Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with the information she provided about risk areas for her homelessness application. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: update the information Miss Y provided about her risk areas, record this in one place and properly check its case notes; properly handle its contact with her about a potential accommodation offer; and its poor complaint handling. To remedy this injustice the Council has agreed to: apologise; make a payment to reflect the distress caused; and service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss Y, complains about the way the Council dealt with the information she provided about her “risk” areas – those parts of the city where it was unsafe for her to live. She says:

• she provided information to the Council about her current risk areas at the start of her homelessness application;
• following a further incident, she provided information to the Council about additional risk areas; but
• the Council continually challenged her about risk areas, wrongly told her she was adding new areas and asked again for information she had already provided. Having to repeat information about traumatic events was very distressing.

2. Miss Y also complains about the way the Council dealt with the offer of a property which may have been in one of her safe areas. She says the Council wrongly withheld information about its location and withdrew the offer without allowing her the opportunity to confirm it was in a safe area.

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.
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
5. 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)
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 spoke to Miss Y, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Miss Y and the Council provided about the complaint.
8. I invited Miss Y and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

The relevant law and statutory guidance

9. Councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness are set out in Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.

The main housing duty

10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty.
11. The main housing duty ends when an applicant accepts a final offer of accommodation under a council’s housing allocations scheme or an appropriate private rented sector offer.
12. Councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer. Applicants have the right to ask for a review of the suitability of a final accommodation offer.

Suitability of accommodation

13. Councils must ensure homelessness temporary accommodation is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.
14. Councils must take account of the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household, including any risk of violence in a particular locality.

What happened

15. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Complaint background

16. Miss Y had experienced domestic abuse. The Council accepted it owed her the main housing duty, as she was homeless and in priority need.
17. Miss Y gave the Council information about her risk areas. It provided her with temporary accommodation in a safe location.

Additional risk areas

18. Miss Y complained to the Council about disrepair at her temporary accommodation. It contacted her about a move to alternative temporary accommodation. Miss Y declined the offer. She told the Council, following a further incident relating to the domestic abuse, there were now additional areas where she would be at risk. The alternative accommodation offered was in one of these additional areas.
19. The Council asked for, and Miss Y provided, full details of the additional risk areas. Her support agency also contacted the Council to confirm the initial and the new risk areas, and her safe areas. The Council accepted the information about the additional risk areas.
20. Miss Y did not have to move from her temporary accommodation as the Council then resolved the repair issues.

First final accommodation offer

21. The Council made Miss Y a final offer of permanent accommodation a few months after its contact with her about additional risk areas. Miss Y told the Council the accommodation was not suitable as it was in one of these areas.
22. The Council issued a main duty offer letter in which it said the property was not in an identified risk area and it considered it suitable.
23. Miss Y submitted a suitability review request. She explained she had provided the Council with details of the initial risk areas at the time of her application and updated it with details of additional risk areas at the time of the contact about disrepair at her temporary accommodation.

The Council’s response to the review request

24. After considering the information with Miss Y’s review request, the Council told her it accepted the property was in one of the additional risk areas. It apologised for overlooking the updated information she had provided and confirmed the final accommodation offer had now been withdrawn.

Contact about a private rented sector property (property X)

25. A few weeks after the withdrawal of the first final accommodation offer, a housing officer contacted Miss Y by phone about a potential match to a private rented sector property.
26. Miss Y referred to her recent contact with the Council about risk areas. The officer was not aware of this. There was a discussion about the property’s location and whether it was in a safe area or neighbouring a risk area. Miss Y asked for the property’s full postcode so she could check its location and confirm whether it was safe. The officer would not provide this information.
27. Miss Y contacted the Council by email asking for the full postcode so she could check its location. She said she felt it was being suggested she was adding too many new risk areas, and this was the reason for refusing to provide the information or proceed further with the potential match. She was concerned she should not miss out on a potentially suitable housing offer because of this.
28. In reply the Council said:

• it would not provide the full postcode because of the information she had provided about her risk and safe areas;
• postcodes covered multiple areas. If an area was of risk, this meant neighbouring areas could not be considered; and
• it would keep her in mind for any suitable private rented accommodation in her safe postcode areas.

Miss Y’s further contact about property X

29. Miss Y was unhappy with this response and raised her concerns again. The Council said in reply:

• it had noted the information she had provided initially about risk areas;
• but as she was now saying she had additional risk areas, she would have to provide evidence to support this; and
• she should complete the enclosed risk assessment form for the additional risk areas, with details of the relevant addresses, occupants and incident dates.

30. Miss Y provided the Council with the details of her previous contact with it about both the initial, and additional, risk areas. She asked the Council to check its records.
31. The Council continued to tell Miss Y she had not previously advised it or provided the required information about additional risk areas.

Second final accommodation offer

32. Shortly after the contact about property X, the Council identified social housing accommodation it considered suitable for Miss Y in one of her safe areas.
33. It made Miss Y a further final offer of accommodation, which she accepted. The Council has now discharged its housing duty to Miss Y.

Miss Y’s complaint to the Council

34. Miss Y was unhappy about the way the Council had dealt with the issue of her risk areas. She said it had:

• repeatedly asked her to send proof and information about her risk areas which she had already provided, triggering her response to the traumatic incidents she had experienced;
• made her a final offer of accommodation in a location which it had already accepted was a risk area. She was required to submit a request for a suitability review and repeat the information she had already provided about why this was a risk area; and
• initially offered her property X, which would have been ideal. But then said she couldn’t have it because her risk areas were too vast, questioned her again about her risk areas and refused to give her the full postcode so she could confirm the property was in a safe area.

The Council’s complaint response

35. In response to Miss Y’s complaint the Council said:

• Miss Y had not shared any information initially about risk areas;
• information about her additional risk areas, was only provided when she asked for a review of the suitability of the first final accommodation offer. The Council accepted the property was in a risk area and withdrew the offer; and
• she had not told the Council about her initial risk areas until the contact about property X. Despite repeated requests she had failed to provide information about risk in these areas.

36. The Council did not accept Miss Y had already provided the required information about her risk areas. It said she had repeatedly sent emails disputing this point instead of providing the information requested. It could not deem the areas as risk without this information.
37. With regard to the contact about property X, it said:

• there were occasions when its private rented sector team might be able to offer a tenancy with a private sector landlord. In those cases, it might informally contact a household in temporary accommodation to see if they would be interested. This contact should be recorded on its system.
• it could not see any record of a discussion with her about property X. But in any event, it would not usually discuss the address of an accommodation offer with an applicant before it was made in writing; and
• Miss Y’s contact with the officer had only concerned risks in new postcode areas. Following her complaint about this contact, it was established property X was actually located in one of her risk areas.

Miss Y’s complaint to us and the Council’s response to our enquiries

38. Miss Y asked us to investigate her complaint. In response to our enquiries, the Council told us:

• it has a procedure, set out in the housing service manual, for establishing and recording details of an applicant’s risk areas. These details should be recorded in case notes on its electronic case management system, and also separately in a specific risk assessment form;
• its case notes confirmed Miss Y had provided the relevant information about her risk areas when she said she did. But the details were not recorded in the separate form;
• all the information about Miss Y’s risk areas should have been recorded in one place and the risk assessment form should have been updated immediately additional information was received; and
• the information in its case notes should have been taken into account in a timelier way, and before making an offer of accommodation that was clearly unsuitable and had to be withdrawn.

39. It also said it:

• was happy to provide a written apology (in addition to the apology it had already made to Miss Y for the unsuitable accommodation offer) to cover its shortcomings in this case; and
• would update its procedure for recording of risk information to ensure it is clearly recorded within one location and updated immediately upon the receipt of additional information. It will also require risk information to be consulted before an offer of accommodation is made.

My view – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Failure to update the information about Miss Y’s risk areas

40. The Council has now accepted Miss Y provided it with information about her risk areas, when she said she did. And I note the case records clearly show this. But it failed to update and record all the information in one place in its risk assessment form. This was fault.
41. Because of this fault:

• the Council made a final accommodation offer of a property it should have known from the information it held was in a risk area and unsuitable; and
• Miss Y had to submit a suitability review request repeating information, she had already provided, including about traumatic events, in response to a final accommodation offer which should not have been made.

42. Miss Y was caused unnecessary distress by having to repeat information about upsetting events and uncertainty about whether the Council would withdraw the offer.

Contact about property X

43. My understanding is it is not in dispute that a housing officer called Miss Y about a potential match to property X. There is a dispute about what was discussed and why the potential match was not explored further.
44. The Council has told us it has a system for audio-recording telephone calls with its customer contact centre, but not for other parts of its service. It does not have an audio-recording of the call with Miss Y about property X.
45. However, Miss Y contacted the Council shortly after the call and gave her account of what was said. She asked for the full postcode so she could confirm whether the property was in a safe location. The Council told her it would not provide the full postcode because of the information she had provided about her risk and safe areas.
46. It then said in its complaint response any contact about a potential match with a private rented sector property should be recorded on its system. It could not see any note of a discussion about property X. But it went on to say following her complaint it was established property X was located in one of her risk areas.
47. Based on the information I have seen, my view is the Council failed to:

• make a note of the call with Miss Y about the potential match to property X on its system;
• check its case notes confirming the information Miss Y had already provided about all of her risk areas, and wrongly questioned what she said about this; and
• have an open and transparent discussion with her about whether property X was in a safe location and might be suitable for her.

48. I consider these failures in the Council’s handling of its contact with Miss Y about the potential match were fault.
49. Because of this the suitability of potential match was not explored further. This caused Miss Y uncertainty about whether she lost the opportunity to secure a suitable home at an earlier stage.
50. And the way this contact was handled caused Miss Y yet more unnecessary distress and upset at being questioned again about her risk areas and the Council’s denial that she had already provided this information.

Complaint handling

51. The Council failed to properly check its own case records in response to Miss Y’s complaint. Had it done so, it would have confirmed she had already provided all the required information. Instead, it continued insist she had not done so, and should stop telling it that she had. This very poor complaint handling was fault.
52. Because of this fault, in addition to the upset and frustration caused by the Council’s poor complaint handling, Miss Y was put to the time and trouble of bringing her complaint to us.

Agreed action

53. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Miss Y for its: failure to update the information she provided about her risk areas, record this in one place and properly check its case notes; failure to properly handle its contact with her about property X; and poor complaint handling. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. pay Miss Y £500 to reflect the distress and uncertainty, time and trouble caused by the Council’s faults. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies.
54. And within two months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• report to us on the changes it said it would make to its procedure for recording and updating information about an applicant’s risk areas and checking this information before making accommodation offers; and
• remind all officers about its procedures for recording contact with applicants on the system and the requirement to follow the procedure.

55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed take the above action as a suitable way to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman