Summary: Miss B was a victim of domestic abuse. She secured a property with a housing association through the Council’s allocations scheme. She complained the Council did not prevent a relative of her perpetrator moving into her road. She also complained the Council did not support her to leave this property and move into a new one. Miss B said this caused her and her family considerable distress and her children had to change schools. We found fault with the Council’s complaint response. The Council offered Miss B a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss B, was a victim of domestic abuse. She secured a property with a housing association through the Council’s allocations scheme. She complained, with the support of her mother Ms C, the Council did not prevent a relative of her perpetrator moving into her road. She also complained the Council did not support her to leave this property and move into a new one. Miss B said this caused her and her family considerable distress and her children had to change schools.

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. 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

4. I considered:
• Miss B’s complaint and the information her mother, Ms C, provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
5. Miss B, Ms C and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

6. 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))
7. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised, Home Choice. On Home Choice properties are advertised on a weekly basis and households can bid on properties that meet their needs. When the advert cycle closes landlords review the shortlist of bidders and decide who to offer their properties to. Properties are normally offered to the household with the highest priority.
8. Band 1 priority is awarded to victims of domestic violence and abuse where a MARAC (Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference) identified a high level of risk and they have an exceptional need for band 1. Band 1 will only be agreed where it has been recommended by MARAC and will only apply for up to 6 months. This may be extended in exceptional circumstances.
9. Band 2 priority is awarded when the household urgently needs to move due to domestic abuse, violence or other harassment and are at significant risk of harm. This priority will only be awarded if a move to another property will resolve the immediate danger.
10. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 
11. The Council has a two-stage complaint procedure:
• Stage 1: It will respond within 15 working days. It will address all issues raised by the complainant. The response will tell the complainant how to escalate their complaint if they remain dissatisfied.
• Stage 2: If the complainant is not happy with its response, the Council will carry out a review. It will respond within 20 working days. The response will tell the complainant how to escalate their complaint if they remain dissatisfied.

What happened

12. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
13. In 2016, Miss B and her children joined the housing register because of domestic abuse. She gave the Council the name and address of her perpetrator. The Council placed Miss B in band 2 under its allocation policy.
14. In February 2021, Miss B bid on, and was accepted for, property 1, a housing association property. She moved into the property with her children in April 2021.
15. In July 2021, the housing association allocated a relative of Miss B’s perpetrator, Ms D, a property on the same road as Miss B. Ms D has a different surname to Miss B’s perpetrator. When Miss B became aware Ms D was living on the same road as her, she contacted the housing association. She said she was at risk from the perpetrator and his family. She asked the housing association to move Ms D to a different property. The housing association told her it could not force Ms D to move. Miss B did not return to her property.
16. The housing association contacted the Council. It explained the situation and asked it to provide Miss B with emergency accommodation until it found a suitable alternative. It advised Miss B’s children were staying with family. The Council completed a homelessness application with Miss B and offered her emergency accommodation. Miss B said she would stay with a friend.
17. Miss B’s MP’s office contacted the Council the same day. It explained Miss B had spent thousands of pounds on property 1 and had to flee because a relative of her perpetrator was moved into a property on the same road. It said it was alarmed this issue was not identified before Ms D signed a tenancy agreement. It told the Council Miss B and her children needed to be rehoused urgently.
18. The Council responded to Miss B’s MP’s office at the end of July 2021. It said its homeless prevention team was working on Miss B’s application. It said it understood the housing association was seeking alternative accommodation for Miss B. It said it would ask the housing association to contact Miss B to update her. The Council said it would investigate how Miss B and Ms D were offered housing on the same road.
19. The Council wrote to Miss B in August 2021. It said as she had not been in contact with them for a month, it was closing her homelessness case. It told her to contact it if she needed any support.
20. The housing association offered Miss B a new property which she accepted and moved into in September 2021.

Complaint

21. Miss B’s mother complained on her behalf in July 2021. She advised Miss B could not return to her property for fear that her perpetrator and his family knew where she lived. She asked the Council how it was possible that Ms D was housed on the same road as Miss B. The Council said it would respond in August 2021. Miss B’s mother chased the Council for a response and raised concerns with the Council’s complaint handling.
22. The Council’s first response and homelessness prevention teams sent partial responses in August 2021. The first response team apologised that it kept Miss B’s mother on hold for over an hour and explained when her call was transferred by the switchboard it did not connect. It advised it had resolved the problem. It said it spoke to the call handler who said she tried to help Miss B’s mother; the Council apologised if this is not how she experienced the call. The Council’s homelessness prevention team summarised the action its team had taken. It said it could not find a record of her asking for a call back and apologised if it had missed it. It told Miss B who to contact if she wanted to continue her homelessness application. It suggested Home Choice would also respond to the complaint.
23. Miss B’s mother responded. She told the Council its email from the homelessness prevention team was confusing and queried why she received a response from individual teams rather than a response from the Council as a whole. She asked the Council to address the complaint about its decision to allocate Miss B and Ms D properties in the same road.
24. In September, October, November and December 2021, Miss B’s mother and her MP’s office chased the Council for a response and asked for an update about its investigation into how the situation occurred.
25. The Council responded to Miss B’s MP’s office in December 2021. It explained it spoke to Miss B at length on two occasions, recognised the stress and anxiety the situation had caused and apologised that it had happened. It advised it was not the landlord for property 1 and it did not know a family member of Miss B’s perpetrator had moved into the same road. The Council explained when it became aware of the situation, it took a homelessness application from Miss B and confirmed the housing association was going to offer her an urgent management transfer. The Council said it had looked into the situation and found there was nothing to connect the two households or give cause for concern before Ms D was offered her property. It advised the housing association had offered Miss B a new property. Miss B’s MP’s office forwarded the response to her mother.
26. Miss B’s mother was unhappy with the response. She said it was full of mistakes, and misunderstandings. Miss B’s MP’s office raised this with the Council. It advised the main issue was that the Council said it would look into how the situation occurred but did not provide an update in its responses. The office told the Council Miss B’s mother would like to take the complaint to the Ombudsman, but it was unclear whether the Council’s complaint procedure had been exhausted.
27. The Council responded in January 2022. It apologised for its delay and offered her £150 in recognition of this. It also apologised for its poor stage one response, it said it addressed this with the officer responsible. It acknowledged the situation must have been devastating for Miss B and said sorry for any further distress its complaint response caused.
28. The Council advised it had systems in place to manage the housing allocation of applicants who pose significant risks to the public. It explained these systems do not extend to family members of perpetrators seeking housing. It said it had reviewed the housing applications of both parties and found each one was assessed correctly according to its published allocation scheme. It said there was no information to suggest there was a link between the two applicants and no risks were identified. It said if she was unhappy with its response, she could contact the Ombudsman.

Council response to enquiries

29. The Council accepted it made errors in its complaint handling:
• It should have sent one stage one complaint response, not three.
• It failed to tell Miss B how to escalate her complaint.
• It should have escalated the case to a senior member of the customer relations team sooner.
30. It advised it has reviewed its procedures to ensure this does not happen in future.

Analysis

31. There was no information on Miss B or Ms D’s housing applications to indicate they knew each other, or that Ms D knew Miss B’s perpetrator. The fact that Miss B and Ms D were housed on the same road was an unfortunate coincidence, and not something either the Council or the housing association could have foreseen.
32. When the Council became aware Miss B was concerned about her and her children’s safety because Ms D had moved into the same road, it accepted her homelessness application and offered emergency accommodation. The housing association offered her an urgent management transfer, and she was rehoused within six weeks.
33. There were problems with the Council’s complaint response. It failed to follow its complaint policy. The Council’s stage one complaint response was confusing. Two separate teams responded, and suggested Miss B’s mother would get another response from a third. The responses were not coordinated and did not address all her concerns. Miss B's mother asked the Council to consider this at stage two. The Council should have responded in 20 working days, but it took over four months. The Council’s poor complaint response and delay was fault. It caused confusion and put Miss B’s mother to time and trouble chasing the Council. The Council apologised and offered Miss B £150; I consider this a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss B and Ms C's complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Miss B and Ms C. I am satisfied the Council offered a suitable remedy to address that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman