Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not respond to forms she submitted, and failed to increase her priority on the housing register, when she reported anti-social behaviour and threats from a neighbour. Mrs X said her family was forced to flee their temporary accommodation and missed out on the chance of being offered permanent social housing. We find the Council at fault for failing to send two decision letters. This denied Mrs X her right of appeal. We are satisfied the Council has already apologised.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs X, complained that the Council failed to follow its allocations policy properly in response to a change of circumstances form she submitted. This included details of anti-social behaviour and harassment by her neighbour. In particular, Mrs X complained the Council did not reply to the change of circumstances form for six months, and failed to increase her priority on the housing register to take account of her family’s difficult circumstances.
2. Mrs X said as a result her family was forced to flee their temporary accommodation and missed out on the chance of being offered permanent social housing.

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. 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 considered the information and documents provided by Mrs X and the Council. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
7. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and policies, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies (updated).

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Housing allocation policies

8. Councils must have an allocation scheme to determine priorities and set out the procedure it will follow when allocating housing. Each council’s allocations scheme will be different but in general most will award ‘reasonable preference’ to allocations by awarding points or placing an applicant in a certain priority band.
9. Applicants have a right to request a review of a council’s decision about the number of points or band they have been awarded. When a council tells an applicant its decision, it must tell the applicant in writing of their right to request a review of the council’s decision.

The Social Welfare Panel

10. The Council’s housing allocations policy says the Council can exercise discretion, in exceptional circumstances, when making decisions about who it will include on its housing register. The policy says the Council will refer these exceptional cases to its Social Welfare Panel (SWP) for consideration. It is for the Council to decide which cases are exceptional, and if or when it will exercise its discretion.
11. The policy says the purpose of the SWP is to consider and award additional priority to an applicant’s banding where they are experiencing severe hardship as a result of a combination of different factors which, when taken together, makes the need for rehousing more urgent.
12. The policy says the Council can increase an applicant’s priority band to Band A (the highest band) “where the property is unsuitable due to … severe harassment”, and Band B where there is “persistent harassment of a serious but not life threatening nature”.
13. The policy says that an applicant could get Band B priority because of a threat of violence. It says, “Such priority must be supported by appropriate evidence from the Police … and any other pertinent agency”.

Changes of circumstances

14. The Council’s housing allocations policy says applicants must tell the Council of any change in their circumstances. The Council will then consider if this means a change in their banding priority.
15. The policy says the Council will tell the applicant its decision in writing. It will also tell the applicant of their right to ask the Council to review its decision.

What happened

16. Mrs X, her husband (Mr X), and her children had been living in temporary accommodation at House A. Mr and Mrs X had problems with their neighbour.
17. In March 2022, the neighbour made threats to Mr and Mrs X. In phone calls with Mr X, the Council offered the family a move to emergency bed and breakfast accommodation. The Council says Mr X declined this offer, and said the family wanted to stay at House A.
18. A few weeks later, Mrs X submitted a change of circumstances form to the Council about noise nuisance, threats, and harassment from the neighbour.
19. On the same day, the Council decided that Mr and Mrs X’s housing priority band remained at Band C (under the ‘homeless’ category). The decision letter set out their right to appeal the decision.
20. In late-April, the Council offered Mr and Mrs X alternative temporary accommodation (at House B). Mrs X refused because she felt House B was not suitable. She asked the Council to withdraw the offer of House B and allow the family to stay at House A.
21. The Council decided that House B was suitable for the family. It explained to Mrs X what would happen if she refused to move to House B, and that she could ask the Council to review House B’s suitability. Mrs X said a suitability review would be pointless.
22. The Council decided that because Mrs X refused the offer of suitable alternative temporary accommodation at House B, it would discharge its duty to house them. This meant the Council no longer had a duty to house the family. So, it wrote to Mrs X and told her the family had to move out of House A.
23. In May, Mrs X and her family moved out of House A. They stayed sometimes with friends, and sometimes with Mr X’s mother’s house.
24. In July, the Council asked Mrs X to update the family’s address on the online housing register application.
25. Shortly after, Mrs X submitted a second change of circumstances form to the Council. This form also had details about noise nuisance, threats, and harassment from the neighbour at House A.
26. The Council decided that Mr and Mrs X’s housing priority band remained at Band C (but changed from the ‘homeless’ category to the ‘no fixed abode – unsatisfactory housing’ category). The decision letter set out their right to appeal the decision.
27. In an email to Mrs X in August, the Council acknowledged that it had not sent Mrs X the decision letter in March or July.
28. Mrs X complained and asked the Council to reviews its decisions of March and July.
29. In its complaint responses, the Council gave reasons for its decision in March. It said this decision was correct. It said it was currently reviewing its July decision.
30. The Council said it was satisfied it had carried out necessary investigations into Mrs X’s reports of anti-social behaviour, harassment, and noise nuisance from the neighbour. It said that despite Mrs X’s complaint, the family still wanted to live at House A. The Council said this was not possible because it no longer had a duty to house them because they had refused an offer of suitable alternative accommodation.
31. Mrs X then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Increase in banding priority

32. Mrs X complains that Council failed to follow its allocations policy properly in response to a change of circumstances form she submitted. This form included details of the neighbour’s anti-social behaviour and harassment. Mrs X complains the Council failed to increase her priority on the housing register to take account of her family’s difficult circumstances.
33. The Council says it immediately offered Mr X a move to emergency bed and breakfast accommodation but he refused. Then Mrs X refused the Council’s offer of a move to alternative temporary accommodation at House B. It says Mr and Mrs X chose to stay at House A on both occasions.
34. Mrs X says she refused the offer of alternative temporary accommodation at House B because she viewed the property and felt it was dangerous.
35. The Council says it considered Mrs X’s reasons for refusing the offer of House B, but decided House B was suitable.
36. The Council also says there was no evidence from police, the safer communities team, or social services that it was unsafe for the family to stay at House A due to severe harassment or violence.
37. The Council says it decided there was no evidence to support that Mr and Mrs X were experiencing severe harassment or threats of violence that warranted higher priority banding under its allocations policy.
38. The Council’s housing allocations policy says that an applicant could get Band B priority because of a threat of violence. It says, “Such priority must be supported by appropriate evidence from the Police … and any other pertinent agency”.
39. As there was no supporting evidence from those agencies, I find no fault with the Council’s decision. The Council was entitled to decide that Mrs X’s banding should remain at Band C.
40. I find Mrs X said in her change of circumstances form that the neighbour’s behaviour was the reason the family needed to move. She chose to refuse an offer of alternative accommodation which would have moved the family out of harm’s way. The Council told Mrs X she had a right to ask for a suitability review of House B after they had moved in, but she said this would be pointless. This was Mrs X’s choice.
41. Mrs X says the Council should have increased the family’s priority banding because they had been in temporary accommodation for a long time, had moved a lot in six years, and that had impacted on the family’s health.
42. These are not reasons for the Council to have increased Mrs X’s priority banding.
43. Mrs X says the family were forced to flee House A. I do not agree for the following reason:
44. The Council says that in May, Mrs X emailed the Council and said they had accepted an apology from the neighbour and wanted to remain at House A. This email was before the Council told the family they would have to leave House A.
45. I therefore find that the family had to leave House A because Mrs X had refused an offer of suitable alternative accommodation at House B. This ended the Council’s duty to house the family.

Social Welfare Panel

46. Mrs X complains the Council failed to escalate her application for an increase in housing priority banding due to her neighbour’s behaviour to its Social Welfare Panel (SWP). She says Council should have referred her case to the SWP because it offered alternative temporary accommodation (House B) that was not suitable.
47. The Council says it did not refer Mrs X’s case to the SWP because it did not meet the qualifying criteria for higher banding. This was because the Council could not substantiate severe or persistent harassment that Mrs X alleged.
48. Further to this, the Council points to the email from Mrs X in May which said the family had accepted an apology from the neighbour and they wanted to stay at House A.
49. The Council says officers considered that moving the family to alternative accommodation was quicker than referring them to the SWP. It also says it did not consider there was sufficient evidence of multiple needs within the family which would require a referral to the SWP. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
50. I find the Council’s decision not to refer Mrs X’s case to the SWP was in line with its policy. I therefore do not find the Council at fault.

Change of circumstances forms

51. Mrs X complains that the Council did not send her its decision letters regarding her change of circumstances forms in March or July. She says this meant she did not know about her right to ask for a review of these decisions.
52. The Council accepts that it did not send these two decision letters. This is fault. It caused injustice in that Mrs X did not know she could appeal either of these decisions.
53. The Council apologised for failing to send these letters and has reviewed its decisions in line with Mrs X’s requests. I am satisfied that the Council’s apology and reviews remedy the injustice caused by this fault.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation. I find the Council at fault for failing to send two decision letters. This caused injustice. I am satisfied the Council has remedied the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman