Summary: Miss X complained about Council delay in reassessing her priority band on the housing register. The Council was at fault. It will apologise and pay Miss X £500 to remedy the extra month she remained in unsuitable accommodation as a result of its delay, and her time and trouble pursuing the Council. It will review its processes to ensure it prioritises cases where applicants may be in unsafe or unsuitable accommodation as a result of domestic abuse.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s delay in reassessing her priority band on the housing register after the police made a tier 1 referral, which confirmed she was not safe in her accommodation due to domestic abuse.
2. The delay meant Miss X was not able to move, which caused avoidable worry and upset for Miss X and her children, negatively affecting their mental health.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
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

How I considered this complaint

6. 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
• our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Housing allocations

8. Councils operate a housing register, which is essentially a waiting list for social housing. Each council must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedure for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A)
9. 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.

This Council’s allocations scheme

10. Bidding: The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. Housing applicants can apply for available properties. This is called bidding. The Council advertises new properties on a weekly cycle.
11. Priority band: The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
12. Registration date: This is the date on which the Council first placed an application into a priority band.
13. Award date: When a higher priority band is applied, the award date is used instead of the registration date to prioritise between applicants within the same band. If a lower priority band is applied, the registration date is used to prioritise between applicants within the same band.
14. Relevant to this complaint, band 3 applies for overcrowding where the applicant is short of one bedroom. Band 2 applies where the applicant’s housing is unsuitable as a result of severe medical reasons and applicants who need to move due to the threat of domestic abuse, violence or harassment but who are not in immediate danger, “as determined by an appropriate approved risk assessment by the referral agency”.
15. Band 1 priority may be awarded to applicants with an exceptional housing need, including those at risk of/suffering domestic abuse, extreme violence or harassment where the threat is immediate and it is not safe for the applicant to remain in their present home. “This will be based upon verification by senior officers within the police or other agencies as necessary in conjunction with a Council approved risk assessment”.

Tier 1 form

16. Under a protocol for the protection of witnesses at risk of intimidation, the police can complete a tier 1 form. This provides some information about the witness’s situation and an assessment of the risk of intimidation, with an overall score. The form must be signed by a senior officer. The Council undertakes to assess all tier 1 forms but does not guarantee it will provide alternative accommodation.

Homelessness

17. A person may be homeless if it is not reasonable for them to continue occupying their accommodation. Where a council has reason to believe a person may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, it has a duty to provide emergency accommodation whilst it makes enquiries to decide what duties, if any, it owes to them. Examples of priority need are those with dependent children and, from 6 July 2021, those fleeing domestic abuse.

What happened

18. Miss X lived with her two children in a two bedroom housing association property. The Council accepted her application to join its housing register in May 2020. It awarded band 3 priority based on overcrowding, because she was one bedroom short for her household.
19. In early April 2021, Miss X asked the Council to consider whether she was entitled to additional priority due to her diagnosis of anxiety and depression. She provided medical evidence to support this.
20. On the form, Miss X stated she had an exceptional need to move because her anxiety was being “made worse from incidents that have happened at my address”. She said her housing association housing officer could provide more details and there were police reports. She did not provide any further information about the incidents, nor did she use the terms domestic abuse or domestic violence.
21. In mid-April 2021, Miss X spoke to an officer, who said her application was awaiting assessment. The record stated the officer gave her contact details for its domestic violence hub. I have not seen any record she did so at this stage.
22. In June 2021, she spoke to another officer, who advised her to send the Council information about reports made to the police. The record stated the officer asked if she wanted to make a homelessness application, but she declined. The record does not give any further information about the advice given.
23. A few days later, there was a further conversation in which Miss X asked for advice about getting a tier 1 form from the police. Again, the record provides no detail of the discussion.
24. Miss X called the Council again in July and twice in August. Each time, the Council told her it had not yet assessed her application. In September 2021 and again in early January 2022, she sent emails asking for updates. The Council responded to the January email the same day. It acknowledged she had provided crime numbers. It said if the police supported her exceptional need to move, they could make a tier 1 referral to the Council. It provided a contact number to call if she could not remain in her current accommodation.
25. In February 2022, the Council assessed the change of circumstances application. Based on the information provided, it changed Miss X’s priority to band 2. It wrote to her with its decision and explained she could ask for a review. Miss X asked for a review the same day. She said her former partner’s behaviour was getting increasingly erratic and this had been going on for over a year. The Council acknowledge receipt two months later, at which point it said due to staff shortages there was a backlog with the reviews. In the event, the review was not completed because further information was received that led to a change in banding.
26. In mid-February 2022, the police completed a tier 1 form and sent it to the Council. An officer considered the form on 7 March and noted the risk assessment section was not completed and the form was not singed by a senior officer. The officer emailed the police officer who completed the form the same day. Two days later, the officer spoke to the police officer. The record stated that, based on the information from the police officer, band 2 was appropriate, which meant no change to Miss X’s banding. The officer explained to the police officer what they needed to award band 1 priority. The same day, the police officer sent a further tier 1 form to the Council.
27. The Council reviewed the form on 13 April 2022 and noted it was still not signed by a senior police officer. It asked Miss X to contact the police officer herself to address this. The same day, the records show Miss X contacted the domestic violence hub, which advised her about her housing options.
28. The police sent a signed and completed tier 1 form to the Council on 19 April. The same day, the Council agreed to award band 1 priority.
29. The Council made an offer of housing to Miss X on 11 May, which she accepted.
30. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me that it had over 3,600 change of circumstances applications waiting to be processed when Miss X made her application, which led to a nine month delay in dealing with them. However, it said if Miss X had acted on the advice given – to contact the domestic violence hub, ask the police to assist with a tier 1 referral or make a homelessness application – it was likely the details of her domestic abuse situation would have been established sooner, which would have meant the Council prioritised her case.
31. In response to enquiries on another complaint, the Council provided an action plan to address the delays in considering change of circumstances applications. It told us recently that it has reduced the time taken to deal with new applications as a result of implementing that plan.

My findings

32. Based on the initial application, the Council awarded band 3 priority in May 2020. This was appropriate based on the information Miss X provided at the time, and Miss X has not complained about this.
33. In April 2021 Miss X asked the Council to consider whether she should have additional priority on medical grounds. The Council awarded band 2 medical priority in February 2022. I consider six to eight weeks is a reasonable timescale for assessing whether she was entitled to medical priority, which means the Council should have made a decision by late May 2021. The delay in making that decision was fault.
34. In its response to my enquiries, the Council acknowledged that but for the delay it would have awarded band 2 priority in May 2021. However, the records show Miss X would not have secured accommodation any earlier as a result of being placed in band 2 at that time.
35. In the April 2021 application, Miss X also stated her mental health was made worse by incidents that happened at her address, but she did not provide any information about those incidents. Although she said her housing officer could provide details, the housing association did not contact the Council to support her application. It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide evidence to support their application. Based on the information provided, I have not found fault with the Council for not prioritising this application in April 2021.
36. In April and June 2021, Miss X gave the Council further information about her situation, and was given advice, including to contact the domestic violence hub and about the police tier 1 referral process. There is no record that Miss X pursued either of those options at the time.
37. Also in June 2021, the Council suggested she consider making a homelessness application, which she declined to do.
38. In January 2022, the Council again advised her that if the police supported her exceptional need to move it could make a tier 1 referral. The police completed a referral in February 2022. It took three weeks for the Council to review the form and identify it was incomplete. Given the tier 1 form is evidence the police were supporting an exceptional need to move, I consider the Council should prioritise reviewing it: taking three weeks to do so was too long and amounts to fault.
39. I acknowledge that, after reviewing the form, the Council immediately contacted the police officer to address the situation. In light of information from the police officer, it decided band 2 remained appropriate.
40. A further form was submitted on 7 March. The Council did not review it until 13 April. This was further fault.
41. If the Council had reviewed the tier 1 referral forms without delay, the fact the form was incomplete and not signed would have been identified and addressed earlier. If that had happened, it is likely the police would have rectified the problems with the form before 19 April, which means the Council would have awarded band 1 priority sooner. On balance, given the police responded quickly to the Council’s contacts, I find it would have done so by the end of February.
42. Council records show that if it had awarded band 1 in late February 2022, Miss X would have successfully bid on a property in April 2022, just over a month before she was offered a property in May 2022. This means she was in unsuitable accommodation for one month longer than she needed to be.
43. Although not part of the complaint made, I note that Miss X asked the Council to review its housing decision in early February 2022. The Council did not confirm receipt until early April 2022, at which point it acknowledged general delays in the review process. The delay in considering the review request was fault. However, this did not cause any additional injustice to Miss X because the Council was unlikely to have awarded band 1 priority until it received a completed tier 1 referral from the police, which did not happen until 19 April 2022.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision:
• apologise to Miss X for its delay in dealing with the change of circumstances request, her request for a review of the housing decision in February 2022, and the police tier 1 referral, supporting her exceptional need to move; and
• pay her £150 for the time and trouble she was put to pursuing the Council, and a further £350 to remedy the additional month she remained in unsuitable accommodation as a result of the delays identified.
45. Following a previous investigation, the Council developed an action plan to tackle delays in assessing applications and has told us that, as a result, it has reduced the timescales for assessing new applications. However, it is unclear whether this is at the expense of other activities, such as applications following a change of circumstances, and requests for reviews of decisions.
46. The Council will, within three months of the date of the final decision, provide an updated action plan to show how it proposes to reduce delays in all applications and review requests. It should also provide an updated report to show the improvements made since the first action plan was sent to us.
47. Also within three months, the Council will review its process for identifying cases where there is a change of circumstances and an urgent need to move, such as tier 1 referrals and other cases where the applicant’s accommodation may be unsafe or unsuitable for them as a result of domestic abuse, as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, to ensure that these applications are prioritised.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation. I found fault leading to personal injustice. I recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman