Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to consider information about her housing application which has resulted in her being offered unsuitable accommodation. The Ombudsman finds find fault with the Council for it how it communicated with Miss X about her eligibility to its housing register. The Ombudsman does find fault with the Council for how it considered any risk posed to Miss X. The Council has agreed to make a payment, a further direct offer of housing and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider the information in her housing application about the risk to her.
2. Miss X complains this led to the Council wrongly applying its housing allocations policy and placing her in the wrong band. This meant she was offered inappropriate properties and remained in unsuitable accommodation longer than necessary.
3. Miss X also complains the Council has not understood the impact of its decisions on her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. I have considered all the information Miss X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
8. I considered comments from the Council and Miss X on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness legislation

9. When someone applies to a council for accommodation and it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, several duties arise.
10. Section 184 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) requires the housing authority to make inquiries to satisfy if an applicant is eligible for assistance and if so, what duty it owes the applicant under the provisions of the Act.
11. If, at the end of the relief duty, a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Housing Allocations

12. 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))
13. 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))

Suitability of accommodation

14. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
15. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household;
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport.

What happened

16. Miss X previously lived in Council A’s area. Miss X approached Council A due to fleeing domestic violence.
17. Council A placed Miss X in temporary accommodation while it completed a homelessness assessment. At the end of the assessment, Council A decided it owed Miss X a main housing duty. Miss X remained in the temporary accommodation provided by Council A.
18. Council A contacted Council Z to arrange a reciprocal housing agreement when offering Miss X accommodation under its main housing duty.
19. A reciprocal housing agreement can be arranged by councils where it would be unsafe for people to remain in the local area. Councils can agree to give housing to another Council’s applicant, in exchange for housing for one of its own applicants.
20. Council Z agreed to make a direct offer of housing to Miss X in exchange for Council A making a direct offer to an applicant from Council Z.
21. Council Z agreed to make one direct offer of housing to Miss X under the reciprocal agreement with Council A.
22. When Council Z added Miss X to its system under the agreement, it allowed her to access the housing register and gave her an allocation band. The allocation band is used to determine priority for applicants when bidding on the housing register.
23. It also made a direct offer to Miss X, where it discussed the suitability of the direct offer with Miss X and Council A. Miss X says she did not accept the direct offer as she felt it was in the area where she remained at risk from domestic violence.
24. Miss X started to bid on Council Z’s housing register. Miss X felt that she had not been awarded the correct allocation band for the housing register.
25. Miss X communicated with officers from Council Z about her bidding account and the banding she had been granted.
26. Council Z told Miss X several different reasons for her banding allocation and changed her banding priority.
27. Miss X complained to the Council about her allocation band and the Council’s reversal of the decision for her allocation in a priority band.
28. The Council said it had made an error when allocating Miss X to a lower band on the housing register, and that it should have allocated her to the high priority band of the register.
29. Miss X remained unhappy with the Council and complained to the Ombudsman.
30. As part of my investigation, I asked Council Z to clarify Miss X’s eligibility for its housing register.
31. Council Z has clarified that it never should have provided Miss X with details on how to bid and that this was maladministration from the Council. This was not part of the reciprocal agreement with Council A. It added Miss X to the housing register to process a direct offer but that it should not have allowed her to bid or given her priority allocation.
32. In response my enquiries, Council Z has said that as Miss X remains a tenant of Council A, any risk posed to her remains the responsibility of Council A to assess. It liaised with Council A when it made the direct offer to Miss X to decide if the offer was suitable because of any risk and was advised by Council A that it was suitable.

Analysis

Housing register

33. Council Z has said under the reciprocal agreement with Council A, it should have only made the direct offer of accommodation to Miss X. However, it gave her the details to bid and allowed her to do so. It then incorrectly communicated with her about an entitlement to high priority on the housing register.
34. This was fault by Council Z, causing Miss X significant distress as she spent a long time without clarification about her eligibility and believing she was entitled to bid on housing register. Miss X spent a significant amount of time communicating with different officers who told her different information.
35. Council Z has said it made Miss X a direct offer, and it was discussed with Council A and Miss X, however it did not receive a response from Miss X. The Council advised that normally, it would have ended the reciprocal agreement at this point as it had met its obligations under the agreement with Council A. Council Z has been able to evidence that both Council A and Miss X were aware that it would only be making one direct offer of housing.
36. However, maladministration by Council Z caused Miss X distress and misled her into believing she was eligible for the housing register. Because of this, Council Z has agreed to make a final direct offer of housing to Miss X under the reciprocal agreement.

Domestic Abuse

37. Part of Miss X’s complaint is that Council Z has not properly considered the risk posed to her when offering her accommodation. This has meant that she has remained in unsuitable temporary accommodation for longer than necessary.
38. Council Z had agreed to offer accommodation to Miss X under a reciprocal agreement with Council A. She remained an applicant of Council A, and the suitability of Miss X’s accommodation would have remained Council A’s responsibility. It therefore would have been up to Council A to decide whether Miss X would be at risk there. I accept Council Z’s explanation.
39. If Miss X feels her temporary accommodation is unsuitable, she can ask Council A for a review of its suitability.
40. I find no fault by Council Z in how it considered any risk posed to Miss X.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. Within 4 weeks the Council has agreed to

• Write to Miss X and apologise for the fault identified
• Pay Miss X £250 in recognition of the distress caused by the Council’s maladministration.
• Make Miss X a final direct offer under the reciprocal agreement with Council A.

42. Within 12 weeks the Council has agreed to

• Review how it manages requests for reciprocal accommodation agreements from other councils to ensure that staff are aware of the agreements and whether applicants qualify for the housing register.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for how it communicated with Miss X about her access to its housing register. I do not find fault with the Council for how it considered any risk posed to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman