Summary: The Council failed to take all the relevant information into account in deciding Ms X did not qualify to join its housing register. This was fault. This caused Ms X injustice as she missed out on opportunities to bid for housing and experienced avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, reinstate Ms X’s application, make a payment to her, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council wrongly removed her from its housing register when it reassessed her against its new scheme in 2023.
2. Ms X says the Council’s decision that she has no housing need failed to take into account her experiences of domestic abuse and the impact on her and her children of living away from work, school, and support networks.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
6. I considered the information provided by the Council along with its published allocations scheme and relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Ms 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

Housing allocations

9. 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))
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. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Change to the Council’s scheme

12. The Council published a new allocations scheme in June 2023. I will refer to the allocations scheme in place before June 2023 as “the old scheme” and the scheme published in June 2023 as “the new scheme”.
13. Under both the old and new schemes applicants who qualify to join the housing register receive a priority band from Band A to Band D.
14. Under the old scheme, so far as is relevant to this complaint, applicants with a high medical or welfare need to move received Band A.
15. As part of its consultation on the new scheme, the Council produced a table showing what a priority under the old scheme would be under the new one. It says those with a high medical need where there is a threat to life under the old scheme would still be in Band A under the new scheme. Those with a welfare need to move would be in Band B under the new scheme.
16. The Council required all existing applicants to reapply to the new scheme. It assessed their applications against the new scheme. If existing applicants reapplied within three months of the new scheme, they would retain their priority date from the old scheme. This means they would not lose out on the waiting time they accrued under the old scheme.

What happened

17. Ms X moved out of the Council’s area in 2019 to escape domestic abuse at her previous home. She says she moved on the understanding that she would be able to return to the area when a suitable property was available. She has a tenancy with a housing association. Ms X works in the Council’s area. Her children go to school there. Her support networks and access to informal childcare are there.
18. In July 2020, the Council awarded Ms X Band A priority on its housing register. It decided this on review of a decision Ms X had no housing need. The review decision said Ms X had a high welfare need to move, taking all her circumstances into account.
19. In 2023, the Council amended its allocations scheme. The Council required all applicants currently on the housing register to reapply to the new scheme. Ms X reapplied in June 2023.
20. The Council wrote to Ms X two weeks later. It said she did not qualify to join the housing register because she had no housing need. Ms X asked the Council for a review of this decision. She said her circumstances had not changed since she was awarded Band A in 2020.
21. The Council wrote to Ms X with the outcome of its review in July. It said the decision Ms X was not in housing need was correct. It said Ms X could find work and move the children’s schools to their new borough and so she did not qualify for a move on welfare or Right to Move grounds.
22. Ms X complained to the Council. She said the reviewer failed to consider the reason she moved out of the area in 2019.
23. The Council considered Ms X’s complaint at both stages of its complaint process. It did not uphold the complaint. It said the reviewer had properly considered Ms X’s application and followed the allocations scheme.

My findings

24. In 2020, the Council decided Ms X’s circumstances meant she qualified to join the housing register in Band A for welfare reasons. The main issue in this complaint is that the Council made a different decision three years later. The evidence indicates Ms X’s circumstances had not changed in the intervening period.
25. To justify a decision that Ms X has no housing need, the Council needed to explain to her why its decision was different than it was in 2020. It needed to tell her what, if any, changes to her circumstances or the scheme meant she no longer qualified or explain why it considered the decision in 2020 was wrong or was no longer relevant. Not to have done so was fault.
26. The review decision said Ms X could find a new job and move her children to schools closer to where they lived. This failed to consider the impact of domestic abuse on the family. Ms X did not choose to move to her current area simply as a matter of preference. She did so to keep herself and her family safe. The Council needed to consider whether asking Ms X to change her job and her children’s schools instead of supporting her to return to her home area required Ms X and her children to suffer unnecessary consequences of domestic abuse. The review decision failed to consider the circumstances in which Ms X left the area in 2019. This was central to any proper assessment of her circumstances and not to have considered it was fault.
27. There is no indication of any evidence or change in circumstances that would mean Ms X did not qualify for the same reasons she did in 2020. Therefore, had the Council properly considered her application against its new scheme, on balance, it would most likely have awarded Ms X Band B. This was the corresponding band in the new scheme to Band A for high welfare needs under the old scheme.
28. Ms X has missed out on six months of bidding in Band B. Given how long she was bidding in Band A under the old scheme without being offered a property, it is unlikely that Ms X has missed out on an offer off accommodation in this time. However, she has experienced avoidable distress and uncertainty. These are injustices to Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. To remedy the injustice to Ms X from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Award Ms X Band B, retaining her priority date under the old scheme.
• Pay Ms X £200 in recognition of her avoidable distress and uncertainty.
30. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
31. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind relevant staff of the importance of considering an applicant’s circumstances in the round and with relevant context when assessing applications to the housing register.
32. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman