Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing needs since December 2016. She says as a result of the Council’s lack of help she has lived in overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation since that date. The Council was at fault for not taking a homelessness application or giving advice about its housing register in December 2016, and its failure to be proactive when she sought help from that time onwards. It should pay her £1,000 for the injustice caused and amend her priority on its housing register to where it would have been but for its faults.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the way the Council considered her requests for help with her housing situation from late 2016 onwards. She says as a result of the Council’s failings she has lived in an overcrowded and unsuitable property for several years.
2. Mrs X is represented by Mr R in bringing this complaint.

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 can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. 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)
6. Mrs X does not speak English as a first language and did not have anyone to assist her with legal advice on her housing case until December 2018. She was assisted by a refuge where she was living in late 2016. The Council did not take a homelessness application at that point, although it assisted her to find private rented accommodation. The Council’s approach then has had an ongoing impact on Mrs X’s housing situation since. In light of these factors, I have exercised discretion to investigate events from December 2016 onwards.
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
8. There is a right to ask for a review of most housing decisions, following which there is a right of appeal to the county court. We would usually expect the complainant to exercise those rights. In this case, however, the Council did not always write with reasons for its decisions and set out the relevant rights of review and appeal, so Mrs X was not aware she could ask for decisions to be reviewed. Therefore, I have exercised discretion to consider those aspects of her complaint that relate to decisions the Council made about her housing situation.
9. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
10. If we are satisfied with a council’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

11. I considered:
• the information Mr R and the Council provided;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies.
12. Mr R and the Council had an opportunity to comment on two draft decisions and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

13. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The applicant does not have to complete a particular form or approach a particular council department. It is sufficient that the information they provide indicates they may be homeless.
14. A person may be homeless where they are living in accommodation that is not reasonable for them to continue living in. A refuge is not settled accommodation that is reasonable for a person to continue to occupy.
15. Under section 184 of the Act, if the council has reason to believe a person is applying for accommodation or assistance, it should make sufficient enquiries to decide whether it owes them a housing duty. It should write to the applicant with its decision. If it decides it does not owe them a duty it must set out its reasons for deciding this and explain their right to ask for a review of the decision.
16. Where the council has reason to believe the applicant is eligible for assistance, homeless and in priority need, the council has a duty under section 188 of the Act to provide interim accommodation.

Prevention duty

17. From April 2018 the law required councils to assist those who were threatened with homelessness within 56 days or who had been served with a section 21 notice by their landlord. Councils must complete an assessment, including the circumstances causing the person to be threatened with homelessness, their housing needs and what support they need to retain suitable accommodation.
18. After completing the assessment, the council must prepare a personalised housing plan (PHP). Where possible, it should agree with the applicant what steps they will take and what steps the council will take to prevent their homelessness.
19. The council should also provide information about what help it can offer, such as schemes to help with a deposit for alternative accommodation in the private rented sector, and refer the person to other sources of help in the area. This information should also be included in the PHP.

Housing allocations

20. A council should advise homeless applicants to also apply for social housing through its allocations scheme. The scheme should set out how it prioritises applicants and its procedures for allocating housing. The scheme should give reasonable preference to applicants who are homeless or in overcrowded accommodation. Councils must consider all housing applications in accordance with their published allocation scheme.
21. The council must write to the applicant with its decision, setting out its reasons and explaining their right to request a review of the decision.

Lambeth Council’s allocation policy

22. This Council puts applications into one of four priority bands between A (the highest priority) and D (the lowest priority).
23. It can award band A for women at risk of domestic violence if they live in a refuge commissioned by the Council.
24. It can award band B (higher level) to those threatened with homelessness who would, if they became homeless, be owed a full housing duty, but who are “working with the Council” to prevent themselves becoming homeless. The Council interprets this as working on agreed actions in return for being placed in band B.
25. The current version of the policy states the Council can award priority band B to “Households whose homelessness is relieved who would otherwise have been likely to have been owed the full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996” and “households to whom the council previously owed a full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 but who have voluntarily agreed to this duty being brought to an end by the provision of private rented accommodation”.

Lambeth Council’s Pathways Move On Scheme

26. In 2016 the Council had a “Pathways Move On” scheme to help people living in supported accommodation more to independent accommodation. It was for people who were not homeless and not necessarily priority need.
27. Once accepted onto the scheme, the Council worked with applicants to help them find private rented accommodation.
28. The scheme ended in March 2019.

Lambeth Council’s complaints policy

29. The Council has a two-stage complaints process. The first stage, called “Local Resolution” involves an investigation by the service complained about and a written response within 20 working days.
30. The second stage, called “Final Review” involves an investigation that is independent from the service complained about. The policy says the Council aims to provide a written response at this stage within 25 working days. It says sometimes it may take longer than this, in which case it will explain the reasons for the delay and when the complainant can expect a full response.

What happened

Late 2016

31. In late 2016 Mrs X was living in a refuge for women fleeing domestic violence. The refuge placement was provided by a housing organisation commissioned by the Council but the Council was not involved in arranging the placement.
32. In November 2016 the refuge decided Mrs X was ready to live independently. It made a referral to the Council for help for her to move to long term, independent accommodation in the private rented sector through its “Pathways Move On” scheme. It did not ask the Council if she could move into social housing.
33. Mrs X signed appendix A of the referral form to confirm she understood that the refuge provided time-limited support and now her worker had agreed she was ready to live independently the refuge expected her “to move out of your hostel”. She also confirmed the refuge had advised her the Council would make two reasonable offers of accommodation and if she rejected them without good reason, the refuge would evict her. The form stated she asked for a one bedroom flat.
34. The Council accepted her onto the scheme and arranged for Mrs X to view three properties. In late December 2016 Mrs X accepted the offer of a one bedroom private rented flat. She says a Council officer told her she would be placed in band B on the housing register if she accepted the tenancy but the Council has no record of this. The Council paid the landlord a £2,000 incentive for the 12 month tenancy.
35. Mr R says Mrs X was not aware she needed to make an application to the housing register until December 2017 at which point a support worker assisted her to make the application.
36. In its response to our enquiries the Council said Mrs X was not being asked to leave the refuge and did not make a homeless application. She was referred by the refuge for the “Move On” scheme. It said this did not trigger a duty to make enquiries under homelessness law.
37. It said refuges can refer clients for band A priority in its housing register but did not do so on this occasion. It said the decision about whether to refer for social housing was one for the refuge, which may decide it was not appropriate because typically it took 6 to 12 months to be allocated housing through Band A but private rented housing could be found more quickly.
38. Mr R says if the Council had not awarded priority band A it should have awarded priority band B because the Council’s allocations policy says this applies to those threatened with homelessness who would be owed a full housing duty if they became homeless “but who are working with the Council to prevent themselves from becoming homeless”. The Council says this only applies if an applicant was promised a band B priority on condition for taking specific steps. This would be “agreed in advance with the applicant on a case-by-case basis”. It says this did not apply in Mrs X’s case.

Findings

39. A person seeking help with housing does not need to make an application in any particular form or to any particular part of the Council. If they provide information that indicates they may be homeless, the Council should take a homelessness application.
40. In this case, Mrs X was assisted by a housing provider commissioned by the Council, which referred her for a particular Council scheme. The Council accepted the referral and assisted Mrs X to find private rented accommodation.
41. However, the referral contained enough information to indicate Mrs X was homeless. She was living in a refuge after fleeing domestic violence. A refuge is not settled accommodation that it would be reasonable for her to continue to live in. She was in priority need as she had a young child. Mr R says she was eligible for assistance. The Council has not disputed this and could have established it at the time by making enquiries. The Council accepts the failure to take a homelessness application and make enquiries was fault.
42. Based on the information seen, including the fact Mrs X was living in a refuge and had a child, it is more likely than not that the Council would have decided it owed Mrs X a housing duty if it had properly considered this in late 2016.
43. Where a person is homeless the Council should advise them to apply to its housing register. I have seen no evidence that it did so. Mrs X says there was a discussion about priority band B but the Council has no record of this. There is no record that the Council considered an application to its housing register and issued a decision letter. The Council accepts the failure to consider whether Mrs X was eligible for its housing register was fault.
44. Based on the information seen and the fact the Council later accepted an application to its housing register, I consider it is more likely than not that if it had considered an application in late 2016 it would have accepted it.
45. At that stage, Mrs X was at risk of domestic violence and was living in a refuge commissioned by the Council. The Council says if it had taken a homelessness application in December 2016 it would either have offered her temporary accommodation and priority band C on its housing register, or it would have offered her private rented accommodation and priority band B on its housing register.
46. If the Council had provided temporary accommodation Mrs X could have asked for a review of its suitability. The Council says if it had carried out a review of the private rented accommodation, it would have decided it was suitable. Although Mrs X is lacking one bedroom, the Council says this is not unusual given the general housing circumstances in its area. Further, the Council later considered whether Mrs X’s difficulty with the stairs amounted to a medical preference but decided it did not. In any case, housing may be suitable for short term temporary accommodation that is not suitable for the longer term.

2018 and 2019

47. The private tenancy agreement Mrs X signed was for 12 months, which ended in late December 2017, at which point the landlord told Mrs X she would need to leave.
48. Mrs X sought assistance from a support worker who helped her to make an application to the Council’s housing register. She said she had back problems that made it difficult for her to manage the stairs at her current accommodation, particularly as she had to carry her young child in a pushchair up the stairs. She also said she had difficulties with her mental health. I understand she provided medical evidence but I have not seen it.
49. The Council accepted her onto the housing register in early January 2018 and wrote to her to confirm she was placed in band C2. Band C2 is for applicants who are not owed a full housing duty. The letter did not explain the Council’s reasons for deciding this was the appropriate priority band nor did it tell her she could ask for a review of the decision. In response to our enquiries the Council says information about the right of a review is available online.
50. In late January the Council wrote to Mrs X again. It said its medical adviser had reviewed her medical circumstances and concluded her medical needs did not require her to move urgently. The Council confirmed the priority band was C2 and told Mrs X she could ask for a review of the decision.
51. Council records show it contacted the landlord and tried to negotiate an extension to the tenancy. The landlord refused to consider this and began court action to force Mrs X to leave. Mrs X challenged the court action, initially with the Council’s help and, from December 2018, with the assistance of a solicitor.
52. In early April 2018 Mrs X provided the Council with a section 21 notice issued as part of the court action by the landlord. The Council advised Mrs X not to move out of the private rented accommodation voluntarily as this might mean she was intentionally homeless. It said it would try to find her alternative accommodation before the bailiffs were due to attend.
53. By this stage the Homeless Reduction Act had just come into effect and under the provisions of this Act, the Council now owed Mrs X a prevention duty because she had been served with a section 21 notice, which internals emails show the Council regarded as a valid notice. There is no record the Council carried out an assessment or gave her advice about finding alternative accommodation at this point. I have also seen no record of any action to try to identify alternative accommodation for her.
54. In late July Mrs X attended a further interview with the Council. She said she was still at risk of violence and she explained the difficulties she had managing the stairs. She asked whether she could get band B on the housing register.
55. At that interview Council issued a personalised housing plan (PHP). It said if the landlord served further papers Mrs X should bring them to the Council. It set out no other actions for Mrs X to take. It said it would refer her for band B priority and make a referral to the medial adviser. I have seen no evidence the Council referred the case to its medical adviser. Mrs X says she did not receive a response from the Council about this.
56. In late November 2018 the Council told an outreach worker who was assisted Mrs X that it was taking steps to identify alternative private rented accommodation for her, that she had viewed some properties but had not yet accepted one. It said it would send her a section 184 letter. I have not seen any evidence it did so.
57. In mid January 2019 the landlord said they would consider extending the tenancy for 12 months in return for a further incentive payment from the Council. The landlord understood the Council had agreed to this and discontinued the court action in February 2019. It is not clear from the Council records what it had agreed and the officer dealing with the case was then off sick. The records do show Mrs X told the Council in February 2019 she wanted to remain in her current accommodation because she had a support network close by.
58. The Council took no further action until September 2019 when the landlord contacted it again, unhappy that the incentive payment had not been made and no new tenancy agreement had been signed. In October 2019, the Council agreed to pay the landlord £4,000 in return for them extending the tenancy for 24 months.
59. A new tenancy was signed in late January 2020 for 24 months.

Findings

60. The Council accepted a housing register application in early January 2018. It decided to place Mrs X into priority band C2. It did not explain its reasons for deciding this nor did it set out Mrs X had a right to ask for a review of this decision. This was fault.
61. Although the Council says it has information about review rights on its allocations website, this is not sufficient in my view and the information should be provided to applicants in its decision letters. This fault meant Mrs X was denied the chance to ask for a review.
62. Later, the Council considered whether Mrs X had medical needs that required her to move urgently. It decided she did not and confirmed the priority band C2 was correct. It wrote to her to explain its reasons and told her she could ask for a review of this decision if she was unhappy with it. This letter may have given her the mistaken impression that she could only ask for a review on medical grounds, which is not correct. I have already found fault for the lack of advice about her rights of review and do not consider this warrants a further finding. I note Mrs X did not ask for a review of the decision.
63. In early April 2018 Mrs X gave the Council a section 21 notice and the Council gave her advice about this. It now owed her a prevention duty but there is no record it took any action to make enquiries or find alternative accommodation for her at this stage. This was fault. It is not clear that this caused Mrs X any specific injustice since she was advised to remain in the current accommodation, which she did, and there was no immediate threat of eviction.
64. In July 2018 the Council did accept a prevention duty, although there is no evidence it confirmed this in writing to Mrs X, and it issued a PHP. It took steps to help Mrs X find private rented accommodation, including arranging viewings, which Mrs X attended. However, there is no record of any action from October 2018 onwards apart from responding to an enquiry from a support worker in November 2018. Further, there is no evidence that it referred her case to its medical adviser as it promised to do. The failure to actively progress the matter from October 2018 was fault. This fault added to Mrs X’s uncertainty.
65. In January 2019, the Council agreed with the landlord that a new tenancy would be issued in return for a further incentive payment. The records suggest the officer dealing with this was then off sick and no further action was taken to progress this until September 2019 after the landlord complained. This delay was further fault. This meant Mrs X continued to live in fear of eviction.

Complaints handling

66. Mr R complained to the Council on Mrs X’s behalf in late January 2019. Mr R said the Council should have awarded Mrs X band B priority in late 2016.
67. The Council replied in mid April 2019. It said people accepting and using the “Pathways Move On” scheme were not entitled to be placed in band B. She had not made a homeless application.
68. Mr R asked for a stage 2 complaint investigation in late April 2019 and the Council responded in mid July 2019. It said:
• Its “Pathways Move On” scheme was for those in supported living who were ready to move to independent living. It did not usually support people who were homeless or in priority need.
• Mrs X had not been at immediate threat of becoming homeless. She had not made a homeless application. She could have stayed in the refuge until suitable accommodation was provided elsewhere.
• It did consider women in refuges as homeless if they applied to it for consideration about whether it owed them a full housing duty. But Mrs X had not been referred to the Council through this route. The Pathways Move On referral was not a homeless application requiring consideration of the full housing duty.
• Band B would only be awarded to someone who had made a homeless application or would have done so if the Council had not awarded band B priority.
• There was no record of Council officers advising Mrs X she had been placed in band B.
69. The Council referred Mrs X to the Ombudsman. In late July 2019, it clarified that a request for a review of its housing priority decision was significantly out of time but it had reconsidered this matter through the complaint response.

Finding

70. The Council took 51 working days to respond to the complaint at stage 1 instead of the 20 working days set out in its complaints policy. It took 51 working days to respond at stage 2 instead of the 25 working days set out in its complaints policy. I have seen no evidence it wrote to Mr R to explain the reasons for the delays and when he could expect a response. The delay in responding to the complaint was fault. This caused a delay in resolving Mrs X’s housing situation.
71. The Council did respond to the various points Mr R made, although Mr R did not agree with the Council’s interpretation of the law or its allocations policy. I have made findings about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s housing matter and do not agree with the conclusions the Council reached at stage 2. However, I do not consider further findings are appropriate in relation to its complaints process.

Others affected by the faults identified

72. Mr R says the approach the Council has taken in this case amounts to an indirect discrimination of women because disproportionately more women than men are likely to be fleeing domestic violence and be assisted by a refuge.
73. I have considered whether to make recommendations about other people who may have been affected by the application of the “Pathways Move On” scheme in the way it was applied in Mrs X’s case. I have considered the following:
• The scheme ended in March 2019. This means it would not apply to current transfers of people from a refuge to independent living; and
• It would not be reasonable or proportionate to ask the Council to go back to 2016 to check its records for anyone else who may have suffered a similar injustice to Mrs X.
74. Therefore, I have decided the only appropriate recommendation here is that the Council should take into account the findings in this case if it should receive future complaints that relate to the “Pathways Move On” scheme.

Agreed action

75. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision:
1. Apologise to Mrs X for the failure to take a homelessness application and give her advice about its housing register in December 2016, its failure to give reasons for its housing allocations decision in January 2018 and to tell her she could ask for a review of its decision, its failure to accept a prevention duty in April 2018, its failure to progress the new tenancy agreement through much of 2018 and 2019, and delays in its complaints handling.
2. Pay her £1,000 for the distress caused, and her time and trouble pursuing the Council. This is the maximum payment we would award for distress and time and trouble in our guidance on remedies to reflect the extent of the injustice, including the period of time involved.
3. Award Mrs X priority band B on its housing register, back-dated to 6 December 2016, which is when it accepted the referral from the refuge. This is on the basis that when we remedy injustice we try to put the person back into the position they would have been in but for the fault identified.
76. The Council will, within three months of the date of the final decision:
1. Remind staff of the need to take a homelessness application when a person presents as homeless or at risk of homelessness in accordance with the current law and guidance, and to give them information and advice about its housing register.
2. Remind relevant staff of the importance of issuing homelessness and housing register decisions in writing and including information about their rights of review and appeal.
3. Amend its housing allocations policy to clarify the wording for awarding priority band B where applicants have worked with the Council to relieve or prevent their homelessness that has been in dispute between Mr R and the Council in this case to avoid the same dispute arising again in future.
77. The Council will ensure that if it receives future complaints relating to the “Pathways Move On” scheme, it takes into account the findings in this case and provides redress for any injustice caused in line with our guidance on remedies.
78. The Council will report to the Ombudsman on the action it has taken.

Back to top

Final decision

79. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman