Summary: The Council was at fault in how it considered Mr X’s request to move home due to the risk of domestic abuse. The Council failed to tell Mr X about his statutory review rights and failed to consider whether Mr X was homeless. The Council was also at fault for failing to make reasonable adjustments for Mr X’s disability. The Council has agreed action to remedy the injustice to Mr X and to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not agree to his request for a move and did not consider whether he was homeless when he reported that he is unsafe in his home.
2. Mr X says as a result he remains in a property where he is at risk of harm.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider 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. 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

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

Allocations

10. 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))
11. 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))
12. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
13. The Council places applicants who qualify for an allocation under its scheme in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 3 (lowest priority).
14. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 2 when:
• It owes the applicant a duty under homelessness law
• The applicant’s current property is unsuitable for severe medical reasons
15. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 3 when the applicant’s home aggravates their medical condition.
16. The Council’s scheme says its exceptional needs panel can consider cases which do not fall under other parts of the scheme. This includes cases involving domestic abuse. The panel can award any of the three priority bands, depending on the case.
17. The Council’s scheme says Band 1 is usually awarded when the evidence suggests there is a serious risk to life. In other cases, the Council can award Band 2. The scheme says it may award Band 3 when “the council feels further monitoring of the situation is required.”

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. 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)
20. 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) 
21. 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)

Reasonable adjustments

22. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
23. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
24. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

25. Mr X is a tenant of the Council. He has learning difficulties and a mental health condition.
26. In 2021, the court granted Mr X a non-molestation order (NMO) against his ex-partner. This was because Mr X experienced domestic abuse and harassment from his ex-partner. In March 2022, the court extended the NMO for another year, to March 2023.
27. Mr X does not feel safe in his home and wants the Council to help him move to a different property. In March 2022, the Council decided Mr X was not at imminent risk. It said seeking to extend the NMO was the right thing to do and mitigated the risk. The Council said Mr X should continue to report any incidents to the police and his housing officer.
28. In late May, the Council wrote to Mr X to warn him about his conduct towards its staff. It said some of Mr X’s emails were threatening and it had reported this to the police. It told Mr X about its policy for dealing with unreasonable behaviour. It said it would take action if Mr X’s behaviour continued.
29. Mr X apologised for his conduct. He explained that his mental health was poor and he was very anxious. He said he would stop contacting the Council about the same issue. He said he did not want to get into trouble, he just wanted help. The Council accepted Mr X’s apology and reassured him that its staff were there to help him if he told them what support he needed.
30. In June, the Council responded to a complaint at stage one of its complaints process. It did not uphold the complaint. It reminded Mr X that his recent emails, which the Council considered threatening to its staff, were a breach of his tenancy agreement.
31. In late June, Mr X asked the Council to explain its complaint response, which it did. Mr X said he understood and accepted the Council’s decision. He said he wanted the Council to understand that he needed things explained to him slowly due to his learning disability.
32. In early July, Mr X reported an incident to the Council. He said an unknown person had shouted threats outside his house and kicked the door to his shed, causing damage. Mr X believed this was instigated by his ex-partner and reported it to the police as a breach of the NMO.
33. The Council decided Mr X might be at risk, considering the history of domestic abuse. It offered Mr X emergency accommodation in a B&B while it investigated. The Council says Mr X refused this because he would not be able to take his dog.
34. Mr X’s case was heard at the “daily MARAC” in early August. MARAC stands for Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference. The outcome of the MARAC was for Mr X to continue to report incidents to the police and his IDVA and for housing to monitor the risk.
35. A solicitor acting for Mr X wrote to the Council in October seeking a move for Mr X. The Council did not respond to this email.
36. The Council referred the case to its exceptional needs panel in November. It decided not to award Mr X priority for a transfer. It considered the NMO mitigated the risk. It said the housing officer should continue to monitor and consider any sanctuary measures to help Mr X feel safer in his home.
37. Mr X made a further complaint to the Council in November. The Council responded in December. It did not uphold his complaint. It said the outcome of the MARAC was to monitor and that he should report any further incidents. It said it was not discriminating against him. It said he needed to say what his disabilities were for it to help him.
38. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two of its process. He said the Council had told him not to report the same issues and this is why he had not reported further incidents.
39. The Council responded in February 2023. It said:
• It was satisfied the NMO and sanctuary works mitigated the risk to Mr X
• It had properly considered the case at the exceptional needs panel and decided not to approve a transfer
• It was sorry for failing to respond to the solicitor in October. This was an oversight
• It could not find the emails Mr X said he had received telling him not to report the same issues again
• It told him on the telephone in January 2023 that he can report issues to the Council, especially about his safety.
40. The NMO expired in March 2023.

My findings

41. The Council decided Mr X might be at risk in early July 2022. Despite this, his case was not heard at the “daily MARAC” for over a month. In the absence of any explanation for this delay, I find this was fault. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty, which is an injustice.
42. The exceptional needs panel decision was not to award Mr X any priority under the allocations scheme. The Council should have told Mr X its decision in writing and given him a right to review it. Failure to do so was fault. This denied Mr X his statutory review rights, which is an injustice.
43. Mr X told the Council about the impact on his mental health of remaining in the property. There is no evidence the Council considered whether this met the criteria for medical priority under its scheme. Failure to do so was fault.
44. Mr X approached the Council for help to move. He said he was at risk of domestic abuse. The Council therefore had reason to believe Mr X might be homeless. It should have made inquiries into what, if any, duty it owed him and issued a decision in writing, giving Mr X statutory review rights. Its failure to do so was fault. Given Mr X refused emergency accommodation when the Council offered it to him, I cannot say he missed out on being accommodated as a result. However, the Council’s fault denied Mr X his statutory review rights and missed an opportunity to provide him with advice and support, which are injustices.
45. There is no evidence the Council reassessed the risk when the NMO expired in March 2023. Given the Council said it was monitoring the situation and that the NMO mitigated the risk, it should have done so. Not to do so was fault.
46. The Council has accepted fault for failing to respond to Mr X’s solicitor in October 2022. I consider the Council’s apology to be a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by this fault.
47. In his complaint, Mr X said the Council told him he could not keep reporting the same incidents. It appears Mr X got this impression from the Council’s contact in May about his conduct towards staff, citing its unreasonable complainant policy, and then the complaint response in June pointing out this was a breach of his tenancy. It seems Mr X misunderstood this communication to mean he should not report the same issues again.
48. The Council has reassured Mr X that he can and should report any incidents of domestic abuse or harassment to the police and the Council.
49. Mr X told the Council in June that he needed things explained to him slowly because of his disabilities. This was a request for a reasonable adjustment. There is no evidence the Council recorded this request or considered what it could do to facilitate this. The Council repeatedly told Mr X it would make adjustments if he said what he needed. But he had already told the Council what he needed, and it failed to act on it. This was fault. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and limited his ability to communicate effectively with the Council. This is injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified, the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing
• With input from Mr X, consider what reasonable adjustments the Council can make to enable Mr X’s communication with it and ensure the agreed adjustments are communicated to relevant staff.
• Review Mr X’s priority on the housing register, having invited him to provide any further supporting evidence about the risk to him in his home and his mental health.
• Make inquiries into what, if any, duty the Council owes Mr X under Part 7 of the Housing Act and give him a decision in writing, setting out his review rights.
• Pay Mr X £250 in recognition of his avoidable distress and uncertainty.
51. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
52. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Provide training or guidance to relevant staff on identifying and making reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities.
• Ensure all frontline staff are aware of the low threshold for the duty to make inquiries into homelessness and how to direct such cases to the relevant service.
• Ensure all decisions of the Exceptional Needs Panel about priority under the allocations scheme are communicated in writing and set out the right to ask for a review.
53. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman