Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault with the Council’s handling of Mr X’s applications to its housing register and the Pan-London housing reciprocal scheme. The Council was also at fault for failing to deal properly with Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour and failing to consider if Mr X was homeless. We found further fault with how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments to Mr X and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of issues with his housing and request to move. In particular, that the Council:
1. delayed processing his application to the housing register;
2. failed to deal with anti-social behaviour from neighbours;
3. wrongly refused his request for a transfer under the Pan-London housing reciprocal scheme, basing its decisions on inaccurate and incomplete information;
4. failed properly to consider whether he was homeless or threatened with homelessness; and
5. delayed responding to his complaints and failed to respond all aspects of his complaint.
2. As a result, Mr X says he remains in a property where he experienced domestic abuse and a violent assault and lives with continuing ASB from his neighbours. This negatively affects his mental health and has prevented him accessing treatment for his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or avoidable time and trouble. 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)
4. The LGSCO considers whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The LGSCO investigates complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner or failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
7. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
8. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
9. If the LGSCO is 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).
10. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme).

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

11. Mr X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
12. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.
13. HOS investigated the complaint c) in paragraph one. LGSCO investigated the complaints at a), b) and d) in paragraph one. Both HOS and LGSCO have investigated the complaint at e).
14. We considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X.
15. We made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
16. The LGSCO considered our Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
17. Mr X and the Council can now comment on this draft decision. We will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What we found

What happened

18. Mr X is a tenant of the Council. He is Disabled, with both physical and mental health conditions. Mr X experienced domestic abuse from a former partner from 2014 to 2016. In 2015, he was violently assaulted in his home by an associate of his ex-partner. He has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) because of these experiences.
19. In 2019, Mr X’s psychotherapist wrote to the Council explaining that Mr X’s treatment for PTSD was impeded by living in the same place as the trauma occurred. The doctor wrote another letter in December 2020 in the same terms.
20. In March 2021, Mr X’s psychotherapist wrote again to recommend that Mr X move out of the Council’s area. The letter said that Mr X’s treatment for his PTSD could not continue while he still lived in the home and borough where the traumatic experiences happened. The Council responded and advised that Mr X should apply for a transfer.
21. Mr X applied for a transfer a few days later. In his application, he said he needed to move because of the impact on his health of living in the flat where he was abused and assaulted. He heard nothing from the Council for over a year.
22. In June 2022, the Council wrote to Mr X to say there was not enough information in his transfer application for him to qualify to join the housing register.
23. In August 2022, Mr X’s domestic abuse support worker complained on his behalf to the Council. The Council responded to Mr X’s MP and local councillor but not to him.
24. In September, the Council wrote to Mr X. It set out his housing options and explained:
• A transfer application could only enable Mr X to move within the Council’s area
• He might meet the criteria for the Pan-London Housing Reciprocal scheme
• However, he could also consider a move within the borough as a short-term solution to limit the impact on his mental health
25. In October, Mr X’s housing officer referred him to the Family Justice Centre (FJC) to assess the risk to Mr X of remaining in his home. The referral said Mr X was in fear of his ex-partner. It said they were living out of the country.
26. The FJC produced a report but did not meet with Mr X or seek additional information. It decided the risk to Mr X was low and so a full assessment was not necessary.
27. In November, Mr X reported a violent assault from one of his neighbours. He made a police report and went to hospital for treatment. A week later, Mr X’s support worker referred him to the Pan-London reciprocal scheme, which the Council’s tenancy team informed the support worker they were also doing. Pan-London accepted the support worker’s referral and asked the Council to approve it, enclosing Mr X’s application form. This said:
• Mr X experienced domestic abuse from a former partner from 2014 to 2016, and was violently assaulted in his home by an associate of his ex-partner.
• Mr X was diagnosed with PTSD and advised by his therapist to move out of the borough due to what he had experienced in his home.
• Mr X was progressing legal proceedings related to the domestic violence.
• Mr X was afraid for his safety because his ex partner was in the country, knew where he lived and felt they could arrive at any moment. He was also currently afraid to leave the house, as he had recently been attacked by a neighbour who had been released on bail.
28. The Council’s tenancy team responded that they supported the move, however Pan London explained that approval from the Council’s Named Lead was required before they could proceed, and sent reminders for this in November, January, and February.
29. The Council’s housing panel considered Mr X’s request to move through the Pan-London scheme in early February 2023. The housing officer’s report to the panel said Mr X’s former partner lived abroad and there had been no recent incidents. The panel did not approve the request. When informing Mr X of the decision, the Council’s tenancy team said he could apply for a medical transfer if his housing exacerbated medical issues, but said this may be unsuitable as this would not allow for rehousing outside of the borough.
30. Mr X complained about the decision. He said the panel relied on inaccurate information. His ex-partner did not live abroad and knew where he lived. He also pointed out that the FJC did not meet him before making a recommendation. Mr X did not get a response to his complaint at stage one. He asked the Council to escalate to stage two in March.
31. Between January and March 2023, Mr X made several reports to the Council’s Community Safety team about suspected drug dealing by his neighbours. In March, he instigated the community trigger process.
32. The community trigger panel met in April. It decided that because the drug dealing was a criminal matter, the police were best placed to investigate it.
33. The housing panel met again in June. It again refused Mr X’s request to move under the Pan-London reciprocal scheme. Its decision said this was because the domestic abuse, which was the basis for a move, was historic. However, it also recorded that the risk of ASB appeared escalated. It would therefore make enquiries of the police and then consider at a further panel.
34. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint in June. It said:
• It was sorry for the seven week delay responding to his complaint.
• Its response to Mr X’s MP contained inaccurate information, which should not have happened
• He did not receive a response to his stage one complaint, which it accepted was fault.
• The Council did not act on the letters from his doctor in 2019 or 2020, which it accepted was fault.
• It had significantly delayed progressing his transfer application, which it accepted was fault. However, because Mr X wanted to move out of the area, this had not made a difference to his chances of rehousing.
• The housing panel in February 2023 had inaccurate information, which it accepted was fault.
• It had missed opportunities to tell Mr X how his case would progress and when it needed more information for the housing panel.
• The police were dealing with the ASB he reported.
35. The Council offered Mr X £550 as a remedy for the injustice caused by the faults it accepted. It said its transfer process had already been reviewed. Its new system flagged late reviews and had management oversight. It identified it could improve its services by:
• Reviewing the process of the housing panel
• Ensuring any evidence is agreed before the panel meeting
• Improving its record keeping and quality monitoring
36. In July, an independent contractor working in the block of flats where Mr X lives reported suspected drug activity. This corroborated Mr X’s reports.
37. Since Mr X complained to the Ombudsmen, the housing panel approved a new referral for Mr X to the Pan-London reciprocal scheme. The Council says this was because Mr X provided new evidence that his ex-partner had contacted him.

Analysis and findings

38. We set out the relevant law and guidance and our findings in the order of the complaints listed in paragraph one.

Housing allocations and transfers – law and guidance

39. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
40. 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))
41. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
42. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This means housing applicants can express an interest in available properties. This is called bidding. The Council’s published allocations scheme says it will complete a preliminary assessment within 10 working days of receiving an application.
43. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 3 (lowest priority).
44. Most applicants with reasonable preference will be in Band 3. Of relevance to this complaint, the Council awards reasonable preference to applicants who need to move because their current accommodation “at least moderately affects their medical condition.”
45. The Council awards Band 1 to applicants with reasonable preference who have an exceptional or urgent housing need. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 1 to:
• existing tenants who are approved for a management transfer;
• people who need to move urgently because of domestic violence, harassment, or severe anti-social behaviour.
46. If the Council decides an applicant has no or low housing need, they cannot join the housing register. The Council will give the applicant advice, information, and assistance on their housing options.

Housing application findings

47. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register because his current home significantly affected his mental health. This means he applied for reasonable preference as well as a management transfer.
48. It took the Council from March 2021 to June 2022 to progress Mr X’s application. The Council has accepted fault for this delay. LSGCO agrees this was fault by the Council.
49. The Council decided Mr X could not join its housing register. LGSCO can see no basis for this decision. Mr X provided evidence about the significant impact on his mental health of remaining in his home. Therefore, if the Council decided Mr X did not meet the threshold for a management transfer, it should have awarded him Band 3 priority under the scheme. LGSCO finds not to have done so was fault.
50. Although Mr X does not want to move within the borough, the Council’s allocations scheme says it is part of a regional partnership with six other councils separate from the Pan London reciprocal scheme). Mr X indicated he wanted to move to one of these boroughs. Mr X has therefore missed out on the opportunity to bid for housing under this partnership. This is an injustice to Mr X.
51. The Council’s fault delayed the Council providing him with the advice and information about his housing options it eventually provided in August and September 2022. This is an injustice to Mr X.
52. In its stage two complaint response, the Council also accepted fault for failing to act on the letters from Mr X’s psychotherapist in 2019 and 2020. LGSCO agrees this was fault by the Council. The Council should have advised Mr X about his housing options as early as 2019 and did not do so until August 2022. This caused Mr X significant avoidable distress and uncertainty about whether he might have been able to move sooner, which is an injustice.

Anti-social behaviour – law and guidance

53. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is defined in law (section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) as:
• conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
• conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or
• conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
54. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour. But ASB can take many different forms; and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
55. For example, they may approach a complaint:
• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as a planning matter, where the complaint is about an inappropriate use of a building or facility;
• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant; or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
56. The 2014 Act introduced six new powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These are:
• the power to issue community protection notices (CPN);
• the power to make a public spaces protection order (PSPO);
• the power to close premises for a specified period of time;
• a civil injunction (a court order, which can be made upon application by the local authority or other agencies);
• a criminal behaviour order (a court order made following a conviction); and
• the power for the police to disperse people from a specified area.
  Community Protection Notices
57. Councils and the police can issue Community Protection Notices (CPN) to prevent anti-social behaviour which is having a negative effect on the community's quality of life, and which they decide is unreasonable. CPNs require the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to ensure it is not repeated. Failure to comply is an offence, and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice.
58. A council may issue a CPN while it is investigating whether the behaviour is a statutory nuisance. Issue of a CPN does not affect the council’s obligation to serve an abatement notice under Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, where the relevant test is met.
59. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a mechanism to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is commonly known as the ‘Community Trigger’ process. When a person requests a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether the local threshold has been met.
60. If the threshold has been met, the relevant bodies should undertake the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then inform the complainant of the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan. It is for relevant local bodies to agree their review threshold, but the ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months.
61. We can only consider councils’ actions in an ASB case review. Any contribution made by other relevant bodies, such as the police, is not in our jurisdiction.

ASB findings

62. The Council says its ASB team first became aware of Mr X’s case in November 2022 when he reported the assault by his neighbour. Mr X’s housing officer made a note of a conversation with an ASB officer. This said the ASB officer had advised there was no action the Council could take because the assailant was not a tenant of the Council, there were no witnesses, and the police were not taking further action. LGSCO find this was fault. The Council should have considered whether to use its own powers and reached its own view about what happened. We cannot say that had it done so, the Council would have taken any action against Mr X’s neighbour. But Mr X must live with this uncertainty, which is an injustice.
63. Mr X made several reports to the Council’s Community Safety team in early 2023. There is no evidence the Council acted on any of these reports until Mr X initiated the community trigger in March. LGSCO finds this was fault. This caused Mr X avoidable distress, which is an injustice.
64. In response to our enquiries, the Council said its Community Safety team is separate from its ASB team. This is not an adequate explanation for its failure to act. We expect different parts of the Council to work together. Community Safety should have told its ASB team about Mr X’s reports of ASB from his neighbours. Failure to do so was fault. The ASB team should then have contacted Mr X and explained what action, if any, it would take. If it decided not to act, it should have told Mr X why and how to report any further issues.
65. The outcome of the community trigger was to take no further action. It said:

“Drug dealing is a criminal matter and in the first instance should be investigated by the police. The council are only in a position to act once evidence has been produced by the police or CCTV.

It is my position that until such time as evidence has been produced to support the allegations made by Mr [X] the council are in no legal position to take enforcement action.”

66. We accept that the issue Mr X reported was criminal activity in the form of drug dealing and that this is in the first instance a police matter. However, the police usually need to prove something to the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” to act. Many of the Council’s powers can be enacted on the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. Furthermore, Mr X was reporting drug-related ASB in the form of noise, smells, and pests. The Council has duties and powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to address these issues. It should have considered whether to use them. LGSCO finds not to have done so was fault.
67. The Council received corroborating information about Mr X’s complaints from an independent contractor in summer 2023. There is no evidence it properly considered whether and how to act on this further evidence. The LGSCO finds this was fault.

Pan-London housing reciprocal scheme

68. The Pan-London Housing Reciprocal scheme is a scheme to rehouse social housing tenants ‘affected’ by domestic violence and other community safety risks, including survivors and victims of domestic violence, to avoid them becoming homeless. The scheme acts as a central ‘broker’ between landlords, who agree to reciprocate properties back to the scheme when they have tenants rehoused via the scheme. The eligibility criteria for the scheme says that applicants must be referred by landlords, supporting agencies or other professionals and that applicants must be resident in London; hold a social housing tenancy; be considered to be safe to reside in London; request a household’s correct room entitlement; select 5 safe London boroughs; be signposted to a domestic abuse service if one is not in placer; and a professional or organisation providing resettlement support must be included in the application.
69. The Pan-London reciprocal scheme says that it is not an emergency housing scheme, and that if there is an immediate risk, emergency housing options should be explored. Information published by Pan-London says that a large proportion of applicants have additional needs, sometimes directly linked with the risk they have experienced, such as mental health needs, which it says it is essential for landlords to recognise and adopt a trauma-informed, flexible and sensitive approach to effectively support applicants.

Pan-London housing reciprocal scheme findings

70. HOS has investigated the Council’s handling in respect to the referral; the information provided and compiled for panel decisions; and the consequent impact on the consideration of Mr X’s referral.
71. The Council received the Pan-London housing reciprocal scheme referral in November 2022, but has stated in responses that this was received in January 2023. In doing so the Council does not acknowledge a delay from November, when it received the referral, to January/February, when it reviewed the referral and responded to Mr X. There was then a further delay from February to June in reconsidering Mr X’s referral. The Council’s ‘housing panel terms of reference’ says applicants have a right to review, however, when Mr X responded to its February decision, he was told he could not appeal unless circumstances significantly changed. This was not satisfactory since Mr X said information the decision was based on was inaccurate; and he should not have had to complain for his referral to be reconsidered. Overall, there were delays of over 6 months considering and reconsidering the referral, which is not reasonable.
72. The Council has appropriately acknowledged inaccuracies in information that was compiled for the housing panel which reviewed the referral. This wrongly said that Mr X’s ex partner was out of the country; implied there was a one-off abusive incident rather than a sustained period of domestic abuse; did not accurately detail an historic violent assault; and misstated details about the recent assault. The Council also acknowledged that when Mr X submitted further information after the February panel, it would have been appropriate to re-visit the panel with the additional information. The Council did not feel the information justified approval of Mr X’s Pan-London referral in February and June 2023, but says it has now recently approved the referral after being informed Mr X had been contacted by his ex-partner. In the HOS’ opinion, the consideration of the prior information shows issues with the way prior decisions were made.
73. The Council referred Mr X for risk assessments by its Family Justice Centre (FJC), and an October 2022 assessment was summarised in a report for the February panel. This was inadequate as the FJC did not meet with Mr X as he was informed would happen. It would have also been appropriate for the Council to arrange a further FJC risk assessment after the Pan-London’s scheme November referral. The referral contained information that was new and contradicted information on which the October risk assessment was based. The FJC assessment did not consider the November alleged assault by a neighbour. The FJC assessment stated that Mr X’s partner was out of the country, whereas the application stated they were in the country. There was no consideration of the legal action Mr X said he was taking related to the domestic abuse he experienced, and the impact of this on risk. This information should have informed subsequent assessments of the case more than is indicated.
74. The Council was asked for information about the panel’s decision-making in Mr X’s case, and for its policies used for such decision-making. The information provided about how Pan-London housing reciprocal referral decisions are reached seems unclear. The Council provides limited information about the decision-making at the panels, and only supplies copies of the information provided to panels and the decisions provided to Mr X. For decision-making policy, the Council refers to a ‘housing panel terms of reference,’ the ‘Pan-London Housing Reciprocal eligibility criteria,’ and an out-of-date ‘Housing Moves’ criteria in its allocations scheme. The Council says it considers approvals in the same way as management transfers, but limited information is provided about how these are considered. The lack of clear guidance for the scheme may be a reason for the unclear approach sometimes evident, such as when staff confirmed approval of the referral in November, before Pan-London explained that approval needed to come from a ‘Named Lead.’ The same staff notably compiled the report for the February panel, in which they said they did not approve the request, which comes across as contradictory.
75. The policies behind the Council’s assessment of such referrals is unclear, but in Mr X’s case it placed weight on the risk indicated by the FJC’s October assessment and when most recent incidents took place. The February panel decision was flawed given its reliance on the inadequate FJC assessment and inaccurate information. The June panel acknowledged the inaccurate information, but the decision does not seem satisfactory given the lack of a further risk assessment, and broader lack of clarity about the approval criteria. Pan-London says that it is not an emergency housing scheme and other housing options should be explored if there is an immediate risk, so the risk required for approval is unclear. Pan-London also says that it is for those ‘affected’ by, and survivors of, domestic violence. Mr X evidences that he experienced domestic violence for 3 years which had a lasting impact on him, and was referred by a specialist domestic abuse support organisation, and it is not clear how recent incidents of domestic violence need to be. Pan-London recommends landlords to have a flexible approach, and this may reasonably apply to consideration of approvals.
76. The Council would be expected to better demonstrate that it considered and balanced factors in the November referral that Mr X’s ex partner was in the country; he was reportedly progressing legal proceedings related to the domestic abuse; he was allegedly assaulted in November 2022; and that he had mental health issues directly linked to the abuse. The scheme is also for those affected by community safety risks, and while the Council noted police did not feel there was evidence to act against a neighbour for the November assault, it is not evident there was satisfactory focus on the alleged injuries that led Mr X to seek hospital attention. As noted at paragraph 61 of the LGSCO’s assessment above, the Council should have reached its own view about what happened, demonstrated it did more information gathering, and considered more carefully whether there may be a community safety risk.
77. Mr X had a number of letters supporting a move to another borough to aid his recovery, as his home and the borough where he experienced abuse frequently triggered his PTSD. The Council later told Mr X that he needed to submit a separate application if he wished it to consider a move based on medical grounds, but noted this option may be unsuitable since it did not enable rehousing to other boroughs like the Pan-London reciprocal scheme. In HOS’ view, it is inappropriate not to have considered the medical evidence more as part of the referral approval, given this met Mr X’s needs more than a medical move, and the Council should have demonstrated it considered things more holistically. Internal correspondence in September queried if a trauma-informed approach was being taken, however this is not evident in panel decisions. Sector guidance developed with a range of relevant organisations and funded by the government – The Whole Housing Approach toolkit – makes clear the importance of having holistic, adaptable and trauma-informed approaches, and makes reference to housing professionals considering more support-focused approaches and considering additional housing priority without recent incidents of domestic abuse.
78. The Council recently approved the referral on being informed Mr X had been contacted by his ex partner. This is positive, however it is not satisfactory that the Council did not demonstrate that it considered this possibility in its prior decision-making. The legal proceedings (mentioned in the November referral) had reasonable potential to prompt contact from Mr X’s ex partner, which the Council should have demonstrated it clearly considered and factored into its decisions, to demonstrate a proactive rather than reactive approach. The HOS cannot say Mr X would not be living at the property if his referral had been approved earlier, however it is understandable that Mr X will have been caused distress at being contacted by his ex partner whilst knowing they knew where he lived.
79. Overall, in not demonstrating it satisfactorily considered and balanced all of the information in Mr X’s referral, it is not possible to conclude that the Council’s original decisions were reasonable, which leads the HOS to find maladministration in the Council’s handling in respect to the Pan-London housing reciprocal scheme referral.

Homelessness – law and guidance

80. 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.
81. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant. However councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, paragraphs 2.3 and 6.4)
82. 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)
83. 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, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
84. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
85. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Homelessness findings

86. We asked the Council in our enquiries to tell us whether and how it considered if Mr X might be homeless. The Council’s response was that “[t]he information provided by Mr [X] did not demonstrate that Mr [X] was threatened with homelessness.”
87. The information the Council had as early as 2019, and certainly by the time Mr X made a transfer application in March 2021 was sufficient to trigger the low threshold of “reason to believe” Mr X might be homeless. The letters from his psychotherapist set out the impact remaining in the property had on his mental health, how this limited his treatment options and that he needed to move. This should have caused the Council to make inquiries into whether Mr X’s home was reasonable for him to continue to occupy. If the Council decided it was not, it would have decided Mr X was homeless and considered what duty it owed him. If it decided Mr X was not homeless, it would have issued a formal decision giving Mr X a statutory right of review.
88. LGSCO finds the Council’s failure to make inquiries into what, if any, homelessness duty the Council owed Mr X in March 2021 was fault. It repeated this fault in November 2022 when Mr X reported he was assaulted by his neighbour. The Council’s fault denied Mr X his statutory review rights, which is an injustice.
89. When a Council has reason to believe someone is eligible, homeless, and in priority need, it has a duty to provide interim accommodation while it makes inquiries into what, if any, duty it owes. The information about Mr X’s mental and physical health was sufficient to meet the threshold for reason to believe Mr X might be in priority need. The Council should therefore have provided Mr X with interim accommodation.
90. The Council did offer Mr X emergency accommodation in November 2022, which he refused. However, this was accommodation elsewhere in the borough. It is Mr X’s case that he needs to move out of the area.
91. Any accommodation provided under a homelessness duty must be suitable. This means the Council would have considered whether, to be suitable, Mr X needed to be accommodated outside the borough. And if so, would have provided him accommodation in another area. Mr X must live with knowing he might have moved to a safe area, even temporarily, were it not for the Council’s fault. This is an injustice to Mr X.

Complaint policy

92. The Council has a two stage complaint process.
93. At stage one, its policy says it will acknowledge the complaint within five days and send a full response within 20 working days. If it won’t be able to meet this deadline, it will tell the complainant and agree a new deadline.
94. At stage two, its policy says it will respond within 20 working days.

Complaint handling findings

95. In response to Mr X’s stage two complaint, the Council accepted it was at fault for delay in responding to his complaint. It accepted that Mr X had not received a response to his complaint at stage one at all and it took seven weeks to send a stage two response.
96. LGSCO and HOS agree that the Council was at fault in its handling of Mr X’s complaint.
97. Further, we find the Council failed to address the parts of his complaint about ASB. This was fault. This caused Mr X avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble, which is an injustice.

Conclusion

98. LGSCO finds fault with the Council for:
• Failure to act on letters from Mr X’s psychotherapist in 2019 and 2020;
• Delay progressing Mr X’s housing application in March 2021;
• Failure to deal properly with Mr X’s reports of ASB;
• Failure to consider whether Mr X was homeless;
• Delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint; and
• Failing to consider all aspects of the complaint.
99. We find this caused Mr X significant and avoidable distress, uncertainty, and missed opportunities.
100. In accordance with paragraph 52 of its Scheme, the HOS finds:
• Service failure in the Council’s complaint handling.
• Maladministration in the Council’s handling in respect to the Pan-London Housing Reciprocal scheme referral.

Back to top

Action agreed

HOS orders

101. The HOS orders that within four weeks of the final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X for the issues identified.
• Pay Mr X £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the Pan-London housing reciprocal scheme referral.
• Share the outcome of this complaint with the Pan-London Housing Reciprocal and invite it to consider amending the date of Mr X’s application to reflect the delay caused by the Council’s maladministration.
102. The landlord should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above orders.

LGSCO agreed action

103. The Council offered Mr X £550 in its response to his stage two complaint. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by the fault accepted by the Council. Our investigation found further fault causing injustice. Therefore, in addition to the £550 already offered, the Council should also:
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• Pay Mr X £750 in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s fault in relation to housing allocations, ASB, and homelessness.
• Investigate Mr X’s reports of ASB and associated nuisance and write to him setting out what, if any, action the Council intends to take.
• Refer Mr X’s case to Camden Council and invite it to arrange a reciprocal directly.
104. The Council should take this action within four weeks of the final decision.
105. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council should take the following action to improve its services:

• Share a copy of this decision with staff in the relevant departments to identify learning from this complaint and then ensure directors in the relevant departments to implement and track the lessons learnt.
• Remind relevant staff of the Council’s duties and powers to deal with anti-social behaviour and that the different standard of proof required to take civil action means the Council can act even if the police have not.
• Remind relevant staff of the low threshold triggering its duty to make inquiries into whether someone is homeless or threatened with homelessness and that an applicant can trigger this duty by approaching any department in the Council.
• Remind relevant staff that housing applications from existing tenants which indicate a need to move on reasonable preference grounds should be considered against the reasonable preference criteria and not only as a management transfer.
• Provide an update on its progress against the action plan it agreed following a previous investigation about its delays assessing applications to the housing register.
• Review its handling of the Pan-London Housing Reciprocal scheme referral and consider appropriate action. As part of this, the Council should review its staff training needs in respect to the scheme; consider clarifying approval considerations with Pan-London; and review relevant policies and guidance to consider clarification of the criteria generally required for the approval of Pan-London housing reciprocal referrals.

106. The Council should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

107. We have completed our investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action we have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman