Summary: Mr X complains that the Council wrongly disqualified him from the housing register and failed to provide accommodation for him despite being homeless. The Council is at fault as it delayed in dealing with its review of the decision to disqualify Mr X from the housing register and did not fully explain its review decision. The Council is also at fault as it did not offer suitable temporary accommodation to Mr X when it accepted the main housing duty. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr X by apologising to him and making symbolic payments to him to acknowledge the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council wrongly disqualified him from the housing register and delayed in dealing with his request for a review of its decision. Mr X considers he lost an offer of accommodation due to the Council’s incorrect decision that he no longer qualified for the housing register.
2. Mr X also complains that the Council has failed to properly deal with his homelessness application over a number of years which has caused him to be left without suitable accommodation and he is sleeping in his car.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated events from January 2023. Mr X previously made a complaint to us about how the Council disqualifying him from the housing register and how it had dealt with his homelessness application. We issued a final decision on that complaint in January 2023. I have therefore considered how the Council dealt with Mr X’s request for a review of its decision to disqualify him from the housing register. I have also considered how the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application from January 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing register

8. 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))
9. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
   

10. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
    Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

The Council’s allocations scheme

11. The Council’s housing allocations schemes of 2017 and 2023 are relevant to this complaint. Both schemes set out the circumstances in which applicants would not qualify for a housing allocation. This includes:

Perpetrators of domestic violence who are subject to a non molestation order, an injunction order, an occupation order or a restraining order.

12. A Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) is a non statutory process which brings together statutory and voluntary agencies to jointly support victims of domestic abuse who are at high risk of serious harm. The core MARAC agencies include the police, mental health services and adult social care. (Paragraph 433 Domestic Abuse Statutory Guidance).

Homelessness applications

13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

What happened

14. The following is a summary of the events key to the consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.

Housing register

15. Mr X was on the Council’s housing register in band 1. In December 2022, the Council received information that MARAC considered Mr X to be a high risk perpetrator of domestic abuse. The Council notified Mr X in mid December 2022 that it had closed his housing register application. The Council explained that Mr X no longer qualified for the housing register as he was a perpetrator of domestic abuse. The Council notified Mr X of his right to seek a review of this decision.
16. Mr X requested a review of the decision in mid December 2022 as he disputed that he was a perpetrator of domestic abuse.
17. In early 2023, a magistrates court granted stalking protection orders against Mr X to protect a number of people including his former partners. These orders restricted Mr X from contacting the protected people and prohibited him from entering certain areas.
18. The Council completed the review in August 2023. The Council upheld its decision that Mr X no longer qualified for the housing register. In its letter notifying Mr X of the decision the Council said it had checked the information from MARAC. It was satisfied the information related to Mr X, was relevant and up to date. It also considered if Mr X had remedied the breach. The Council noted that a magistrates court had granted the stalking protection orders against Mr X in early 2023. It was therefore satisfied Mr X did not qualify for the housing register.
19. I asked the Council to explain how its decision was in accordance with its allocations scheme which refers to domestic violence rather than abuse. Stalking protection orders are also not included in the list of orders which exclude an applicant from the allocations scheme. The Council has said:

• It appreciates there is a difference between domestic violence and domestic abuse but both phrases are used interchangeably. But it will amend its housing allocations scheme to correct the terminology used.
• The intention of its housing allocations scheme was to encompass domestic violence and abuse.
• A stalking protection order is not explicitly listed in the housing allocation scheme. But it considers a stalking protection order is similar to a non molestation order so satisfies the allocations scheme.

Homelessness application

20. The Council accepted it owed the main housing duty to Mr X in September 2022 but it failed to notify Mr X at that time. The Council notified Mr X in January 2023. The Council’s records note Mr X said he was homeless and sleeping in his car at this time. The Council’s records show it tried to contact Mr X by telephone but was unable to do so. It later contacted Mr X by email.
21. In October 2023, the Council carried out an urgent housing needs assessment for Mr X as he said he was rough sleeping. The Council’s records note it told Mr X that it could offer shared accommodation to him but it did not have any self contained properties available. Mr X told the Council that he could not live in shared accommodation due to his mental health. Mr X contacted the Council several times. The Council advised it could provide shared accommodation but did not have any self contained properties available.
22. The Council offered a self contained property to Mr X outside its area. Mr X refused the property. The Council has said this was offered by its accommodation finding team and it was not an offer to end its main housing duty.
23. The Council’s records show an officer sent an email to Mr X advising him that it would offer shared accommodation to him if approved by the probation service. If Mr X refused the accommodation then the Council would end its main housing duty. I understand the Council has not ended the main housing duty.
24. The Council’s records note it contacted the probation service who were overseeing Mr X to see if they could offer accommodation. The probation service said it could only provide supported shared accommodation to Mr X which he had declined. The Council has not offered any further accommodation to Mr X.

Analysis

Delay in carrying out the review of the decision to exclude Mr X from the housing register.

25. The Council took eight months to carry out a review of its decision that Mr X did not qualify for the housing register. This is fault as the review should have taken no longer than eight weeks. This fault will have caused distress to Mr X which the Council should remedy.
26. We have previously made recommendations for the Council to reduce the delays in carrying out reviews of its decisions on housing register applications. The Council is taking action to address the delays in carrying out reviews of its decisions on housing register applications. It is also providing updates to the Ombudsman. It is therefore not necessary to recommend any further service improvements in this area.

Review of the Council’s decision

27. It is not our role to decide if Mr X has perpetrated domestic abuse. Our role is to examine how the Council dealt with Mr X’s review request and whether its decision is in accordance with the housing allocations scheme.
28. The Council’s review decision letter shows it considered Mr X’s reasons for seeking a review of its decision, including his position that he was not a perpetrator of domestic abuse. I am therefore satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s reasons for requesting a review.
29. I have also considered whether the Council properly applied its allocations scheme when considering Mr X’s review request. The Council’s allocations policies of 2017 and 2023 provide that an applicant will not qualify if they are perpetrators of domestic violence who are subject to a non molestation order, injunction order, occupation order or restraining order.
30. Mr X is subject to stalking protection orders which would fall within the definition of domestic abuse, rather than domestic violence. I accept the Council’s position that the intention of the scheme was to include domestic abuse as it common for the terms to be used interchangeably. I welcome the Council’s undertaking to amend the terminology in its allocations scheme.
31. The allocations scheme does not list stalking protection orders as one of the orders which disqualify an applicant from the housing register. But, on balance, I consider the Council properly applied its allocations scheme. A stalking protection order prohibits or requires an applicant to take certain action in the same way a non molestation order or injunction does. It therefore can be seen to be an equivalent of a non molestation order or injunction order as it achieves the same aim. I therefore do not consider there is fault in how the Council reached its decision that Mr X should remain disqualified from the housing register.
32. But the Council should have explained in its decision letter to Mr X why the stalking protection order fell within the disqualification criterion. The failure of the Council to properly explain its reasoning meant the decision was not transparent. This is fault which causes some uncertainty to Mr X.

Mr X’s homelessness application

33. The Council accepted the main housing duty for Mr X so it had a duty to secure suitable accommodation for Mr X. There is no evidence to show the Council offered suitable temporary accommodation to Mr X since it notified him of its decision to accept the main housing duty in January 2023. The Council discussed shared accommodation with Mr X in October 2023. But there is no evidence to show it formally offered such accommodation to him. There is also no evidence to show the Council satisfied itself that shared accommodation would be suitable for Mr X.
34. The Council checked if the probation service was accommodating Mr X. But it again failed to offer temporary accommodation to him when it established the probation service had not provided accommodation to him.
35. I am mindful the Council offered accommodation outside its area to Mr X which he declined. But this was not an offer of temporary accommodation. So, the Council should still have accommodated Mr X as it did not discharge its main housing duty.
36. I therefore do not consider the Council has met its duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation for Mr X since January 2023. As a result, Mr X has not lived in suitable accommodation for a significant period of time and has been sleeping in his car.
37. Our guidance on remedies suggests a remedy of £150 to £350 for every month a person has been deprived of suitable accommodation. Mr X was in prison for a period of nine weeks during this time so I cannot consider this period when determining the appropriate remedy as he was accommodated. I therefore consider Mr X was without suitable temporary accommodation for a period of 14 months and three weeks. As Mr X has been sleeping in his car the injustice to him is significant. I therefore consider a payment of £350 per month is proportionate.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. That the Council will:
1. Send a written apology to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay in carrying out the review of its decision that Mr X did not qualify for the housing register, for failing to explain why it considered stalking protection orders to be within its allocations scheme when dealing with the review and for failing to offer temporary accommodation to him. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £200 to Mr X to acknowledge the distress caused to him by the delay in carrying out the review of its decision to disqualify him from the housing register.
3. Make a symbolic payment of £5150 to Mr X to acknowledge the distress caused to him by failing to offer suitable temporary accommodation to him.
4. Offer suitable temporary accommodation to Mr X. The Council should also notify Mr X of his right to seek a review of the suitability of that accommodation when offering it to him. If the Council is unable to offer suitable temporary accommodation to Mr X within a month then it should make a payment of £350 per month for every further month it does not make an offer to him. In the event Mr X refuses an offer of temporary accommodation and seeks a review of the suitability (or accepts the offer and then challenges suitability) then the payment of £350 per month will only be applicable if his review request is successful. In this situation the Council should backdate the payments to the date the Council offered the temporary accommodation.
5. By training or other means, remind officers dealing with reviews of the Council’s decision on a housing application, that they should fully explain the factors considered and reasons for decisions, including how the allocations scheme applies to an application. This is to ensure the Council’s decisions are transparent.
6. By training or other means, remind officers of the Council’s duty to offer suitable temporary accommodation when it accepts the main housing duty.
39. The Council should take the action at a) to d) within one month and the action at e) and f) within two months of my final decision. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Final decision

40. Fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman