Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to assist her when she asked for help to move following domestic abuse. She said its delay meant she continued to live at an address her former partner was aware of, resulting in further incidents of abuse. Ms X also complained the Council delayed in assessing her son’s medical needs. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to assist her when she asked for help with her housing following domestic abuse. She said the Council’s delay meant she remained at an address the perpetrator of the abuse was aware of, resulting in further incidents affecting her and her children. She also complained the Council delayed in assessing her son, Y’s medical needs, which added to the delay in rehousing the family.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. Ms X complained about events from March 2020. The housing case was active from then until March 2021 when the Council offered alternative housing. The complaints process was not completed until December 2021 and Ms X complained to us in January 2022. Given there was no delay in complaining to us after the Council issued its final response, I have exercised discretion to investigate. I am satisfied there is sufficient information available to reach robust conclusions for the period from March 2020.
6. 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

7. I considered:
• The information Ms X provided, and I discussed the complaint with her;
• The information the Council provided in response to our enquiries; and
• Relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
8. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

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. Councils generally have a housing register, which records the details of those waiting for an allocation. (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. This Council’s allocations scheme uses three bands to decide housing priority. Band 1 is for those with high priority housing need. Band 1 is divided into two groups. Band 1A is for emergencies. This is the highest priority available and is only given in exceptional circumstances. Otherwise, applicants will be placed in Band 1B.
12. As well as a band, applicants will be given a preference date. This will usually be either the date of the application or the date the priority was awarded.
13. Some applicants need to move because of their health or disability and may qualify for additional priority on this basis. Medical priority is only awarded if someone in the household has:
• a severe long-term illness, or a permanent and substantial disability; and
• their health or quality of life is severely affected by the home they live in.
14. Additional priority can also be given to applicants who need to move because they are in fear of violence, including domestic violence.
15. In exceptional cases, the Council’s Housing Management Panel may award discretionary additional priority where someone needs to move for unusual or urgent reasons not covered by the allocations policy.
16. Applicants apply for homes by bidding for accommodation advertised through the Choice Based Lettings system. Accommodation will usually be offered to the bidder with the highest priority band and preference date.
17. The Council can make a direct offer in certain circumstances, such as to meet the need of a high priority applicant. This means the Council will offer the property without advertising it through the Choice Based Lettings scheme.

Homelessness

18. 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.
19. The Code says someone may be homeless who has accommodation where it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy that accommodation.
20. Where a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless and eligible for assistance, it must make enquiries to determine if it owes them a housing duty. For applicants in priority need, including households with children, the council must provide suitable interim accommodation for the household whilst it makes those enquiries.

Child protection

21. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
22. Such action may include arranging an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC), which may decide to place the child on a child protection plan (CPP). After the ICPC, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the CPP should be maintained, amended, or discontinued. In between the conferences, a smaller group called the core group, will meet to monitor the actions in the CPP.

What happened

23. Ms X is a Council tenant. In February 2020, she reported concerns to the police and housing that her former partner, Mr P, was stalking her, and she was worried he might harm her or one of her children. The housing team made a referral to children’s social care, following which a social worker contacted Ms X to discuss her concerns and assess the risks posed. After making enquiries, children’s social care decided the children should be supported with a child protection plan.
24. In March 2020, Ms X obtained a Non Molestation Order, which prevented Mr P from contacting her directly or indirectly. On police advice Ms X sought assistance from the housing team with a housing transfer. She reported her former partner had been stalking her and repeated her concerns about the children. After making enquiries, the Council’s panel considered her application and in early April 2020 it awarded her band 1B priority for housing for a three month period. Its letter said this was subject to conditions, including that Ms X should bid for properties that were advertised and not restrict her choice unreasonably. At that point, bidding was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the Council later confirmed the priority period would run for three months from 15 June 2020, when bidding reopened.
25. The records show that, on receipt of the housing transfer application, the Council “strongly advised” Ms X to approach its homelessness team, which could consider emergency accommodation if that was needed. I have seen no record to show Ms X did so. In response to my enquiries, the Council said this was not considered further at the time because Ms X did not say she could not continue living at her address. The Council’s social worker reported that Ms X did not wish to move to temporary accommodation and preferred to wait until a permanent home was identified. Ms X also declined to consider moving out of the Council’s area, which was advised by both the Council and the police.
26. In June 2020, a representative from Housing attended the first part of the core group meeting. They reported that three bedroom properties had been advertised but Ms X had not bid for them. Ms X explained her ability to bid was limited by the location of the properties as some were in areas that were not safe for her, and some did not meet the needs of her son, who had a medical condition. Ms X did not wish to move out of the Council’s area and the minutes recorded concerns about waiting for a suitable property, given Mrs X’s particular requirements.
27. In early July, the family G.P wrote to the Council. They confirmed the son’s medical diagnosis and said the condition was poorly controlled. They said his mother was concerned he would be unable to climb several flights of stairs, and she therefore wanted a property on a lower floor or in a building with a lift. They asked the Council to take this into account when rehousing the family.
28. Also in early July, the police reported they had closed the case about harassment by Mr P and were taking no further action, based on a lack of evidence.
29. A Review Child Protection Conference (RCPC) was held in July 2020. This recorded that:
• Both parents had made allegations of domestic abuse against the other but that, to date, no charges had been brought;
• Mr P no longer visited the family home or had contact with the children because of the allegations made, and that the Non Molestation order remained in place;
• The social worker said Ms X had reported a “significant reduction” of risk to them and the children’s advocate said the children did not want to move from their current property;
• An officer from the Housing team, Mr Z, reported that although Ms X had been given increased priority so she could move, she had not been bidding actively and was putting too many restrictions on the type of property she would accept. They said if she did not bid actively, she risked losing the increased priority; and
• It was decided the children no longer needed to be on a CPP.
30. Ms X complained that Mr Z had called her an “opportunist” at the RCPC and suggested she was seeking to improve her housing situation. Ms X said she had not wanted to leave her home but was forced to do so due to the threats from Mr P. In its stage 1 complaint response in October 2021, the Council said Mr Z “felt it necessary to be able to speak freely and emphasise that [Ms X was] not being realistic with [her] housing preferences” but that he had not intended to cause any offence. In its stage 2 response it said Mr Z denied referring to Ms X as an opportunist but apologised if she found his behaviour disrespectful. The Council said it did not accept Mr Z’s conduct amounted to indirect discrimination and noted it had previously responded to that point to Ms X’s solicitor (in May 2021).
31. Following the RCP, the Council decided to withdraw Ms X’s additional priority. In its complaint response, the Council said that priority is reviewed regularly to confirm it remains justified. And that, based on the information shared at the RCPC, it decided high priority was no longer needed. It also said it noted Ms X had not been bidding actively and that the RCPC was told her children did not want to move. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed the children’s wishes were one factor, but not an over-riding one.
32. It wrote to Ms X to confirm her priority had been reduced to band 3 in early August 2020. Ms X asked the Council to explain its decision, but the Council said it did not receive her letter. Later, her Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA) asked the Council to explain. The Council responded to the IDVA the same day. It said that it was confirmed at the RCPC in July that Mr P no longer posed a high risk to the family and the police had closed their case. In view of this the high priority could no longer be justified. There is no record this response was sent to Ms X.
33. In late September 2020, Ms X reported to the police and children’s social care that Mr P had sexually assaulted her. This was reported to the Housing team the following day. At this stage, the Council’s social worker reported Ms X did not wish to leave her current address, and that this position was supported by the police, who had agreed to install an alarm to assist her to request immediate police assistance. Ms X told me she did want to move but she was reluctant to seek further help from housing in view of her earlier experiences.
34. The Council’s social worker reported that they expected a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) meeting would be held within days, but it was not held until 9 November 2020. Immediately following the MARAC meeting, the Housing team reinstated the band 1B priority.
35. Also in November 2020, the Council social worker asked the housing team to consider making a direct offer of housing to Ms X. The Housing team asked whether Ms X was unable to bid for housing, which it explained was the usual process for moving, but there is no record of a response to that. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed it did not agree to make a direct offer at that time. This was because Ms X had demonstrated the ability to bid for properties of her own choosing and that, due to her specific preferences, it would be difficult to identify a property for her.
36. In mid November Ms X bid on a property and the Council social worker asked the Housing team to help her get the property, although they noted the property was on the ground floor, which had previously been considered unsafe. The Housing team confirmed the property would be allocated in line with the allocations policy. Ms X was not successful in securing the property.
37. She reported three further incidents involving Mr P in November and December 2020.
38. In mid February, Ms X submitted a medical assessment form, providing details of her son’s medical condition and related housing needs.
39. Also in February, there was a further incident reported to the police. The Council’s social worker asked the Housing team to again consider a direct offer of housing, which the police supported. The Housing team initially agreed to do so. Emails were exchanged discussing Ms X’s requirements and exploring whether there was any medical evidence to support her view of her son’s needs. In response, the Council’s social worker provided a record of the medications prescribed.
40. Two days later, Ms X’s solicitor contacted the Council, asking it to consider a direct offer. The Council agreed to consider a direct offer, although it explained this did not mean it would make an immediate offer, nor did it mean it would offer Ms X the next available property, as it had a number of other extremely urgent applications that it was trying to assist with.
41. Ms X complained the Council did not increase her priority to Band 1A until after her solicitor contacted it in February. In the February 2021 letter, the solicitor queried the fact the bidding system showed Band 1A from January 2021 and suggested this needed rectifying. The Council said it had increased Ms X’s priority from Band 1B to Band 1A in January 2021 in light of the seriousness of Ms X’s situation. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the priority was increased to Band 1A following a further report from the police in February 2021.
42. In March 2021, Ms X accepted the offer of a property she had previously bid on. However, the property was not available immediately so Ms X was not able to move until mid May 2021. Ms X is unhappy with the new property because it is on a busy road, which adversely affects her son’s medical condition.

Analysis and findings

43. Ms X first asked for a housing transfer in March 2020. The Council considered the request and awarded Band 1B priority for three months in early April. Although Ms X was not able to bid at that time as bidding was suspended due to the pandemic, the Council advised her she could approach its homelessness team if she needed emergency accommodation. The Council’s social worker discussed temporary accommodation with her, and suggested she consider moving out of the area, both of which Ms X declined. The Council was not at fault.
44. Ms X was unhappy with comments made by Mr Z, a housing officer, at the RCPC in July 2020. Mr Z denied making the comment complained about. In its complaint response, the Council said the officer was emphasising that she was not being realistic with her housing preferences but had not intended to cause offence. At stage 2, it said Mr Z apologised if Ms X found his conduct disrespectful. Apart from Ms X’s account and the minutes of that meeting, summarised at paragraph 29 above, there is no other record of what was said. It was appropriate for the housing officer to give advice about bidding and there is insufficient evidence to conclude he was rude or unprofessional when doing so. Given the lapse of time since that meeting, it is unlikely that I can achieve anything further by pursuing this point.
45. The Council told Ms X her priority period would run from mid June 2020, when the bidding suspension was lifted. However, in late July the Council reviewed her priority. This was on the basis:
• The risks to Ms X and her family were significantly reduced;
• The police were taking no further action;
• The children did not want to move; and
• Ms X had not been actively bidding, which was a condition of the higher priority.

Whilst I understand Ms X did not agree with this decision, I have found no fault in the way the Council considered its decision and therefore cannot comment on it.

46. The Council wrote to confirm she was now in Band 3. Its letter did not explain its reasons but simply said the circumstances at the time of the award were no longer present. It said it did not receive her letter querying this, but it did respond the same day to a request from the IDVA. It was entitled to assume the IDVA would share its response with Ms X. It would have been good practice to explain its reasons in more detail when it informed her of the change of band, but this is not sufficient to amount to fault.
47. In September 2020, Ms X reported a further incident, which was serious enough for a MARAC to be arranged. I am satisfied it was appropriate for the Council to await the outcome of the MARAC before making a decision about Ms X’s housing priority to ensure it considered all relevant information. It agreed to reinstate higher priority immediately after the MARAC. In any case, in September Ms X was saying she did not want to move, and the police were supporting that decision.
48. From 9 November, Ms X had Band 1B priority. It is unclear from the records I have seen whether this was increased to Band 1A in January or February 2021, but the solicitor referred to a priority date of January 2021, which shows the decision was made before that contact and supports the Council’s statement that it was in response to a further report from the police. The increased priority was in response to further incidents Ms X reported after the MARAC and gave her the maximum priority available under the allocations scheme, reflecting the seriousness with which the Council viewed her situation.
49. In November 2020 and again in February 2021, the Council considered whether to make a direct offer to Ms X. Initially it declined to do so for the reasons set out at paragraph 35. It considered relevant factors when making that decision and I have not found fault with its decision-making. In February 2021, following a request from the solicitor, it did agree to make a direct offer. I cannot say that if it had made that decision earlier this would have meant Ms X could have moved sooner. And it would have given her less control over where she moved to. In the event, the property Ms X moved to was one she had chosen to bid for.

Medical priority

50. I also considered whether the Council properly considered the son’s medical condition. I have seen the GP letter, which was sent to the Council in July 2020. This was not a request for medical priority. It simply asked the Council to consider the son’s ability to manage stairs when allocating a property. At the time, Ms X was bidding for properties, so she had control over which properties she was considered for.
51. The Council could have advised Ms X, either in response to the GP letter or in response to discussions about her housing preferences in the CPP meetings, of the correct process for requesting medical preference. It is not clear it did so, although I accept that the minutes of the meetings will not be a full record of everything that was said. The records do show that the Housing team and the Council social worker discussed Ms X’s preferences in relation to her son’s medical condition and advised Ms X of the need to be more flexible or less restrictive in her bidding on several occasions. On balance, I do not find the Council was at fault.
52. In the event Ms X did not submit a medical form until February 2021. The Council did not have time to fully consider that application before a property was offered to her in March 2021 so I cannot say whether medical priority would have been awarded. Nor can I say this would have assisted the family to move more quickly given Ms X had at least band 1B priority from 9 November onwards.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman