Summary: The Council failed to inform Mr X of its decision that he was not homeless in March 2023, which caused him uncertainty. The Council later failed to make further enquiries into a disclosure that Mr X may have been homeless due to domestic abuse, which caused him further uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused and carry out service improvements. We have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about his banding on the housing register as there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from further investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to make sufficient efforts to relieve her son, Mr X’s, homelessness, by:
1. failing to properly consider his needs as a person who was homeless due to domestic abuse;
2. failing to award him the correct priority banding on the Council’s housing register; and
3. failing to consider his medical needs regarding his banding in a timely or proper way.
2. Ms X said the Council’s actions have caused distress to her and her son and have caused him to be without suitable accommodation for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)

4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

Complaints 1b and 1c

6. After considering Mr X’s complaints and being provided with new information later in 2023, the Council decided to award Mr X its highest priority band on the housing register. The Council backdated Mr X’s increased banding award to the date Mr X first approached it as homeless. Mr X has now been rehoused.
7. Any further investigation would not lead to any further remedy or more worthwhile outcome than this and so I have exercised discretion, in line with our powers set out in paragraph four of this statement, not to continue the investigation into this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
9. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
10. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
11. I considered all comments made by Ms X and the Council on a draft decision before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

12. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
13. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
14. If a housing authority has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, then it must provide interim accommodation for them.

15. 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 Act 1996, section 188)

Leeds City Council allocations policy

16. The Council’s highest priority band on its housing register is Band A+. This band is for applicants who have multiple needs that would award them Band A on the housing register.

What happened

17. Mr X is an adult. His mother, Ms X, brought this complaint on his behalf.
18. Ms X made a homelessness application to the Council on her son’s behalf in February 2023. She said he was no longer living at the property he shared with his ex-partner and could not afford to rent privately.
19. She said her son was now living with her and he was a victim of domestic abuse. Ms X said in the application, he should be in priority need because he had a child with additional needs from an earlier relationship and his child stayed with him on a part-time basis. As a result, she said they were too overcrowded in her two-bedroom property.
20. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment near the end of March 2023. During this, the documents show that Mr X clarified the domestic abuse he experienced was several years previously and was from another relationship – the mother of his child - not the ex-partner he had recently lived with.
21. During the assessment, Mr X said court proceedings were active regarding where his child would mainly reside. At that time, Mr X said he had his child several days a month and more than that, when needed.
22. The Council did not make a formal written decision on whether Mr X was homeless, and whether it owed him any homelessness duties.
23. The Council did decide Mr X could join the housing register and should be awarded Band A.
24. Ms X requested a review of Mr X’s banding on the housing register in September. She said he had multiple distinct needs at Band A and according to the Council’s allocations policy, that meant he should be awarded Band A+. The needs Ms X listed were:
• Mr X’s child resided with him more frequently and they were overcrowded in her two-bedroom property;
• Mr X’s child and Mr X himself, both had medical needs which made staying in her property unsuitable;
• He was homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse from his most recent ex-partner; and
• He was homeless because she could no longer allow him to live in her property, this was only meant to be a temporary arrangement.
25. The Council responded to Ms X’s review request. It referred to all the issues raised other than the disclosure that he was homeless due to domestic abuse. The Council still indicated in this response that it understood Mr X left his most recent accommodation due to relationship breakdown.
26. It decided that Band A was still the correct band but said as he was now homeless due to being asked to leave by his mother, that a housing officer would contact him to take a new homelessness application.
27. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment with Mr X again in November 2023. The Council did not enquire about the domestic abuse Ms X alleged from his most recent ex-partner and Mr X did not raise it during this assessment.
28. The Council decided it owed Mr X a relief duty and then later accepted a main housing duty.
29. In January 2024 a housing officer asked Mr X for more up to date information about the childcare arrangements between Mr X and the mother of his child. The officer asked if they could contact the mother to obtain evidence about the childcare arrangements.
30. Ms X told the officer it was inappropriate for the Council to contact the mother of the child, as Mr X had experienced domestic abuse from her. According to the case records, the officer said they were not aware he had experienced domestic abuse and they would not ask for childcare arrangement information from an alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse. The officer agreed for the information to be provided another way such as through Mr X’s social worker.
31. Ms X provided more information to the Council including further details of child arrangements and medical evidence. She told the Council Mr X and his child were now mainly living in a caravan on Ms X’s drive when his child stayed with him, which was having a detrimental impact on his and his son’s medical conditions. Mr X also contacted the Council to say he was feeling suicidal due to the housing situation.
32. Ms X complained to the Council that it had not considered its homelessness duties to Mr X properly in March 2023 and that it should have awarded him priority band A+ on the housing register.
33. The Council considered the more recent information along with Ms X’s complaint and decided Mr X should be awarded a higher band. It said he had two distinct needs (his own medical needs and the needs of his child) being affected by the current property, leading to a total award of Band A +. The Council backdated this priority band to the date Mr X first approached the Council as homeless.
34. The Council apologised for how it initially handled Mr X’s application when it failed to tell him it had made a decision regarding his homelessness.
35. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. She said the Council’s staff should receive training, apologise to Mr X and again raised concerns that an officer had suggested they may contact an alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse to obtain child arrangements information.
36. Mr X has since been rehoused.

My findings

February 2023 homeless application

37. If the Council decided it had reason to believe Mr X was homeless or threatened with homelessness due to domestic abuse, when he approached it in February 2023, the Council would have had a duty to offer him interim accommodation. It then may have gone on to accept a relief duty or a main housing duty on this basis.
38. The Council assessed Mr X at that time and decided he was not homeless, as:
• he was living with his mother;
• the domestic abuse mentioned was several years prior with a different partner and not the reason he left his last accommodation; and
• he only had access to his child intermittently and was not the primary carer of the child.
39. The Council should have informed Mr X that it was either closing his homelessness case as there was no reason to believe he was homeless, or it should have issued a formal not homeless decision which would have triggered review rights. It did neither and this poor communication was fault. This fault gave the impression the Council had not considered whether Mr X may be homeless and caused uncertainty to Mr X about whether he could have accessed interim accommodation.

September 2023 disclosure regarding domestic abuse

40. In September 2023, Ms X informed the Council for the first time that Mr X had not just experienced domestic abuse from the mother of his child, but it was also the reason Mr X had to leave his last property that he shared with another ex-partner.
41. From this point, the Council was made aware that Mr X may have been homeless due to domestic abuse which could have triggered different homelessness duties, including a potential duty to provide interim accommodation. The Council did not make further enquiries into this disclosure and this was fault.
42. This fault caused a missed opportunity for the Council to seek more information about this and further uncertainty about whether he could have accessed interim accommodation.

Concern around Council contact with alleged perpetrator

43. A housing officer asked Mr X and Ms X in January 2024 whether they could contact the mother of Mr X’s child to seek evidence about childcare arrangements. When Ms X said this would be inappropriate, they said they were not aware that he had made reports of domestic abuse against her.
44. Mr X and his mother set out allegations of domestic abuse against the mother of his child several times to the Council. The Council ought to have been aware of this. The Council failed to have due regard to some key information about Mr X’s case during that conversation. This was fault. The officer went on to explain and rectify matters during the conversation which prevented Mr X being caused an injustice. I have recommended a service improvement to prevent recurrence of the fault in future.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise for the uncertainty caused when it failed to inform Mr X of its decision regarding his homelessness in March 2023 and by not enquiring more into a later disclosure of domestic abuse in September 2023.

46. Within three months of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Remind homelessness staff to send its decisions in writing. This includes if it decides a person is not homeless;
2. Remind homelessness staff to make further enquiries where a person indicates they are homeless due to domestic abuse and make a decision on whether any duty is owed in relation to this; and
3. Remind staff to check for key information such as where there have been allegations of domestic abuse in a person’s application, before contacting the applicant for an assessment.

47. We publish Guidance on Remedies which sets out, in section 3.2, our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
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 have found fault leading to injustice and recommended an apology and service improvements.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman