Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider medical evidence and a disclosure of domestic abuse she provided as part of a homelessness application. We do not find fault with how the Council considered Miss X’s application. However, we find fault with how the Council communicated with Miss X, causing uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a symbolic payment to recognise the uncertainty caused, and complete a new review of Miss X’s case.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not properly consider the evidence she provided as part of a homelessness application. Specifically, Miss X says the Council did not properly consider the evidence she provided in relation to a disability and did not give proper consideration to her history of domestic abuse. As a consequence, Miss X says she is not in the right priority banding and has to sleep on her mother’s sofa with her daughter.

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 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homessness

7. 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.
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. If a council is satisfied the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it will owe a relief duty. This duty means a council must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides the relief duty has come to an end (usually after 56 days), it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. A council must secure accommodation for applicants 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. If homelessness is not successfully prevented or relieved, a council will owe a main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
13. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.
14. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
15. There is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

Housing allocations

16. 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))
17. 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;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
18. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
19. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

The Council’s allocations scheme

20. The Council has a banding scheme which prioritises applications from band 1 to 4. Band 1 is the highest priority and Band 4 is the lowest priority. The criteria for each band is described in the Council’s scheme.
21. Band 2 applicants include people who have a severe medical need or disability which means their current accommodation is unsuitable. Band 3 applicants include people whose illness or disability is made worse by their current home or where moving to a new home would improve their health.
22. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

Domestic abuse

23. Housing authorities should have policies in place to identify and respond to domestic abuse. The Council should take an active role in ensuring victims have access to help and support (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 21.12).
24. A Domestic Abuse, Stalking & Honour-based Violence (DASH) assessment may be carried out to assess the risks to a victim and the action needed to protect them. This is a standardised assessment, which produces a score out of 24. A score above 14 should result in a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) referral, although the person carrying out the assessment may make a referral where the score is lower if they have serious concerns about the victim’s safety.
25. A MARAC is a meeting where agencies share information about high-risk domestic abuse victims. 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.

What happened

26. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
27. Miss X submitted a housing advice form to the Council in September 2023. Miss X explained she was homeless, had a dependent child, and a history of mental health problems. Miss X also explained she had lost her last settled accommodation due to domestic abuse and was now living with family outside of the area where the abuse took place. Miss X had been living outside of the Council’s area but applied to move into it based on having a local connection.
28. The Council responded to Miss X’s application to confirm it was satisfied she was homeless, accepted a relief duty to her, and provided a personalised housing plan (PHP). The Council’s records show at this point, it offered to provide interim accommodation but this would be outside of its area, so Miss X opted to continue staying with family at that point.
29. In October 2023, the Council wrote to Miss X to explain it was satisfied she was homeless and had a priority need so had registered her for housing under its Choice Based Lettings Scheme and placed her in Band 3.
30. In November 2023, the Council wrote to Miss X to explain the relief duty had now come to an end, and it now owed her the main housing duty, and explained how she could ask for a review of its decision.
31. Miss X submitted change of circumstances forms to the Council. Miss X explained she struggled with PTSD related to domestic abuse and needed a property that was on the ground floor, or a house, as she needed to feel as though she could escape quickly if needed. Miss X also explained a medical issue meant she could only have internal stairs.
32. In January 2024 the Council made Miss X an offer of temporary accommodation in a flat in a neighbouring borough, but she declined it that same day.
33. The Council then referred Miss X for a medical assessment and invited her to provide further information to be considered by the Social Welfare Panel.
34. The Social Welfare Panel heard Miss X’s case in January 2024.
35. The Council then wrote to Miss X to provide the outcome of the Social Welfare Panel. The Council set out the criteria for emergency social welfare awards, as defined in its allocations scheme and explained the panel had concluded there was not enough evidence to support placing Miss X’s household in Band 1. The Council said the Social Welfare Panel recognised the impact of the incidents and circumstances surrounding Miss X’s housing issues but noted the reported incidents had not taken place within its borough, or the borough in which she was living, so it saw no immediate risk to Miss X or her daughter. The Council also explained the panel had noted Miss X was offered temporary accommodation and saw no reason why this was declined. The Council explained Miss X could ask for the panel’s decision to be reviewed within 21 days if she disagreed with it.
36. In February 2024, Miss X asked the Council to review its Social Welfare Panel decision. Miss X said she felt the panel had failed to consider all the facts of her case and the detrimental impact on her and her daughter.
37. In March 2024, Miss X contacted the Council to explain she had been attacked outside the property she was currently living in and asked it to provide emergency accommodation.
38. The Council said it had already offered Miss X temporary accommodation but she had chosen to remain living with family. The Council explained Miss X could bid for permanent accommodation through its choice based lettings scheme. It also explained it was currently considering Miss X’s request to review its Social Welfare Panel decision.
39. In April 2024, the Council contacted the MARAC in the area Miss X was living in to enquire about the attack Miss X reported from March 2024 to aid its understanding of risk to Miss X and her family.
40. In May 2024, Miss X provided further evidence to be considered by the Social Welfare Panel re-hearing.
41. The Council wrote to Miss X in May 2024. The Council acknowledged Miss X had provided evidence to show she struggled with PTSD and anxiety related to domestic abuse and that she may have a disability. However, it said it believed her case had been assessed correctly, and she had been banded correctly in line with its allocations scheme. The Council explained it recognised the impact of the domestic abuse Miss X had reported, but as this did not take place within its borough or the borough she was living in, there was no immediate risk of harm to her to merit a higher priority banding. The Council said it considered the Social Welfare Panel’s assessment to be a fair and accurate assessment of Miss X’s circumstances based on the supporting evidence that was available. The Council explained a medical assessment was completed in January 2024 and the medical assessor determined that Miss X did not have a medical requirement for a move so it was satisfied medical priority did not apply to Miss X’s application.
42. In June 2024 Miss X submitted a change of circumstances form explaining her and her daughter’s mental health had suffered due to the attack in March 2024. Miss X also explained she was in receipt of personalised independence payments (PIP). The Council then referred Miss X for a further medical assessment.
43. In July 2024, the Council wrote to Miss X to explain the medical assessment found her household did not have a medical requirement for a move, and so the medical priority had not changed. The Council explained it understood Miss X’s current accommodation may not be ideal but the evidence available did not show compelling indications for a change of accommodation on medical grounds. The Council also explained the medical assessment made no recommendation for a specific property type.
44. In September 2024, the Council made Miss X an offer of temporary accommodation, which she accepted.
45. In October 2024, Miss X submitted another change of circumstances form, explaining she had mental health conditions related to domestic abuse and was reliant on medication as a result. Miss X also explained she had physical health conditions that affected her mobility and her current accommodation was unsuitable as it did not have a lift. Miss X also said that living in temporary accommodation had taken a toll on her daughter’s mental and physical wellbeing.
46. The Council referred Miss X for a further medical assessment that month. It then wrote to her to explain this had concluded her household did not have a medical need to move and so there was no change to her current medical priority. The Council explained there was no evidence Miss X could not use stairs and there was no recommendation for a specific property type.
47. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it believed Miss X was correctly placed in Band 3. However, it agreed the level of communication it provided was below the expected standards. The Council also agreed it had not properly responded to Miss X’s request for a further social welfare panel review or communicate the outcome of its review of her case. The Council said its reviewing officer had considered all the supporting documents relating to the medical and welfare results but acknowledged it had not properly communicated this with Miss X, creating uncertainty around whether her case was fully considered. To remedy this, the Council has offered to complete a new file review.

Analysis

48. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means our role is not to consider what level of priority the Council should have awarded Miss X. Rather, we consider whether the Council decided on her application properly, having regard for the key factors and policies which are relevant. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Miss X disagrees with it.
49. The Council received Miss X’s homelessness application in September 2024 and promptly responded to this. The Council accepted homelessness duties to Miss X and provided her with a PHP in line with statutory deadlines. The Council considered all the information Miss X provided and awarded her a Band 3 priority in line with its usual allocations policy. I do not find the Council at fault here.
50. Miss X has said the Council did not give proper consideration to the medical evidence she provided. However, the Council made multiple medical referrals for Miss X to seek advice on her needs. I appreciate Miss X disagrees with the outcome of these referrals, but I cannot find the Council at fault where it has sought the appropriate advice and used this as a basis for its decision-making.
51. Miss X also questioned why the Council had disregarded her PIP as evidence of a disability. Based on the information I have seen, Miss X did not provide evidence of her PIP with her initial application. Miss X also did not list the PIP as income on her change in circumstances forms until June 2024. The Council then made a medical referral to consider how this would affect Miss X’s banding. Based on the information I have seen, the Council assessed Miss X’s circumstances in light of her receiving PIP as soon it was made aware of this, and I do not find it at fault.
52. Miss X has said the Council did not give proper consideration to the domestic abuse she reported in her application. The Council has explained it was satisfied Miss X was no longer living in the area where the abuse took place, and it also referred this to the Social Welfare Panel for consideration to determine whether it needed to take further action. The Council also offered Miss X temporary accommodation outside of the area where the abuse took place but she opted to stay with her family, also outside of the area where the abuse took place. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision-making process here.
53. Miss X reported that she had been attacked outside of her mother’s property in March 2024, which was unrelated to the domestic abuse she had suffered previously. The Council considered this and liaised with the local MARAC to consider how it could further support Miss X and her household. I appreciate this would have been a distressing time for Miss X, but the Council followed the right process in deciding whether it needed to provide further support and I cannot find it at fault here.
54. However, the Council has accepted there was fault in the way it communicated with Miss X. Specifically, when Miss X provided further evidence for her case to be re-heard by the Social Welfare Panel, the Council did not clearly communicate what the next steps would be. When it then wrote to Miss X with the outcome of the review it did not refer to the specific evidence she had provided or whether the Social Welfare Panel would re-hear the case. This is fault and has caused uncertainty for Miss X, which is injustice. The Council has agreed to review her file in full and I find this goes some way towards remedying the injustice to Miss X.

Back to top

Action

55. To remedy the injustice identified above, the Council should complete the following actions within one month of this decision:
• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the identified fault. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make a symbolic payment of £100 to Miss X to recognise the uncertainty she has been caused by the identified fault.
• Complete the full review of Miss X’s file and write to her with the outcome of this.
56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

57. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman