Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to award her the correct priority on the housing register as it has failed to properly consider the domestic abuse and homelessness she experienced. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Miss X’s priority on the housing register.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council has failed to award her the correct priority on the housing register as it has failed to properly consider the domestic abuse and homelessness she experienced.

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 cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Miss X’s concerns about her priority on the housing register date back many years, but I have not investigated the full period of her concerns. Miss X initially contacted us in August 2023 so I have investigated events since August 2022. It was open to Miss X to raise her concerns about the Council’s actions between 2017 and 2022 much sooner, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider them now
6. I have referred to earlier events to provide context only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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

Housing allocations

9. 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))
10. 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))

11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. It uses a banding scheme to prioritise applications. Those with the highest priority will be awarded Band A, and those with the lowest priority are awarded Band D.
12. The Council’s scheme says Band B consists of applicants with high priority, including those having and “additional preference” such as:
• Households who are severely overcrowded
• Households with an urgent medical or welfare need to move
• Homelessness prevention.
13. In relation to homelessness prevention the scheme says the following households would be placed in Band B:
• Households threatened with homelessness who would if they became homeless be likely to be owed a full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, but who are working with the Council to prevent themselves from becoming homeless.
• Households who are working with the council to prevent themselves becoming homeless whose homelessness is relieved who would otherwise have been likely to have been owed the full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.
• Households to whom the Council previously owed a full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 but who have voluntarily agreed to this duty being brought to an end by the provision of private rented accommodation.
• Households to whom the Council previously owed a full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 who, with the advance agreement of the Council, have voluntarily left temporary accommodation to make alternative housing arrangements including staying with friends or relatives. This does not apply to those who have been given notice to leave by the Council, or who leave without giving the council advance notice.

What happened here

Background

14. Miss X first applied to join the housing register over 20 years ago. She was placed in Band B due to severe overcrowding. Miss X told the Council when she moved to a new property and also when her family size increased. The Council did not update Miss X’s application at that stage.
15. Miss X says she told the Council in 2017 that she was experiencing domestic abuse and an officer confirmed she was correctly placed in Band B. Miss X says she fled the domestic abuse by staying with friends and family. Miss X says her former partner moved out of the family home in 2018.
16. In 2018 the Council reviewed Miss X’s housing application and removed the overcrowding priority. It placed her in Band C2 based on a medical assessment. Miss X questioned this decision and contacted her MP and local Councillor for support.
17. Over the following years the Council repeatedly told Miss X and her MP that her Band B priority was based on overcrowding and should have been amended when Miss X moved house. It apologised for the error. The Council also explained several times that applicants at risk of domestic abuse could present as homeless and apply for emergency accommodation. The Council would then review their priority on the housing register in line with its allocation policy.

Complaint

18. In December 2022 Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council. She complained the Council’s responses to her MP missed the point of her complaint and were factually incorrect. She asked the Council to stop making mistakes and questioned why, at a time when she was experiencing increased vulnerability, the Council had reduced her priority. Miss X asked the Council to reinstate her Band B priority.
19. The Council responded at the end of January 2023 and apologise for its delayed response. The Council reiterated it had awarded Band B priority as it thought Miss X’s family was still living in a severely overcrowded property. It acknowledged this was a mistake and that it had already apologised for this error.
20. The Council said it had to allocate housing based on someone’s correct level of priority, so where it finds mistakes like this, it must correct them.
21. In relation to the domestic abuse and violence Miss X was experiencing, the Council noted her medical priority reflected the psychological trauma, poor mental health and emotional distress she had suffered. The Council explained its allocation scheme does not award higher priority for applicants suffering domestic abuse, except where the applicants are Council tenants. The help it offers is different for applicants who are not tenants. It said those at risk of violence can present as homeless and apply for emergency accommodation. The Council can then assist with finding alternative private rented accommodation, or if this is not possible, temporary accommodation while they wait for permanent housing.
22. The Council considered Miss X’s priority was correct and in line with its allocation scheme.
23. Miss X was not satisfied by the Council’s response and in August 2023 asked us to investigate her concerns. We advised Miss X to complete the Council’s complaint procedure.
24. Miss X contacted the Council in October 2023 and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. She asserted she had missed out on social housing due to the Council’s incorrect decisions. And that the Council’s actions had caused her financial pressure, and anxiety.
25. The Council treated Miss X’s complaint as a stage 1 complaint and responded on 17 January 2024. It again acknowledged the error in not updating Miss X’s housing application earlier and confirmed she remained in Band C2.
26. While it accepted there was an administrative error, the Council said there had been no service failure which would warrant awarding Miss X Band B, a compensation payment or the offer of a home. The Council had incorrectly placed Miss X in a higher rather than lower band.
27. The Council also noted Miss X had presented at the Council’s Prevention Drop- In service in February 2018. Miss X had told the housing advisor that her living conditions were unbearable due to emotional abuse from her former partner, who slept in the living room. The Council says it gave Miss X in-depth advice on its allocation policy and the priority bandings. And that the advisor told Miss X she would remain in the same priority banding while living in the same property as her former partner. The Council then closed this case in July 2018 as it had no further contact from Miss X.
28. In addition the Council said that to be awarded prevention Band B Miss X would need to present as homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. The Council would then assess her case and work with Miss X to prevent homelessness by giving her three options:
1. Place Miss X in temporary accommodation and award the default Band C1 as the Council would have relieved her homelessness.
2. Miss X could continue living in her home or with relatives/friend while bidding for council properties in prevention award Band B, as she would be working with the Council to prevent her homelessness. Or
3. Miss X could find her own accommodation in the private rental sector and bid for properties in prevention Band B.
29. As Miss X had not presented as homeless and had opted to continue living with her former partner the Council said it could not justify awarding her prevention Band B.
30. Miss X disputed the accuracy of the Council’s response and said she had accepted option 2. She said she found it upsetting to explain again that she and her children had been living out of bags while staying with friends and family rather than in temporary accommodation.
31. The Council reviewed Miss X’s complaint and noted its stage 1 response had set out why she had never been awarded Band B for homelessness prevention. Miss X had not presented as homeless so could not be awarded prevention Band B. The Council advised Miss X that if she was unhappy with the Council’s response she could complain to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
32. This was incorrect advice as the Council should have referred Miss X to us.
33. Miss X made a complaint to HOS who forwarded it on to us. In response to my enquiries the Council says its homelessness team’s last involvement with Miss X was in 2018. The case was closed as Miss X made no further contact. It reiterates Miss X has never been awarded Band B priority for homelessness prevention.

Analysis

34. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what level of priority Miss X should have on the housing register; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council assessed her application correctly. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
35. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision to award Band C2 priority and wants the Council to reinstate Band B priority. However the Council’s decision is in line with its housing allocations scheme and I cannot therefore criticise it. Miss X originally had Band B priority because her family was severely overcrowded. She no longer meets this criteria, but the Council has awarded Band C2 based on a medical need.
36. The Council has set out the options available to Miss X should she present as homelessness. Miss X asserts she has chosen option 2, set out above, and has been following the Council’s advice by staying in the property to prevent herself becoming homeless. On this basis she believes she meets the criteria for Band B under homelessness prevention.
37. However there is no evidence she has presented as homeless or that the Council accepted a homeless duty towards her in the time period we are considering.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman