Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the priority banding awarded on the housing register. This is because there is not sufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council’s incorrect banding and poor communication on her homeless application as the victim of domestic abuse. She also complains about the Council requiring that she must go into a refuge to be able to access higher priority banding.
2. Miss Y says this has affected her mental health and will cause her isolation from her support network.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss Y applied to join the Council’s housing register after her baby was born as the property she was living in had become overcrowded. The Council awarded her band D priority as she needed an extra bedroom.
7. At the same time, Miss Y made a homeless application due to domestic abuse from a third party. The Council closed the application a month later due to lack of contact from Miss Y, despite it chasing her.
8. Miss Y put in another homeless application on the same ground five months later. Miss Y closed this application a month later as she wanted to continue with a homeless application with another Council.
9. Miss Y complained the Council hasn’t considered her domestic abuse risk and keep closing her homeless applications. She also complains the Council have told her she has to go into a refuge, but this is not suitable to her needs. Miss Y says she should be in band B priority as a victim of domestic abuse.
10. The Council in its responses has not disputed Miss Y is a victim of domestic abuse.
11. The Council’s allocations policy says for band B priority (which includes domestic abuse victims), applicants must engage with housing services. The Council has confirmed this means putting in and progressing through a homeless application. As Miss Y did not complete her first application and closed her second application, the Council did not consider her to be band B priority due to not engaging with the homeless application as required under its policy.
12. The Council acted in line with its allocations policy by considering Miss Y’s situation according to its domestic abuse guidance. As Miss Y did not follow through the homeless applications, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council as it placed Miss Y in a lower banding in accordance with its policy.
13. The Council has said in its responses that with each homeless application its advised Miss Y to go into a refuge. The Council’s domestic abuse guidance says safe refuge accommodation should be discussed with the applicant, but if it is not suitable, then other temporary accommodation options should be explored.
14. While the Council’s communication felt unclear to Miss Y, the Council has followed its policy and has confirmed that it would consider Miss Y for priority B if she engages with a homeless application. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation by us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman