relative, who lived a significant distance from her workplace.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as social landlords. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
7. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

8. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Advice about management transfer

11. Ms X, a tenant with a social landlord, Landlord A, contacted the Council after the police told her it was not safe for her to remain in her property following an assault.
12. The Council’s homelessness team contacted the property management team, which manages Landlord A’s properties, to ask if Ms X could have a management transfer. The Council’s management team said a management transfer was not possible in Ms X’s circumstances. In its complaint response, the Council accepted that advice was wrong and agreed to consider a transfer request.
13. We cannot investigate the complaint about wrong advice because, when it made its decision about whether it could consider a transfer, the Council was acting as a manager of social housing on behalf of Landlord A. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing, nor complaints about councils when they are acting on behalf of bodies that are not in our jurisdiction.

Homelessness application

14. Since it understood Ms X could not request a management transfer, the Council advised her she could apply to its housing register and considered whether it owed any homelessness duties. It carried out a homelessness assessment, accepted a relief duty, issued a personalised housing plan that it kept under review, and later accepted a main housing duty.
15. It was not fault for the Council to suggest Ms X consider private rented accommodation as councils are entitled to discharge homelessness duties by identifying suitable private rented accommodation for applicants.
16. The Council offered to arrange temporary accommodation, but Ms X did not accept this because she would not be able to take her pet with her. She therefore made her own arrangements. The Council advised her at various points that it could arrange temporary accommodation, but Ms X declined this.
17. Ms X did, however, complain about the attitude of the officer who she said told her to get rid of her pet. In its complaint response, the Council explained pets are not allowed in temporary accommodation and applicants are advised to make alternative arrangements for them. It said it had spoken to the officer concerned and reviewed its records but could not uphold the complaint about the officer’s attitude.
18. The Council has taken the steps we would expect in response to the complaint, and it is unlikely that further investigation about the officer’s attitude would add to the Council’s investigation.

Housing register application

19. Ms X complained the Council sent multiple requests for information and documents and requested some evidence twice. She said it kept asking for more evidence even though she believed it had already decided her priority band.
20. In its complaint response, the Council said:
• in response to Ms X asking why she needed to provide documents as she was already a tenant of a social landlord, it had explained this was because it was a fresh housing register application;
• some bank statements were requested a second time because the officer could not access the original documents provided;
• the documents provided showed there were other bank accounts that Ms X had not provided statements for, and it needed to see statements for all accounts to assess her financial situation; and
• the documents it asked for were necessary, but the officer could have asked for general information at the same time rather than send repeated requests. It said it would remind officers of best practices when asking for documents.
21. Although the repeated requests for information caused frustration for Ms X, not all the requests were for information that could have been requested at the outset. It is unlikely that further investigation would mean we could say, even on balance, that the Council would have made its decision earlier if it had asked for more evidence at the start, given that it was waiting for further bank statements. Therefore, any injustice caused is not sufficiently significant to warrant further investigation.
22. The Council has provided evidence it has made improvements to its services.

Priority band awarded

23. The Council had all the information it needed to decide the priority band on 1 November 2023 and awarded band 4 because Ms X had rent arrears. On the same day, Ms X asked for an appeal. She explained the arrears had accrued because of serious illness and hospital admissions and said she had provided information about this to the property management team. On 3 November, the Council upheld the original decision. Its decision did not explain whether or how it had considered Ms X’s account of the reasons for the arrears. It said Ms X could ask for a review of the appeal decision within 21 days, but she did not do so.
24. In its initial complaint response, the Council confirmed it had not exercised discretion to award band 1 due to Ms X having rent arrears. It also acknowledged the information provided about the review was incorrect, for which it apologised. In response, Ms X explained the arrears had arisen because she had lost income due to a long period of ill health and hospital admissions. The Council reviewed its decision and awarded band 1.
25. In its stage 2 complaint response, the Council said the officer making the banding decision was not aware of the reasons for the rent arrears, but accepted that another team had relevant medical evidence, which Ms X had sent when agreeing a repayment plan. It had since reviewed its decision, following which it had offered alternative accommodation.
26. If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault because there is no indication from the review outcome letter to show whether and how it considered Ms X’s information about the reason for the rent arrears and whether it should exercise discretion not to place in band 4 due to arrears.
27. Whilst I would not expect the reviewing officer to routinely ask other teams for information, in this case Ms X stated in her review request that she had provided evidence of the hospital admissions that had led to the arrears accruing and in those circumstances I consider the reviewing officer should have made an enquiry about this and, in any case, their decision should have explained how they considered the information Ms X provided in her review request. I also note the Council did not acknowledge it had that information until the stage 2 complaint response, so it missed an opportunity to rectify this at stage 1.
28. Although I note Ms X did not ask for an appeal when invited to do so in early November, it was not reasonable to expect her to do so when she had already explained the reason for the arrears and had no new information to add to her initial review request.
29. During the stage 2 investigation, the Council’s property management team considered a management transfer, and the housing register application was reviewed with band 1 awarded. But for the fault in the review process in early November, this could have been done almost a month sooner. On balance, this would have meant Ms X was rehoused sooner, and the uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different is an injustice to her.
30. The Council has agreed to uphold the complaint and take the following action within one month of the date of this decision to put things right:
• apologise to Ms X for the uncertainty caused its failure to properly consider the information she provided about the reasons for the rent arrears and explain how it had done so in its review outcome decision. (We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology);
• pay her £1,000 to remedy the uncertainty caused (taking into account her particularly difficult circumstances whilst waiting to be rehoused); and
• remind relevant staff of the need to consider all points raised in review and appeal requests and indicate how they were considered in the review or appeal decision.

Back to top

Final decision

31. We have upheld the complaint about the priority band award because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X and improving its service for others. We have not investigated the other parts of the complaint for the reasons set out in the body of this decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman