Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to assist her with her homelessness. The Council was at fault for not recording how it considered whether previous domestic abuse made her vulnerable. This did not cause Miss X an injustice because she had the right to ask the Council to review its decision that she was not in priority need.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to assist her after she became homeless. She also said she had been bidding unsuccessfully for social housing. She said this meant she has been sofa-surfing and occasionally sleeping at her former partner’s property when she had nowhere else to go. This led to her being sexually assaulted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
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 considered:
• the information Miss X provided and spoke to her about her complaint;
• the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
8. Miss 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. If a council is satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they owe the applicant the ‘prevention duty’. This means the council must help the person to ensure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation.
11. If an applicant is found to be eligible and homeless then the council will owe the ‘relief duty’. This requires the council to take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person for at least six months.
12. Where the applicant is eligible, homeless, and may be in priority need, the council has a duty to provide interim accommodation. A person may be in priority need if they are vulnerable, for example, due to medical needs. A person will be in priority need if they are homeless after fleeing domestic abuse.
13. The council must make enquiries to decide whether it owes the applicant a main housing duty. It will owe a main housing duty if it is satisfied the applicant is homeless, eligible, in priority need and not intentionally homeless.
14. If, after making enquiries, the council decides the applicant is not in priority need, it should send a decision in writing setting out its reasons. The applicant has the right to ask for a decision of the decision within 21 days. Following the review, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.

Allocations

15. The demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas, particularly in large cities like London. To manage the demand, councils must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in specified categories, which includes homeless people.
16. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. Some councils hold a housing register that records the details of those applicants waiting for housing.

This Council’s allocations policy

17. Bidding: The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. Applicants can choose which properties to “bid” for from available properties, which are advertised each week. The Council says the adverts provide sufficient information for applicants to decide whether to bid, following which they need to view the property to check it meets their requirements.
18. Priority band: The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
19. Band A: This is awarded for emergency situations and cases involving very high levels of need.
20. Band B: This is awarded where applicants have a high need to move.
21. Band C: This is awarded where applicants have a medium need to move. This includes those who are homeless. This band has two levels: level 1 is for those owed a main housing duty and level 2 is for those not owed a main housing duty.
22. Band D: This is awarded to applicants not included in the other bands.

What happened

23. Miss X moved to a supported tenancy with provider A in December 2019 after fleeing domestic abuse. The tenancy agreement required her to engage with the support offered. Provider A issued her with a Notice to Quit (NTQ), which said she must leave the accommodation on 23 July 2021. This investigation covers events from June 2021 onwards when Miss X contacted the Council for assistance.
24. Miss X told the Council she was not able to live in the accommodation provided by provider A because of a mice infestation. The Council confirmed with its environmental services team that the infestation had been dealt with. It contacted provider A, who said it would not withdraw the NTQ because Miss X had not been engaging with the support, as required by the tenancy agreement, and it was also aware of other breaches of that agreement.
25. The Council accepted a relief duty and sent Miss X a letter confirming its decision. Its records show it discussed interim accommodation with Miss X but she said she did not want to accept hostel accommodation. It made referrals to provide B and provider C to identify suitable housing for Miss X.
26. Provider C offered accommodation on 23 July 2021 and arranged for an appointment for Miss X to be booked in. Miss X did not attend the appointment. Provider C also offered her women-only accommodation, but Miss X did not respond. The original accommodation offered was kept open until mid August, and a further appointment was made but Miss X did not attend. Provider C then withdrew the offer as it had other applicants on its waiting list. Miss X later said she did not want to accept the offer.
27. Miss X had not returned to the accommodation provided by provider A so the tenancy ended on 23 July 2021 and provider A reported it was changing the locks.
28. The Council considered the medical evidence Miss X provided to support her application and consulted its medical adviser. The Council decided Miss X was not in priority need. It discussed this with Miss X by telephone on 24 August 2021. It advised her to seek shared accommodation in the private sector because her age meant any benefits to help with housing costs would be restricted to shared accommodation. Miss X said she believed she was entitled to social housing and ended the call.
29. The Council confirmed its decision in writing. It explained that Miss X was receiving standard medication for anxiety and depression and in its view she was not significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person. It also provided a personalised housing plan (PHP), which encouraged Miss X to seek private rented accommodation, set out the restrictions to claiming housing costs, and signposted her to organisations that supported those sleeping rough.
30. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it noted Miss X had left a previous property due to domestic abuse but decided this was not the reason she was at risk of being homeless in July 2021. The case notes do not confirm how it considered this at the time and it is not mentioned in its letter to Miss X or its referral to its medical adviser.
31. The 56 day relief period ended in September 2021 and the Council wrote to Miss X to confirm its decision to end its duty. It set out her right to ask it for a review of its decision if she disagreed with it.
32. The Council said Miss X contacted it again in January 2022. Two telephone appointments were made for her and, although several attempts were made to call her, the Council was not able to speak to her.
33. Miss X contacted the Council again in March. The Council explained that unless there were significant changes to her health since the previous assessment, it would not take a fresh homelessness application.

Housing register

34. The Council accepted Miss X into its housing register in March 2020 and awarded Band C2. It said its decision reflected she was sharing facilities. It said applicants in this band can expect to wait several years before securing social housing. It said the wait will be shorted if Miss X is willing to bid for studios as well as one-bedroom homes, which she has been doing.

My findings

Homelessness

35. The Council accepted a homelessness application and considered interim accommodation, but Miss X did not want hostel accommodation. It accepted a relief duty and made enquiries, including considering whether she was in priority need, based on the medical evidence she provided. It made referrals for housing but Miss X declined the accommodation offered by provider C.
36. It concluded she was not in priority need and sent her a decision letter setting out its reasons for deciding this. The letter explained Miss X had the right to ask the Council for a review if she disagreed with that decision. It was reasonable for her to exercise that right. Therefore, I will not consider its decision further.
37. When reviewing the records, I note the Council did not record how it considered whether the previous domestic abuse made Miss X vulnerable, although I accept Miss X was not homeless because she was fleeing from domestic violence in July 2021 and was therefore not automatically in priority need. In my view, the Council should have considered this and made a record to show how it did so. The failure to keep a record was fault. This did not cause Miss X an injustice by this because she had the right to ask for a review of its decision that she was not in priority need because she was vulnerable.

Housing register

38. I have not investigated the way the Council considered Miss X’s housing register application because this is outside the period I am considering. There is no evidence to suggest the banding awarded is incorrect, even given Miss X’s change of circumstances since March 2020, because the Council has decided it does not owe her a main housing duty.
39. The reason she has not been successful when bidding is that there are other applicants with a higher priority and not due to Council fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within one month of the date of this decision, the Council should remind relevant staff of the need to consider whether previous domestic abuse means a housing applicant is vulnerable, and record how it has considered this.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault, but this did not cause an injustice to Miss X because she had the right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision if she disagreed with it. I have recommended action to prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman