London borough wrong to reject homelessness application from domestic abuse survivor who fled from another area: Ombudsman

The Ombudsman also concluded that Redbridge’s housing allocations policy was “flawed” because it excluded a group of applicants the law says must get reasonable preference.

The investigation also found that the council did not inform the resident in question about her right to review its decisions.

Redbridge has agreed to apologise, make new decisions on the relevant applications, and act to improve its services, the Ombudsman said.

In Summer 2023, the resident and her children fled domestic abuse from the other council’s area (Council B), and were provided with accommodation by Council B in the Redbridge area.

Ms X said Council B told her that because it was not safe for her to live in Council B’s area, she could apply for housing in another area.

She therefore completed an online form for Redbridge’s homelessness service, but was referred back to Council B for help and was unable to complete an application for the housing register before being told that as the council had not made a formal decision on her applications, she could not have a review when she asked for one.

After over a year of Redbridge “ignoring” her attempts to establish contact, the council responded at stage one of its complaint process. It said:

• It was sorry for the delay with her application for social housing
• Although she had been in contact with officers from various teams, the council had not forwarded this to the correct team
• Her application for social housing was listed as “incomplete” and she needed to complete this.

The council’s stage two response accepted that it should have done its own assessment when she first approached, and that she had been disqualified from the housing register because she had been placed in the council’s area by Council B under a homelessness duty.

After an investigation the Ombudsman noted that Redbridge had already accepted fault for failing to make its own inquiries upon the initial approach.

“I agree, this was fault," the Ombudsman said. "The Council had reason to believe Ms X might be homeless. It should therefore have made inquiries and issued a formal decision, giving Ms X a right of review. Instead, the Council sent a short email telling Ms X to approach Council B because it owed her a duty. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty at an already difficult time and denied her access to her statutory review rights. This is an injustice to Ms X.” 

Redbridge told the Ombudsman that it had no record of the initial housing register application, from Summer 2023, claiming it was automatically closed due to Ms X’s ineligibility.

The Ombudsman said: “There is a statutory right to review decisions about qualification for housing allocations. I asked the Council to provide evidence of how it notified Ms X of its decisions and her review rights. It said the ‘[s]ystem automatically closed her application.’

“I take this to mean that the Council’s automatically generated decisions on housing applications do not tell people about their review rights. This is not in line with the law or the Council’s published policy and is fault. It denied Ms X her right of review and it is likely that other applicants are also affected.”

The report also suggested that allowing its system to close applications automatically, without human oversight or review, meant the council could not consider exercising discretion in an individual case. Fettering its discretion in this way was fault.

The Ombudsman noted that Ms X was exempt from the five-year residence requirement because she was fleeing domestic abuse.

“However, the Council disqualifies applicants owed a homelessness duty by another council who have been placed in the Council’s area by that other council.

“This leaves Ms X not being able to apply for housing in Council B because she is not safe there and not being able to apply for housing in Redbridge because Council B placed her there. However, under the Council’s policy, if Council B had placed Ms X in a different area, she could have applied to the Council and would not have been disqualified.”

The Ombudsman noted that the law says councils must give reasonable preference to certain groups.

“This includes ‘people who are owed a duty by any local housing authority’ under homelessness law (Housing Act 1996, s166(3)(b)). The statutory guidance says councils should ‘avoid setting criteria which disqualifies groups of people’ likely to have reasonable preference (Allocation of accommodation, 3.27).”

The report said Redbridge had been asked how its policy meets these requirements, but it did not answer the question.

“The Council’s scheme disqualifies a group of applicants who would otherwise have reasonable preference. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that in setting its policy, the Council made a proper decision, with due regard to the law and guidance, the policy is flawed. This is fault,” the Ombudsman said.

It added: “Ms X applied for housing to the Council because she wants to live there. She lived there previously, her children are now settled at schools in the area, and she has found work there. The Council’s flawed policy is likely to mainly affect people like Ms X, who have fled domestic abuse and so are exempt from the residence requirement. Although it is unlikely Ms X would have secured social housing had she been able to join the register, the Council’s fault denied her access to one of the housing options to end her homelessness. This is a significant injustice to Ms X.”

As a remedy, Redbridge has agreed to apologise and reconsider which duties it owes the resident, if any.

It will also reassess Ms X’s application to the housing register, disregarding the disqualification previously applied. If she otherwise qualifies then it will backdate her priority to the date of her first application in Summer 2023.

Ms X will receive £250 in recognition of her avoidable distress and missed review rights.

The council will also take the following action to improve its services:

1. using this case as an example, remind relevant staff of the duty to make inquiries and issue a reviewable decision when it has reason to believe someone might be homeless or threatened with homeless, regardless of any duty owed by another council;
2. keep records of all applications for social housing and resulting decisions in line with the council’s document retention policy;
3. ensure all decisions on applications for social housing give reasons for the decision and set out the applicant’s right to ask for a review. It will amend any templates as necessary;
4. identify and implement a means of ensuring that automated decision making in housing allocations does not prevent the council considering individual circumstances and exercising discretion;
5. review and amend the housing allocations policy to ensure it reflects the requirement of the Housing Act 1996 to give reasonable preference to applicants owed a homelessness duty by any council and does not disqualify a group of applicants who would otherwise have reasonable preference.

Harry Rodd