Summary: The Council was at fault for refusing to accept a homeless application from Ms X when she fled domestic abuse to its area. The Council’s housing allocations policy is flawed because it excludes a group of applicants the law says must get reasonable preference. The Council was also at fault for failing to tell Ms X about her right to review its decisions. To remedy the injustice to Ms X, the Council has agreed to apologise, make new decisions on Ms X’s applications, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council failed to help her when she moved into its area to escape domestic abuse. In particular, Ms X says the Council:
1. Refused to take a homeless application from her, directing her back to the council she fled from;
2. Refused to allow her to join its housing register;
3. Communicated poorly and did not make proper decisions which she could review.
2. As a result, Ms X says she and her children experienced avoidable distress at an already difficult time and cannot access secure housing.

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. 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 the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Ms X and the Council 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

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. 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)
11. 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)

Housing allocations

12. 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))
13. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
14. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
15. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council’s allocations scheme says:
• To qualify, applicants must have lived in the Council’s area for at least five years
• An applicant will be exempt from this requirement if they have fled domestic abuse from the area where they have a local connection
• An applicant who would otherwise qualify will be disqualified if another council owes them a homelessness duty and has placed them in temporary accommodation in Redbridge

What happened

16. In Summer 2023, Ms X and her children fled domestic abuse from another council’s area (Council B). Ms X says Council B provided her with accommodation in this Council’s area. Ms X says Council B told her that because it was not safe for her to live in Council B’s area, she could apply for housing in another area.
17. Ms X completed an online form for the Council’s homelessness service. The next day, the Council told Ms X that she should approach Council B for help. Ms X says she also applied to join the Council’s housing register but was unable to complete her application.
18. In October, Ms X asked the Council for a review of its decision not to help her. The reviews team told her that because the Council had not made a formal decision on her application, she could not have a review.
19. In January 2024, Ms X contacted the Council again to ask for help. She said she had been homeless for over six months and was living in hotels with her children. She asked the Council to contact her. She sent this email to both the homelessness service and the housing allocations service. The housing allocations service replied by giving her the email address for the homeless service. This was the same as the address Ms X had already emailed.
20. Ms X made a new application to the housing register. She says the Council’s system would not let her complete the application and it was stuck at “pending enquiries”.
21. In October 2024, Ms X complained to the Council. She said she had been trying to get help with housing for over a year. She said the Council kept ignoring her whenever she tried to make contact.
22. The Council responded at stage one of its complaint process. It said:
• It was sorry for the delay with her application for social housing
• Although she had been in contact with officers from various teams, the Council had not forwarded this to the correct team
• Her application for social housing was listed as “incomplete” and she needed to complete this.
23. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its process. It responded in December. It considered her complaint under two separate headings: homelessness and the housing register.
24. About homelessness, it said:
• Although Ms X could not have two homeless applications with two different councils, the Council should have done its own assessment when she first approached
• It would ask a named officer to contact her to discuss her current circumstances
• Ms X’s contact with the Council about her homeless application “has not been recorded unfortunately”
25. About the housing register, it said:
• Although Ms X was exempt from the residence requirement because she was fleeing domestic abuse, she was disqualified because she had been placed in the Council’s area by Council B under a homelessness duty
• This was the reason the system did not allow her to complete the application.

Findings

Homelessness

26. The Council has already accepted fault for failing to make its own inquiries when Ms X approached in Summer 2023. I agree, this was fault. The Council had reason to believe Ms X might be homeless. It should therefore have made inquiries and issued a formal decision, giving Ms X a right of review. Instead, the Council sent a short email telling Ms X to approach Council B because it owed her a duty. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty at an already difficult time and denied her access to her statutory review rights. This is an injustice to Ms X.
27. The Council repeated this failing in January 2024. Ms X contacted the homeless service directly. She said she was homeless, gave her contact details, and asked the Council to contact her to make an appointment. The Council’s failure to act on this was fault. It caused Ms X further avoidable distress.
28. The Council told Ms X in response to her complaint that an officer would contact her. In response to my enquiries, the Council says it has no evidence that it did so. Failure to follow up on the actions agreed in response to a complaint was fault. This added avoidably to Ms X’s frustration, which is an injustice.

Allocations

29. The Council has no record of Ms X’s application to the housing register in Summer 2023. It says this is because the system automatically closed the application by telling Ms X she did not qualify. Even where the Council closes a case, it should keep records of applications and decisions in line with the review period and its retention policy. Not to do so was fault.
30. There is a statutory right to review decisions about qualification for housing allocations. I asked the Council to provide evidence of how it notified Ms X of its decisions and her review rights. It said the “[s]ystem automatically closed her application.” I take this to mean that the Council’s automatically generated decisions on housing applications do not tell people about their review rights. This is not in line with the law or the Council’s published policy and is fault. It denied Ms X her right of review and it is likely that other applicants are also affected.
31. Allowing its system to close applications automatically, without human oversight or review, means the Council cannot consider exercising discretion in an individual case. Fettering its discretion in this way is fault.
32. In response to her complaint, the Council explained to Ms X why she did not qualify. The Council updated its allocations policy in 2025 but the relevant sections remain the same in both the new policy and that in place at the time of Ms X’s applications.
33. Ms X is exempt from the five-year residence requirement because she is fleeing domestic abuse. However, the Council disqualifies applicants owed a homelessness duty by another council who have been placed in the Council’s area by that other council.
34. This leaves Ms X not being able to apply for housing in Council B because she is not safe there and not being able to apply for housing in Redbridge because Council B placed her there. However, under the Council’s policy, if Council B had placed Ms X in a different area, she could have applied to the Council and would not have been disqualified.
35. The law says councils must give reasonable preference to certain groups. This includes “people who are owed a duty by any local housing authority” under homelessness law (Housing Act 1996, s166(3)(b)). The statutory guidance says councils should “avoid setting criteria which disqualifies groups of people” likely to have reasonable preference (Allocation of accommodation, 3.27).
36. I asked the Council to tell me how its policy meets these requirements, but it did not answer the question. The Council’s scheme disqualifies a group of applicants who would otherwise have reasonable preference. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that in setting its policy, the Council made a proper decision, with due regard to the law and guidance, the policy is flawed. This is fault.
37. Ms X applied for housing to the Council because she wants to live there. She lived there previously, her children are now settled at schools in the area, and she has found work there. The Council’s flawed policy is likely to mainly affect people like Ms X, who have fled domestic abuse and so are exempt from the residence requirement. Although it is unlikely Ms X would have secured social housing had she been able to join the register, the Council’s fault denied her access to one of the housing options to end her homelessness. This is a significant injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Action

38. To remedy the injustice to Ms X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. make inquiries into Ms X’s homelessness and decide what, if any, duty the Council owes her;
3. reassess Ms X’s application to the housing register, disregarding the disqualification previously applied, and if she otherwise qualifies then backdate her priority to the date of her first application in Summer 2023; and
4. pay Ms X £250 in recognition of her avoidable distress and missed review rights.
39. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
40. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
1. Using this case as an example, remind relevant staff of the duty to make inquiries and issue a reviewable decision when it has reason to believe someone might be homeless or threatened with homeless, regardless of any duty owed by another council.
2. Keep records of all applications for social housing and resulting decisions in line with the Council’s document retention policy;
3. Ensure all decisions on applications for social housing give reasons for the decision and set out the applicant’s right to ask for a review. Amend any templates as necessary.
4. Identify and implement a means of ensuring that automated decision making in housing allocations does not prevent the Council considering individual circumstances and exercising discretion.
5. Review and amend the housing allocations policy to ensure it reflects the requirement of the Housing Act 1996 to give reasonable preference to applicants owed a homelessness duty by any council and does not disqualify a group of applicants who would otherwise have reasonable preference.
41. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within six months of my final decision.

Back to top

Decision

42. 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