The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We did not find fault with the way the Council assessed Mr X’s housing application. It applied its housing allocations policy.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the way the Council responded when he left his home due to domestic abuse. Mr X complained the Council: Incorrectly decided he could not remain on the housing register.
Moved him to unsuitable accommodation.
Told him to remove his name from the joint tenancy he had with his ex-partner.
Failed to treat him as a domestic abuse victim because he is male.
Mr X said this caused him distress because he had to move away from his children and he could not have them to stay because the property was too small.
What I have investigated I did not investigated all of Mr X’s complaint. I explain my reasons at the end of this decision.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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) We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided with his complaint. I made enquiries with the Council and considered its response with the relevant law and guidance.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Law and guidance 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.
If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195) After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33) Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions: their eligibility for assistance what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end Allocations 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)) The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
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)) 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.
The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)) Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
The Council’s housing allocation scheme The scheme sets out how the Council will allocate the housing stock it has available. It acknowledges the demand for social housing outstrips the supply so it must prioritise those with the greatest need.
Sections 6 and 10.5 are relevant to Mr X’s complaint.
The scheme also sets out the appeal procedure.
What happened Mr X lived in a council property with his wife and children. He was a joint tenant. Following domestic abuse incidents in 2020 and 2021 Mr X said he could not stay at the property. In February 2021 he made a homeless and housing application to the Council.
The Council accepted the prevention duty. Mr X found a privately rented property in another council area. The Council gave Mr X financial assistance with the deposit and first month’s rent.
The Council ended its prevention duty in April 2021. It told Mr X the decision and his right to request a review.
In October 2021 the Council told Mr X he could not join the housing register because he was adequately housed.
Mr X appealed the decision. He said the property he moved to was temporary accommodation and the Council failed in its duty to him as a domestic abuse victim.
The Council considered the appeal and made enquiries about the domestic abuse. It upheld its original decision that Mr X did not qualify because he was adequately housed. It said he should seek legal advice about the joint tenancy with his ex-partner.
Mr X was unhappy with the Councils response and complained to the Ombudsman.
My findings
I did not find fault with the way the Council assessed Mr X’s housing application or considered his appeal.
We would not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We would not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme.
In this case Mr X was not allowed to join the housing register because the Council decided he was adequately housed. This was in line with its allocations scheme (6.5.4).
Mr X argued he should be allowed to join the register and be given priority because he was a domestic abuse victim. The Council’s allocation scheme (10.5.1) explains how the Council decides whether to award priority due to threats of violence. In these circumstances an urgent move may be agreed. But this does not apply to Council tenants as this would be a management move. Mr X could apply for a management move as a council tenant and that option remains open to him.
The policy also sets out the procedure the Council follows in respect of council tenants who approach the Council for housing assistance as a domestic abuse victim (10.6.9). In relation to this part of the policy the Council explained Mr X should seek legal advice about his joint tenancy with his ex-partner. This option remains open to Mr X.
Mr X also said the Council failed to treat him as a victim of domestic abuse when it made its decision. The Council considered the information Mr X provided and made further enquiries about the domestic abuse. However, it failed to explain this to Mr X. In response to our investigation the Council said: ‘…Mr X was not made aware that his circumstances as a victim of domestic abuse had been considered. We had sought the advice however, not sharing this information with Mr X in our appeal response, was an error on our part and we wish to extend our apologies for this.
An apology was a suitable outcome for this part of the complaint. It did not cause Mr X a significant injustice or have an impact on the outcome of the application or review process. It also supported the Council’s response that it did not treat Mr X differently because of his sex.
Final decision
I did not find fault with the Council. I completed my investigation.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I did not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council decision to end the relief duty. This included Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of the privately rented property he moved to. When the Council ended its prevention duty in April 2021 it told Mr X he had the right to request a review of the decision. This was the correct way for Mr X to challenge the decision.
I did not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his joint tenancy. This is out of our jurisdiction because it is about the Council’s actions as a registered social housing provider.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman