The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s advice to Ms X on the homeless application process and the impact on her housing register priority. There is no injustice to Ms X as the Council has told her she will keep her housing priority while she works with the Council. There is no fault in the Council advising her, in accordance with its policy, that if she has to move into temporary accommodation it will reassess her housing priority.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall call Ms X, complains the Council has told her that if she makes a homeless application she will lose her priority on her housing register application.
Ms X explains that she has been on the housing register for 6 years and does not feel it is fair that she will lose this priority if she makes a homeless application due to her eviction.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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) 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 read the papers put in by Ms X.
I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
Ms X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Key facts Ms X lives in a privately rental property. She has been on the Council’s housing register, in band 2, from 2016 and needs a four bedroom property.
Ms X told the Council in October 2021 that her landlord was seeking possession of the property. The Council asked her to give it a copy of the legal notice the landlord sent to her.
Ms X received the legal notice on 2 February 2022 and completed the homeless application. The Council housing officer carried out an initial assessment on 23 February.
The Council wrote to Ms X on 16 March to say that it accepted a prevention duty towards her. The Council sent Ms X a personalised housing plan on 17 March and re-issued on 29 April.
Ms X told the Council on 27 July that she wished to remain in her area and the Council ended the prevention duty. At the time of writing this report, Ms X has not found a new property.
Council’s allocations policy Section 2.41 says that ‘the Council will use private rented housing to prevent homelessness and discharge its homelessness duties. In the following cases, the household will remain on the Council’s housing register: Households threatened with homelessness who would, if they became homeless, be likely to be owed a full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, but who are working with the Council to prevent themselves from becoming homeless.
Households who are working with the Council to prevent themselves becoming homeless, whose homelessness is relieved and who would otherwise been likely to have been owed the full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.
Households to whom the Council previously owed a full housing duty under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 but who have voluntarily agreed to this duty being brought to an end by the provision of private rented accommodation.
My analysis The Council’s allocations policy explains how the Council assigns social housing. Ms X has been waiting for a property, with a minimum of four bedrooms since 2016. The Council told Ms X in February 2022 there were 10 households wanting 4 or more bedrooms with greater priority that her.
The Council has said ‘if it can help Ms X secure suitable alternative accommodation in the private rented sector via its Assured Shorthold Tenancy Match scheme she would retain her current status on the Council’s housing register’. There is no fault on this point, the Council has given Ms X the correct information, in accordance with its policy.
However, the Council did also tell Ms X that if she decided not to engage with these options and chose the route of temporary accommodation, with a homeless agreed duty, her priority date and category would change from the date the homelessness duty was accepted.
At present, Ms X is working with the Council, so her priority date has not changed. So, there is no injustice caused to her. However, she does worry what happens if she has to move out of the property before the Council finds another property for her.
In response to this the Council has said ‘if a household, who is already on the housing register makes a homeless application, this is considered a new application for housing, as such the application and cause of homelessness is investigated. The assessment of that housing application may lead to a different outcome. A homeless application attracts a new priority date i.e. date of application and this supersedes any pre-existing priority date. The Council consistently applies this approach to all applicants in similar circumstances to that of Ms X and explain this at an early stage of application’.
I can understand Ms X’s worry for the future and I have found the wording of the Council’s policy difficult to interpret. My view is there is no evidence of fault by the Council on this point. This is because Ms X’s housing register application is based on an assessment at her current address so if she does move to interim or temporary accommodation her application will need to be reassessed according to her new housing need. While I understand that this feels unfair to Ms X, as she did not choose to be evicted, the Council’s role is to ensure that she is housed and as long as it acts according to its policy, there is no evidence of fault.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation of the complaint as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council. This complaint is not upheld.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman