Summary: Ms X complains the Council wrongly refused to accept a homelessness application from her when she was fleeing domestic abuse. The Council is at fault as it wrongly refused to accept a homelessness application from Ms X and failed to offer interim accommodation to her. As a result, Ms X and her child lived between family and friends for longer than necessary. The Council has appropriately remedied some of the injustice to Ms X. It has also agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £300 to Ms X to acknowledge the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council wrongly refused to accept a homelessness application when she was fleeing domestic abuse. Ms X says that as a result she and her young child had to live between friends and family for several months.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Ms X;
• Discussed the issues with Ms X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Ms X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

5. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

6. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
7. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
   Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse

Housing allocations

8. 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))
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;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
   

The Council’s housing allocations policy

10. The Council’s housing allocations policy provides that applicants will be accepted onto the housing register if they meet certain criteria. One criterion is that applicants must have been continuously resident in the borough for two years up to and including the date of their application to the housing register. However, applicants will be exempt from this criterion if:

• They are a victim of domestic abuse and is at high risk.
• They need to move to provide or receive care and support from close adult family members where no other support is available in the locality.

What happened

11. Ms X and her child moved into the Council’s area to stay with a friend as they were fleeing domestic abuse. Ms X made an application for the housing register. On her form she indicated that she was fleeing domestic abuse.
12. The Council considered Ms X’s housing register application and asked her to provide evidence, such as a crime number or details of an independent domestic violence advisor (IDVA). Ms X has said she provided evidence to show she was at risk of domestic abuse. The Council refused Ms X’s application as it considered she had not demonstrated she was at high risk of domestic abuse. Ms X requested a review of this decision on the grounds that she needed care and support from close family. The Council considered the information provided by Ms X and agreed she qualified for the housing register. It backdated Ms X’s qualification to the date of her application.
13. Officers dealing with Ms X’s housing register application referred her to the homelessness prevention team. The Council did not consider Ms X was homeless or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days as she was staying with a friend.
14. Some months later, Ms X contacted the Council again to make a homelessness application as she was living between family and friends and having to take time off work to move between them. The Council refused to take a homelessness application as it did not consider her to be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days.
15. In response to my enquiries, the Council has acknowledged it is at fault in how it dealt with Ms X’s homelessness application. It has said:

• It accepts it should have considered Ms X likely to be homeless when she first made her homelessness application.
• It incorrectly told Ms X that she was not homeless so could not make a homelessness application when she approached again some months later.
• It should have considered Ms X qualified for the housing register on the grounds that she was fleeing domestic abuse.
• It did not apply a structured risk assessment framework to Ms X’s case when she applied for the housing register.

16. In order to put matters right, the Council offered interim accommodation to Ms X on receipt of my enquiries. I understand Ms X declined this offer. Ms X has now moved out of the Council’s area. To assist Ms X’s move, the Council provided financial assistance of £2610 to enable Ms X to pay six months rent in advance and the required deposit.
17. The Council has said it recognises Ms X’s case has evidenced the need for further training and to seek improvements to its response to domestic abuse cases. The Council had already embarked on arranging a series of staff training and associated customer focused changes to its service aimed at achieving Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance (DAHA) accreditation during the 2024/25 financial year. This is a scheme for housing providers to improve their response to domestic abuse.
18. The Council has said staff have now received training on how to undertake structured risk assessments for housing register applications. Management and supervision arrangements are in place to ensure cases are handled appropriately.
19. I asked the Council why its housing allocation policy permitted an exemption to the local connection criteria only for ‘high risk’ domestic abuse and how this was in accordance with government guidance. The Council has said the use of a ‘high risk’ level is comparable to risk assessment processes used by refuge services. But it accepts its housing allocation policy is not as transparent as it could be on this point. The Council will therefore review its housing allocations policy in relation to how it deals with domestic abuse cases.

Analysis

20. The Council has acknowledged it is at fault in how it dealt with Ms X’s homelessness application and housing register application. Ms X was fleeing domestic abuse and was staying, temporarily, with a friend. The Council, therefore, had reason to believe Ms X was homeless and in priority need when she first made her homelessness application. As the Council has acknowledged, it should have offered interim accommodation to her at that time.
21. The Council should also have made inquiries to establish what, if any, duty it owed to Ms X. Given Ms X did not have settled accommodation, I consider, on balance, that the Council would have accepted the relief duty to Ms X had it made inquiries. It would then have drawn up a personalised housing plan setting out the steps the Council and Ms X would take to relieve her homelessness. This may have included referral to the Council’s rent deposit bond scheme. The Council would also have had to decide if it owed the main housing duty if Ms X had not found accommodation when the relief duty expired.
22. The Council’s actions in now offering interim accommodation and providing financial assistance to enable Ms X to rent a property are an appropriate and proportionate remedy. This provides the assistance that could have been offered to Ms X if the Council had accepted her homelessness application. But I also consider Ms X was caused distress as she was living between family and friends for longer than necessary and by the delay in offering support. She was also caused some uncertainty as to what would have happened if the fault had not occurred. The Council should remedy this injustice.
23. The Council has acknowledged that it should have considered Ms X qualified for the housing register as she was fleeing domestic abuse. Had it done so, then Ms X would have qualified for the housing register a month earlier. The Council backdated Ms X’s qualification to the date of her application so this fault did not cause significant injustice to Ms X. There is also no evidence to suggest the fault caused Ms X to miss an offer of a property.
24. I welcome the action taken by the Council to improve how it deals with homelessness and housing register applications where domestic abuse is a factor. I also welcome the Council’s proposal to review its housing allocations policy to ensure it is more transparent in how it deals with applicants fleeing domestic abuse.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. That the Council will:
1. Send a written apology to Ms X for the distress and uncertainty caused to her by the failure to accept a homelessness application, failure to offer interim accommodation and accept the relief duty to her. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £300 to Ms X to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused.
3. Provide evidence of the training provided to staff to address the faults identified in how the Council dealt with Ms X’s homelessness application and housing register application and to achieve Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance accreditation.
4. Provide a timescale or action plan for reviewing its housing allocations policy in relation to applicants fleeing domestic abuse to ensure this matter does not drift.
26. The Council should take the action at a) and b) within one month and the action at c) and d) within two months of my final decision. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. Fault causing injustice to Ms X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman