Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in how it considered her application for housing and took account of her special circumstances when allocating her a priority banding causing distress. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant who I shall refer to here as Ms X complains there were failings in the way the Council considered her application for housing and took account of her special circumstances when allocating her a priority banding. Ms X says this has caused her and her family distress as they remain living in an unsafe area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

4. I have read the information provided by Ms X and spoken to her about the complaint. I considered the Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint and the supporting information it provided.
5. Ms X and the Council 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

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. 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))

The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy

8. The Council is part of a common allocation policy between four organisations including housing trusts to operate a common housing register and a choice-based lettings scheme. It aims to ensure all social/affordable housing is allocated fairly and objectively to those in the greatest housing need. It operates a common housing register for all applicants applying for housing in its area.
9. Applicants need to complete a Homechoice application form and provide information. Once the Council receives the application it will tell applicants of their date of registration, priority band assessment, priority date and application reference number.
10. Under the Council’s Housing Allocations policy it assesses and places applicants in one of six priority bands taking into account their housing needs. These are Bands A, B,C+,C, D or E. Applicants placed in Band E are assessed as having reduced preference. This can include having no local connection to the Council’s area. The Council says it will consider each case for reduced preference on its on merits.
11. The Council’s policy lists out the criteria for having a local connection. This includes living in or having lived within the borough for at least two consecutive years and having immediate family living in the area. It also includes having an ‘other significant reason’.
12. Applicants have the right to request a review of a decision by the Council. This includes a decision on the priority band an applicant is placed into. The decision will be reviewed by an independent officer not involved in the original decision. If an applicant is not satisfied with the decision, they can request the Cheshire Homechoice panel review the evidence and the decision.

What happened in this case

13. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
14. Ms X applied to the Council to join its Homechoice housing register in November 2022. Council officers asked Ms X for more information about her local connection to the area as she did not live in the borough. Ms X responded she had no local connection to the area. But been advised by the police and her GP to leave her current tenancy due to issues there. The Council awarded Ms X’s application Band E as she had no local connection.
15. Officers advised Ms X to approach her current council I will refer to as Council B, if she needed to flee her accommodation. Ms X responded she was currently in Band A on Council B’s housing register so did not want to wait on the Council’s housing register for a property. Ms X agreed to present as homeless to the Council and it referred the case to its homeless prevention team.
16. Ms X said she was the target of racial abuse in her area and did not want emergency housing through being homeless. Ms X said she was entitled to have a higher banding due to fleeing violence, hate crime, racist attacks and discrimination. Ms X considered the Council should exercise its discretion, take account of her special circumstances and make her an exception to its policy. Ms X asked the Council to review the decision on her banding.
17. The Homeless team referred Ms X back to Homechoice. An officer spoke to Ms X about her review request. Ms X confirmed the racial abuse took place in her local area and not in her home. The documents provided by Ms X referred to alleged attacks in January and February 2022 but there had been no recent incidents. Ms X’s landlord later confirmed Ms X had not reported any incidents to them. The officer discussed other options with Ms X such as private rented accommodation but Ms X just wanted the review to go ahead.
18. The Council reviewed Ms X’s request and said it had awarded her the correct band. This was because Ms X’s local connection was with Council B. It advised her to present herself as homeless to Council B if it was unsafe for her to remain in her current accommodation. Ms X complained about the Council’s response to her review request and considered she remained in the wrong priority band. Ms X said due to her circumstances she did not need to have a local connection as she was fleeing violence. Ms X asked the Council to consider her special circumstances and make an exception to its policy to award her a high priority banding.
19. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It upheld the decision to award her Band E as she had no local connection to the area. It said the local connection overrode all other housing circumstances. The Council noted Ms X’s view she would benefit from being considered under the ‘other significant reason’ criteria. But it did not consider her need to be in its area was greater than her need to be in any other council area in the country. And so, she could apply anywhere.
20. The Council noted Ms X wanted to flee but she did not want to flee to a refuge or hostel. And only wanted to be helped to move from her current situation to a more settled home. The Council gave her options and advice on moving including to supported or refuge accommodation. It could also offer her financial help to move into rented property in the area.
21. Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and appealed against the decision on her banding. The Council arranged for it to be considered by a Homechoice Appeal panel made up of its partner members.
22. A homelessness officer contacted Ms X to assess her under the homelessness legislation. Ms X declined the assessment, and the Council closed her homelessness case.
23. The Homechoice panel had access to all Ms X’s casework notes and documents and considered the banding appeal. It noted the requirement for a local connection was clearly defined in the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy. While Ms X said she had a significant reason for a local connection, the panel could only identify that Ms X had a reason for her to leave where she currently lived. So, it considered the Council had correctly allocated her Band E.

The Council’s response to the complaint

24. The Council says it considers every application to its housing register individually. It will investigate why an applicant needs to move into its area if they do not meet the local connection requirement in the Allocation Policy. This includes an applicant who was fleeing from another area due to domestic abuse or other forms of abuse. If such an applicant presented to the Council as homeless or potentially homeless due to risk of harm, it could offer them emergency accommodation. They would then be awarded a higher banding through its Housing Allocations policy if it accepted a homeless duty towards them. But Ms X did not want to be considered as homeless.
25. The Council says it could not award Ms X the local connection through its Allocations policy as it could not evidence a need to move into the area. The Council asked Ms X to provide information about her issues. But the information Ms X gave was historic. The Council considered Ms X had no intention to flee and her landlord unaware of the issues she reported. The Council advised Ms X to apply to Council B for a planned move.

Assessment

26. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. I do not consider there has been fault in this case.
27. This is because the documents provided show the Council assessed Ms X’s application according to its Housing Allocations policy. Council officers spoke to Ms X several times to find out more information and reasons for wanting to move to the borough. The evidence shows the Council considered Ms X’s request to move to the area for ‘other significant reason’ to fulfil its local connection requirement and to exercise discretion in her case. But it did not consider the evidence Ms X provided sufficient to comply with its policy requirements. It considered Ms X did not have any intention to flee from her current accommodation. So, it assessed her as band E, having reduced preference.
28. The Council’s assessment of Ms X’s housing band has been supported by an officer on review and a Homechoice panel. I am aware Ms X does not agree but the decision to award Band E it is a decision the Council is entitled to make. As there is no evidence of fault there are no grounds for us to question the merits of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I am completing my investigation. There is no fault by the Council in the way it considered Ms X’s application for housing and took account of her special circumstances when allocating her a priority banding.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman