Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider his homelessness application when he fled domestic abuse. This meant he was left without safe accommodation. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it considered Mr X’s application. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment to Mr X and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his allegations of domestic abuse when considering his homelessness application.
2. Mr X complains the Council included untrue information in his decision, which meant the Council decided it did not have a homelessness duty to him.
3. Mr X says this meant he was homeless until the Council overturned its decision. He says this meant he incurred debt and had to sleep in his car. He also says he experienced severe distress at a time that was already extremely difficult.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We 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)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. 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

8. I considered information from Mr X and his complaint to the Council. I also considered information from the Council.
9. I considered comments from Mr X and the Council on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

10. 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.
11. If the council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, it must provide emergency accommodation until it has finished assessing the homelessness application if the applicant asks for it.  “Reason to believe” is a low threshold. Examples of priority need are people who are homeless as a result of domestic abuse.

Homelessness code of guidance: Domestic abuse

12. Section 177(1) of the 1996 Act provides that it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against:
• (a) the applicant;
• (b) person who normally resides as a member of the applicant’s family; or,
• (c) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with the applicant.
13. Section 177(1A) provides that ‘violence’ means violence from another person or threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out. ‘Domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 outlined above in section 21.6. Domestic abuse is not confined to instances within the home.
14. Housing Authorities will need to assess whether the applicant is a victim of domestic abuse or if they are at risk of domestic abuse. Section 177 makes clear that it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against an individual, or against a person who would normally or reasonably be expected to live with them.
15. Housing authorities should seek to obtain an account of the applicant’s experience to assess whether the behaviour they have experienced is abusive or whether they would be at risk of domestic abuse if they continued to occupy their accommodation. The authority should support the victim to outline their experience and make an assessment based on the details of the case. Housing authorities should refer to the domestic abuse statutory guidance framework (DASH) risk assessment to ensure they support the applicant appropriately. Where an applicant’s experience has been documented already by a domestic abuse service – where possible, housing authorities should utilise existing statements to avoid asking the victim to re-live their experience unnecessarily.
16. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 defines domestic abuse as:
17. Behaviour of a person (“A”) towards another person (“B”) is “domestic abuse” if—
• (a)A and B are each aged 16 or over and are personally connected to each other, and
• (b)the behaviour is abusive.
18. Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of any of the following—
• (a)physical or sexual abuse;
• (b)violent or threatening behaviour;
• (c)controlling or coercive behaviour;
• (d)economic abuse (see subsection (4));
• (e)psychological, emotional or other abuse;
19. It does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct.
20. The Domestic Abuse Act amended the Housing Act to say that a person who is homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse will automatically be in “priority need”. This means councils are under a duty to house them while they make enquiries about whether they owe them a housing duty.
21. In November 2021, the Ombudsman issued guidance on the Council’s duties under the new Domestic Abuse Act, “Help! Learning to improve council services for domestic abuse victims”.

What happened

22. Mr X approached the Council to make a homelessness application on 31st July 2023. He told the Council he was fleeing domestic abuse after his mother had assaulted him. Mr X told the Council the police had attended and advised him to leave the property. He also told the Council he had attended hospital for his injuries and could not return home.
23. At the time of the assault, Mr X was an 18-year-old full time university student and staying with his family until his university accommodation became available in September 2023.
24. The Council housed Mr X while it carried out enquiries to find out if he was in priority need.
25. As part of the enquiries, the Council contacted the police officer assigned to the case who expressed the view that Mr X had exaggerated the event, and that his mother was not willing to have him back due to his own behaviour.
26. The Council also says it met with Mr X to discuss his circumstances. The Council notes from this meeting were very short and only said “Spoke with Mr X. Uni accommodation will begin on 6th Sept 2023. Incident on the 31st was the first incident with mum”.
27. The Council wrote to Mr X on 2nd August 2023 and told him it was ending its duty to him. It told Mr X it did not believe he was in priority need because he was not fleeing domestic abuse. The Council’s reasoning for this was that while there was evidence Mr X had experienced violence from his mother, the police felt he had exaggerated the event.
28. The Council also felt that Mr X’s version of events to the Council and to the police were not consistent. This was because Mr X had previously said there had been multiple incidents and then said this was the first incident.
29. The Council told Mr X “’In some respects, these rows and behaviours resemble domestic abuse, however they must be distinguished from that when seen in the context of other evidence and when that evidence does not show patterns of abusive behaviour or violence’’.
30. The Council asked Mr X to leave the interim accommodation by 3rd August 2023.
31. Mr X sought a review of the decision on 4th August 2023. He said the Council had wrongly decided he was not fleeing domestic abuse.
32. Mr X also met with the Council’s homelessness outreach team on 4th August 2023 and provided further statements about the domestic abuse he had experienced from his mother. He also contacted the police department who sent the initial information to the Council and requested clarification on the information shared. At this point, Mr X was sleeping in his car.
33. The Police wrote to Mr X immediately and recognised the email from the police officer to the Council was poorly worded. However, they said they had told the Council Mr X was a victim of assault from his mother and made homeless because of her actions.
34. The Council’s homelessness outreach team also contacted the housing department express its concern and supporting Mr X’s review. It said Mr X had disclosed a long history of domestic abuse and asked why it had not carried out a risk assessment.
35. Mr X made a complaint to the Council on 14th August 2023. The Council responded to the complaint on 16th August 2023. It said it would not consider Mr X’s complaint as he had already requested a review of the decision.
36. The Council approved temporary accommodation for Mr X from 18th August 2023 until he returned to university.
37. The Council carried out the review request in October 2023, by which point Mr X had returned to university. The review response overturned the previous decision and said that Mr X had been in priority need, and this was decided based on the additional evidence that he and the outreach worker had provided. It said it had provided him with accommodation from 18th August 2023 until he returned to university and as he now had university accommodation, it was closing his case.

Analysis

38. The note from the initial meeting with Mr X is short and lacking in detail. There is no clarification on what was discussed with Mr X or to what extent the Council discussed Mr X’s circumstances with him or considered risks posed to him.
39. The code of guidance in this area is very clear. When assessing homelessness applications for those fleeing domestic abuse, there are several things Councils must do, including carrying out a DASH risk assessment. I have not seen evidence from the Council that its records were in line with the requirements of the code. The single entry by the officer which said “Mr X says this was the first time it happened” is not enough to establish the facts of the case or if Mr X was at risk of further domestic abuse.
40. In addition, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is clear it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct. The Council’s response to Mr X and the Ombudsman that the incident for the incident to have been domestic abuse, it would have happened alongside a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour shows that it does not fully understand the definition of Domestic Abuse under the Act.
41. I accept the Police officer’s email to the Council did express an opinion and it was fair of the Council to use this evidence when making its decision. However, the lack of information sought by the Council shows that it had not taken reasonable steps to investigate the circumstances of Mr X’s application.
42. I am concerned the Council’s notes show poor record keeping and a failure to explore further with Mr X. The Council did not undertake a risk assessment prior to ending its housing duty, despite it being established he had been assaulted. It should not have been left for this to be suggested by the outreach team once the Council had ended its duty.
43. On balance, I am satisfied that if the Council had carried out proper enquiries on Mr X’s application in line with the Code, it is likely the Council would have identified the facts of the case earlier and Mr X would have remained in accommodation. Failure to do this was fault by the Council, resulting in Mr X having nowhere to stay.
44. We would not usually remedy the injustice caused by poor decision-making where this has been put right at the review stage. However, the decision-making was so poor on this occasion that I will recommend a remedy for the distress caused to Mr X and for him being left without accommodation.
45. At the time, Mr X was a vulnerable 18-year-old young man who was left to sleep in his car for two weeks after being a victim of domestic abuse. The fault by the Council caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. Within 4 weeks the Council has agreed to

• Write to Mr X and apologise for the fault identified.
• Pay Mr X £350 for time he spent without any accommodation.
• Pay Mr X £400 for the distress caused.

47. Within 12 weeks the Council has agreed to

• Review how staff record assessments for domestic abuse when completing homelessness applications.
• Remind staff that where assessments for domestic abuse are being carried out, staff should be referring to the guidance and recommended risk assessments.
• Provide housing staff training on the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including the definition of domestic abuse and ensure this is referenced in the Council’s homelessness policy.

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

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for how it considered Mr X’s homelessness application.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman