Summary: The Council failed to provide her with suitable interim accommodation when she needed to flee domestic abuse and gave her incorrect advice about her housing options. It also significantly delayed responding to her complaints. In recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £700 and make a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X said the Council failed to provide her with suitable interim accommodation when she needed to flee domestic abuse and gave her incorrect advice about her housing options.
2. Ms X said due to the Council’s actions she felt she had to remain in accommodation where she was at risk of domestic abuse and where she had experienced traumatic events.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we can make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
8. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
9. 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 and domestic abuse

10. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. Following the introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act in 2021, applicants are in priority need if they need to leave their home due to being victims of domestic abuse.
12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
13. The main housing duty means the council must secure suitable accommodation for the applicant, which may be social housing or private rented accommodation with a lease of at least 12 months. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
14. Under this duty, councils do not have to provide a permanent secure or assured tenancy. Many accepted homeless households remain in temporary accommodation with limited security of tenure for a long time while they bid for permanent housing through the authority’s housing allocations scheme.

Allocations

15. 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))
16. 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; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3)).
17. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
18. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

Allocations policy, London Borough of Islington

19. This Council’s housing allocations policy gives reasonable preference to the categories set out in law above.
20. It also entitles adult children of council and housing association tenants to a certain number of priority points if they are seeking up to a two-bedroom property. This is called its “New Generation Scheme”.
21. The Council also awards applicants 30 additional priority points on the housing register if they need to flee domestic abuse in certain circumstances.

Complaints policy, London Borough of Islington

22. The Council has a two stage complaints process for complaints of this kind. It says it will deal with stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within twenty working days.

What happened

23. Ms X lives with family and during this complaint period was on the Council’s housing register in her own right under the Council’s New Generation Scheme.
24. On 13 April 2023 Ms X contacted the Council’s housing department. She said her family were at risk of domestic abuse in their home and needed support to leave.
25. The Council asked Ms X to clarify details by email including whether the application was for herself or for all relatives. Ms X provided the information by email the same day.
26. The next day the Council asked for a phone number to call Ms X. Ms X asked the Council to call her in three days’ time, on 17 April, as she was not available until then due to work commitments. The Council recorded that Ms X was safe and planned for an officer to call her then.
27. On 17 April the Council asked Ms X for identity documents and took details from her over the phone. The officer identified Ms X was at risk of domestic abuse and made an appointment for three days later to take a homeless application.
28. On 24 April the Council offered Ms X interim accommodation. Ms X went to view this but found the property was in a state of disrepair, so decided not to accept it. Ms X reported this to the Council. The Council did not dispute the state of the property and offered Ms X another one the next day.
29. Also on that day the Council told Ms X it had accepted a relief duty to her and sent her a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP). This set out Ms X’s housing options as follows:
• Ms X can look for accommodation in the private-rented sector and the Council may be able to assist by paying the first month’s rent and deposit;
• Ms X can ask friends and family if she can stay with them;
• Ms X may be able to register on the Council’s scheme for bidding for social housing outside of the local area, it said this scheme mostly matches people with properties outside London; or
• Ms X may be able to continue to bid on the housing register if she remained living at home, as while she was at that address, her New Generation Scheme points still applied.
30. Ms X said during a phone call with her housing officer around this time, they told her that her options were to accept the interim accommodation and progress through the homelessness route, when the only option available to her at the end would be private-rented accommodation. Or they said she could stay in the family home, where she would remain on the housing register with points under the new generation scheme and may be able to access social housing.
31. The phone call records do not show Ms X being told she would only access privately rented housing if she accepted interim accommodation. However they do show that she was advised about her housing options, in the same way as they were set out in the PHP above.
32. Ms X said she felt pressured by these options to remain in her home where she was at risk of domestic abuse if she wanted to ultimately obtain a social housing tenancy.
33. The following day, on 26 April, Ms X emailed the Council to say she wanted to cancel the second offer of interim accommodation. She said her relative had now left the property and she could safely live there. Ms X said she wanted to stay in her family home so she could keep her points under the new generation scheme, on the Council’s housing register.
34. The Council issued a not homeless decision letter and told Ms X of her review rights if she disagreed. Ms X did not request a review.
35. On 13 June 2023 Ms X complained to the Council. She said she was offered interim accommodation of a poor standard, was given poor housing advice and had been charged for the accommodation despite not staying there.
36. The Council responded six months later at stage one of the complaints process and agreed to write off the charge for the accommodation. However it did not uphold her other complaints.
37. Ms X was dissatisfied and complained at stage two. The Council responded more than four weeks later and again did not uphold her complaints.
38. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

Recent Ombudsman report against London Borough of Islington

39. In May 2023 the Ombudsman issued a public report against this council due to the number of people who experienced significant delays in having their complaints investigated.
40. In line with our recommendations, within three months of the final decision, the Council’s complaint handling processes were considered at a council cabinet meeting, 44 complainants were paid a financial remedy and the Council set out its plan to us for reducing the complaint backlog.
41. During this complaint period, some of these measures would either not have started, or would have only recently begun. As service improvement changes have already been made following this public report, I have not made further recommendations for service improvements here in relation to complaint handling. I have still recommended a personal remedy for Ms X.

My findings

Interim accommodation

42. The Council was late to offer Ms X interim accommodation when it first became aware she was experiencing domestic abuse. Ms X said she was unavailable to speak for several days which contributed in part to the delay. However even accounting for this there was a delay in the Council offering interim accommodation. This was fault. This fault caused a missed opportunity for Ms X to be offered accommodation to flee the abuse sooner.
43. The Council first offered Ms X interim accommodation on 24 April but it was in a state of disrepair. The Council has not disputed that this accommodation was unsuitable and offered her another property on the same day. The Council was at fault for offering unsuitable interim accommodation and not checking the condition of the accommodation beforehand. This caused Ms X distress and frustration at an already difficult time.

Advice from housing officer

44. By the time the Council offered Ms X another interim accommodation property, she had received her PHP and had a phone call with her housing officer. Ms X said she felt pressured by the housing officer to stay in the family home as the housing officer told her that was the only way she would be able to access social housing in the long-term.
45. The written record of this phone call does not support that the housing officer said this to Ms X. The phone call notes and the PHP said that Ms X’s housing options would likely be, to seek private-rented accommodation, stay with friends or family, join a scheme separate to the housing register for out of area housing, or keep bidding on the housing register but only if she remains in the family home and does so under the New Generation Scheme.
46. There is no record of the Council explaining, either in Ms X’s PHP, or in its phone call, that if Ms X accepted interim accommodation and progressed through the homelessness process, that she may also be eligible to join the housing register with priority on the basis of being homeless. It also did not mention that it offered additional priority points on the housing register in some cases for people fleeing domestic abuse. The Council gave Ms X misleading advice about her longer-term housing options, at a time when there were significant risks associated with the housing decisions she made. This was fault.
47. I have considered the Council’s incomplete housing advice and Ms X’s account of what happened. However I have decided I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what would have happened if not for the Council’s fault in this case, as this coincided with Ms X’s relative leaving the family home.
48. Ms X said she would have left the home if not for this incorrect advice. However I cannot predict how the risks Ms X faced may have changed during this time, how any change in risk may have impacted what kind of housing support the Council offered her, or what decisions she may still have made regarding her long-term housing options. Instead Ms X has been caused distress and uncertainty and this is an injustice to her. I have recommended a financial remedy in recognition of this and service improvements to prevent this fault affecting other applicants in future.
49. If Ms X is concerned that she remains at risk in the home, or if her situation changes and she needs to leave the property, it is open to her to make a homelessness application to the Council, now in possession of correct information about her housing options.

Delayed complaint handling

50. The Council took six months to respond to Ms X’s complaint at stage one of the complaints process. This significant delay was fault. It then delayed again with its stage two investigation. The Council was at fault. These delays caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the faults in this case;
2. Pay Ms X £500 to reflect the missed opportunity, uncertainty and distress she was caused by the Council’s misleading housing advice, its failure to check the standard of accommodation offered and its delay in offering interim accommodation; and
3. Pay Ms X £200 to reflect the frustration caused by the Council’s significantly delayed complaint handling.
52. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Remind homelessness staff that the advice they offer applicants fleeing domestic abuse must set out all their housing options so they can make an informed choice. This should include all options they may have to join the housing register, in particular under the reasonable preference categories set out in section 166 of the Housing Act.
53. 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.
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and the Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and carry out a service improvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman