Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his request for homelessness assistance when he was fleeing domestic abuse. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: properly consider its homelessness duties to Mr X, in particular the duty to provide interim accommodation; refer him to domestic abuse support services; be clear about the information required for his separate housing and homelessness applications; and properly consider the need for the provision of safe accommodation for male domestic abuse victims within its area. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by: apologising to Mr X, making payments to recognise the impact on him of the failure to provide suitable interim accommodation and the distress and upset caused, reviewing his housing register application and making service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to his homeless application. He says the Council failed to:

• properly consider its duties to him under the Housing Act 1996, in accordance with the Homelessness Code of Guidance, as a person who was homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse;
• treat him as a vulnerable person;
• properly assess the suitability of the accommodation it offered him;
• refer him to domestic abuse support services for advice and support; and
• properly record and process the medical and other information he provided in support of his applications.

2. Mr X says, because the Council failed to properly assess him as a homeless person in priority need, he was placed in shared accommodation which was completely unsuitable for him. This had a severe impact on his mental health and anxiety which is ongoing.
3. He also says the Council discriminated against him as a male domestic abuse victim. He was not offered the services and support available to female domestic abuse victims.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Mr X, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr X and the Council provided about the complaint.
8. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Homeless applications

9. 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)
10. A person is to be considered homeless if they do not have accommodation they are entitled to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them (and their household) and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy. Housing Act section 175)
11. It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is likely this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against them. (Housing Act section 177(1))

The prevention duty

12. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. (Housing Act 1996, sections 189A and 195 Housing Act 1996, and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18))

The relief duty

13. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

14. 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)

Priority need

15. Examples of applicants in priority need include people who are vulnerable, because of a mental health condition, disability or some other special reason, and victims of domestic abuse.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021

16. The Domestic Abuse Act introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse and extended councils’ duties to victims of domestic abuse.
17. This included a duty for councils to:

• provide safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse;
• assess the need for domestic abuse support for victims living within their areas; and
• prepare and publish a strategy for providing this support and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy.

Homelessness and domestic abuse

18. The Act also made changes to councils’ housing duties Before the Act, those fleeing domestic abuse were not automatically “in priority need”. This meant the Council might have no duty to provide emergency (interim) accommodation while it considered their homelessness application.
19. Following the introduction of the Act, the revised Homelessness Code of Guidance added a new category of applicant who may have a priority need – a person who is homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse.
20. The Homelessness Code of Guidance now says, in Chapter 21, councils should:

• seek to obtain an account of the applicant’s experience to assess (under S177 (1) and (1A)) whether the behaviour is abusive, or they are at risk of domestic abuse if they continue to occupy their home;
• use the DASH (Domestic Abuse, Stalking, Harassment and Honour Based Abuse) risk assessment to ensure they support the applicant appropriately. And, where this has already been documented by a domestic abuse service, use this wherever possible to avoid asking the applicant to repeat and relive their experience; and
• make interim accommodation available immediately while they undertake their investigation, where there is evidence giving a council reason to believe the applicant may be homeless as a result of domestic abuse.

21. Our recently published Domestic Abuse: Guide for Practitioners says:

• Councils should ensure they carry out a proper assessment and consider the tests under sections 175 and 177 before accepting a prevention duty, rather than a relief duty, to victims of domestic abuse;
• If a council accepts a prevention duty in cases involving domestic abuse, we usually expect to see evidence it has considered the tests and recorded its reasons for deciding the current accommodation is reasonable to occupy;
• Chapter 21 of the Code emphasises the importance of the duty to offer interim accommodation in cases of domestic abuse and suggests an “accommodate first, ask questions later” approach;
• It can be useful to manage expectations about what and where any interim accommodation is likely to be. But such discussions should not stray into “gatekeeping”; and
• Failure to provide interim accommodation as soon as the duty arises can cause significant injustice by leaving victims at risk of further abuse.

Public Sector Equality Duty

22. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

23. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.
24. The “protected characteristics” referred to in the Act are:

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief; and
• sex.

What happened

25. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint

Mr X’s initial contact with the Council

26. Mr X contacted the Council’s homelessness service for assistance. He said he had been assaulted at his home by a family member and was a victim of domestic abuse. He also told it about his medical conditions.
27. The Council’s record of this initial approach says:

• Mr X told it he had been assaulted at home by a family member:
• The mental health team with Mr X when he contacted the Council told it they would not advise that he be placed in shared accommodation; and
• Mr X said he had mental health and medical conditions.

28. The call note says:

• the officer confirmed Mr X was able to stay in his current accommodation that night;
• regarding accommodation arranged by the Council, Mr X was not happy with shared accommodation but was told this was all that was on offer for now;
• he would be referred for supported accommodation; and
• he was advised to make an application to join the housing register.

29. The Council recorded there was reason to believe Mr X was homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days because he was fleeing violence.

The Council’s decision to accept the prevention duty

30. The Council decided it owed Mr X the prevention duty. In a letter to Mr X it said it had:

• decided he was eligible for assistance and threatened with homelessness;
• carried out a full assessment of his needs under S189A; and
• a duty to help him remain in his existing accommodation, or where this was not possible, help him to secure a new place to live.

31. The letter also informed Mr X he had the right to request a review of this decision, enclosed his Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) and confirmed an appointment with him to check progress.
32. The PHP included the following information:

• Mr X had been assaulted at home and this was ongoing; and
• The homelessness officer would refer him for supported accommodation.

Referral for supported accommodation

33. The Council identified a vacancy at supported, shared accommodation.
34. Mr X viewed the accommodation and moved in.

The Council’s decision to end the prevention duty

35. The Council’s assessment of Mr X’s approach for assistance recorded he was not in priority need and included the following information:

• Initial triage outcome: reason to believe homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days;
• Main reason for loss of settled home or threat of loss: DA victim
• Referral to Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA): no
• Self-reported vulnerabilities including physical and mental health: yes
• Is there reason to believe Customer may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need: no
• Set out the reason why “reason to believe” threshold has not been met: no answer
• Has customer been placed in interim accommodation (IA): no
• Select duty owed: prevention duty
• Relief duty: no
• Reason for ending prevention duty: suitable alternative accommodation secured available for at least 56 months

36. The Council has provided a letter addressed to Mr X titled “draft end of prevention duty letter”. The letter, which the Council says was sent to Mr X by email, said:

• it had ended its prevention duty to Mr X because he now had supported accommodation suitable for his current needs and available to him for at least six months; and
• he had the right to request a review of this decision.

37. The Council then closed Mr X’s homelessness application.

Mr X’s stay at the supported accommodation

38. Mr X says:
1. the accommodation the Council referred him to was completely unsuitable because:

• it was in a very busy, noisy location some way from his local area;
• it was shared accommodation and he was in constant fear of being attacked by the other residents; and
• there was minimal support available at the accommodation.
2. the impact of the noise and fear had such a severe effect on his mental health he could not continue staying there. He left the accommodation after about two months there.

Mr X’s further request for homelessness assistance

39. Mr X contacted the Council again and told it why he had left the shared accommodation. He was back at home but would have to leave because of the danger of further violence and would then be homeless. He said the shared accommodation arranged by the Council was not suitable. He could not live in another house of multiple occupation.
40. In further contact Mr X told the Council he was now homeless. He referred to conversations he’d had with it earlier in the day in which he says it said he was not vulnerable, not in priority need and offered him shared accommodation again. Mr X told the Council he should never have been placed in shared accommodation in the first place.
41. The Council’s record confirmed Mr X had no priority need, and that it offered him supported accommodation which he had refused.
42. The Council has provided a letter addressed to Mr X, which said:
1. it was satisfied his approach was a request for assistance with a general housing problem and not a request for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation;
2. the reasons for this decision were because he had:

• requested assistance after leaving accommodation the Council had provided for him;
• said he’d left this accommodation because of bullying by the other residents. This was not confirmed by the landlord; and
• refused the Council’s further offer of shared accommodation. He had advised he could not share accommodation with others and been asked to provide medical evidence of this.

Mr X’s housing register application

43. The Council’s allocations team was processing Mr X’s application to join the housing register. They asked him for bank statements and other documents to evidence his local connection.
44. Mr X was unhappy about being asked for this information. He told the Council this had already been provided.

Mr X’s complaint to the Council

45. Mr X complained to the Council about the way it had dealt with his homelessness application. He said the Council:

• failed to treat him as vulnerable and in priority need;
• wrongly placed him in shared accommodation, where he was bullied. He was now homeless; and
• told him it had nowhere suitable for him to live.

46. He also complained the Council only provided refuge accommodation for female domestic abuse victims. He said he was homeless because it did not provide access to refuge accommodation for male domestic abuse victims. This was sexual discrimination.

The Council’s further contact with Mr X

47. An officer with the homelessness team called Mr X to discuss and assess his current housing circumstances. They were unable to complete the call with him.
48. Another officer offered Mr X the opportunity to meet with them to discuss his concerns and housing options. Mr X said he did not want any further contact or involvement with the homelessness service because of the impact its failings had had on his mental health.
49. In its letter to Mr X, the Council referred to his request for assistance and said;

• it was satisfied it did not have reason to believe he was homeless or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days; and
• this was because he had confirmed he could stay with family, he had requested it cease contact with him and he did not require any assistance with housing need.

The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint

50. In its response to Mr X, the Council said it accepted:

• he told it he was a victim of domestic abuse when he approached it for help with homelessness;
• it should have referred him to domestic abuse support services;
• although there was limited availability nationally for refuge accommodation for male domestic abuse victims, it should have advised he could call male refuges directly, or through Mankind, without a referral;
• it should have provided him with better support when he first approached it, and on his further approach for help; and
• the advice that the only accommodation available was the same as that offered before may not have been appropriate.

51. It also said it had identified accommodation which he viewed and accepted. It understood, based on its discussion with him, this was suitable, and he had the right to request a review.

Mr X’s complaint to us

52. I understand Mr X, with help from elsewhere, has been able to find alternative accommodation.
53. He was not satisfied with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to us.

The Council’s response to our information request

54. We asked the Council about the support it provides for victims of domestic abuse within its area.
55. It provided us with its domestic abuse needs assessment, published strategy and other related documents. These noted:

• The Council recognised the need for appropriate responses for both men and women. And that while both men and women might experience domestic abuse, women were considerably more likely to experience repeated and severe forms of abuse;
• 75% of victims of domestic abuse crimes within its area reported to police were women;
• a 33% increase in male victims in 2020 and a 14% increase in female victims;
• the recommended number of refuge spaces for the Council’s area was 21. It had commissioned 17 spaces and recognised the shortfall of 4 spaces. None of these refuge spaces were for men;
• a comment by a professional on areas for development that services were suited to stereotypical domestic abuse victims but not for male or LGBTQ victims who were becoming more prominent;
• its plan, regarding male victims and marginalised communities, to address inequalities for all victims, and its aim to improve pathways and awareness and data collection around males.

56. The Council told us its Specialist Domestic Abuse Community Service provides information, advice, short term and long-term support to anyone within its area who is experiencing, or at risk of domestic abuse. The service also works in partnership with an organisation in Birmingham which delivers a service to male victims.

My view – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

57. In my view, based on the evidence seen so far, there were significant failures by the Council in the way it responded to Mr X’s request for homelessness assistance.

The Council’s response to Mr X’s first approach for help

58. Mr X told the Council at the outset he was experiencing domestic abuse at home. It recorded in its assessment of his circumstances that he was fleeing domestic abuse. He also told it about his medical and mental health issues. But there is no record:

• it considered, properly or at all, whether Mr X was in priority need because he was vulnerable;
• it considered, properly or at all, whether Mr X was in priority need as a person who was homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse;
• of how it came to the conclusion Mr X was not homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need;
• of the reason it decided to accept the prevention duty, not the relief duty, and why it decided not to offer Mr X interim accommodation; and
• of when or how it notified Mr X it had ended the prevention duty and his right to request a review of this decision.

59. The Council also failed to refer Mr X to its domestic abuse support services.
60. In my view, all of these failures were fault by the Council.

Impact of these failures

61. The Council failed to properly consider the information it recorded about Mr X’s circumstances - that he was fleeing his home because of domestic abuse – together the relevant law, in particular the Homelessness Code of Guidance to “accommodate first ask questions later”.
62. Had it done so, in my view it is more likely it would have accepted it had reason to believe Mr X might be homeless and in priority need and so owed him the relief duty and the duty to provide him with interim accommodation.
63. It should then have established the emergency and interim accommodation currently available and completed a proper assessment of its suitability for Mr X. This should have included what the mental health team had told it about shared accommodation being unsuitable for Mr X’s needs.
64. I don’t know what accommodation options were available at the time. It has been suggested this could have included emergency hotel accommodation, while other options were looked into. And although the Council does not commission any refuge spaces for male domestic abuse victims, it could have explored with its domestic abuse support service, whether this type of accommodation might be available elsewhere.
65. Because of the Council’s failures, Mr X was not provided with interim accommodation, properly assessed as being suitable for him. He has told us about the impact the shared accommodation had on his mental health.
66. Had the Council accepted the relief duty it should then have gone on with its assessment of his homelessness application. Instead, because of its failure, the Council simply discharged the prevention duty after making the referral for shared accommodation and closed his application.
67. This meant the Council did not properly consider, after accepting the relief duty, whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty. This has caused uncertainty about the impact on Mr X’s priority on the housing register.
68. And because of the Council’s failure to properly record how and when it notified Mr X it had ended the prevention duty, there is uncertainty as to whether he was properly told about this and his right to ask for a review.

The Council’s response to Mr X’s second approach for help

69. In my view, the Council failed again to properly consider and assess Mr X’s circumstances when he asked for help after leaving the shared accommodation.
70. Even though Mr X told it he had no home, and was now living in a field, there is no record of any proper assessment of whether the Council owed him the prevention, relief or interim accommodation duties. There is no record of how or why the Council decided Mr X was not in priority need. The “general assistance” letter does not, in my view, evidence a proper consideration of his circumstances.
71. And it failed to properly review what had happened when Mr X first approached it for help and take appropriate action to address the failures identified in paragraphs 58 and 59.
72. I also note it wrongly told Mr X, in its response to his complaint, he had the right to request a review of suitability of the shared accommodation it referred him to. This is incorrect because:

• there is no right to request a review of the suitability of interim accommodation. The review right only applies to temporary accommodation (provided when a council accepts the main housing duty); and
• in any event the shared accommodation was not provided to Mr X as interim accommodation because the Council had not accepted he was in priority need.

73. I consider these failures were fault by the Council.

Impact of these failures

74. Mr X, in my view, missed out again on an offer of suitable interim accommodation, a referral to domestic abuse support services and a proper assessment of his homelessness application and whether he was owed the main housing duty.
75. I have listened to two recordings of Mr X's calls with the Council. He is clearly very frustrated and upset about its failures. I note he told the call-handlers his anger was not directed at them personally but at the Council and apologised for his tone.
76. My understanding is the Council recognised, following his complaint, it had not responded properly to his requests for help. It attempted to review the position with him, but it appears by this stage Mr X could not engage further with the Council, because, he says, of the impact its lack of support on his mental health.
77. The Council’s repeated failures, at a time when he was in an extremely difficult situation, fleeing domestic abuse and experiencing mental health issues, caused Mr X additional avoidable distress.

The Council’s processing of information from Mr X

78. Mr X says he hand delivered information to the Council’s office, but the Council has no record of this. It has told us its usual procedure is to scan documents at the time of delivery and return the originals immediately to the applicant.
79. I don’t have sufficient information on which to make any finding at this stage about whether the Council failed to process information Mr X delivered to its office.
80. But I consider the Council failed to properly clarify with Mr X whether its requests for further information related to his homelessness or housing register applications. This appears to have caused Mr X upset and confusion about the outstanding information required from him and whether (and if so how) he should submit any additional medical information for either or both of his applications.

Assessment of need for domestic abuse support and the Public Sector Equality Duty

81. The Council has provided evidence it completed an assessment of need, and published a strategy, for domestic abuse support in its area in accordance with its statutory duty under the Domestic Abuse Act. It also provided information about its action to monitor and evaluate delivery of this support, in accordance with the Act.
82. But I have also looked at whether the Council gave sufficient consideration to its Public Sector Equality Duty and its duty under the Act to provide safe accommodation for domestic abuse victims, with regard to its strategy for the provision of refuge places for men within its area.
83. In its strategy and other documents, the Council noted:

• none of the refuge places for domestic abuse victims in its area were for men;
• the number of male domestic abuse victims in its area, currently 25% of the total, was increasing at a higher rate than for female victims; and
• it had taken action to increase refuge places for women in minority groups.

84. I appreciate of course the majority of domestic abuse victims within its area are women, many with children (as is the case nationally), and the importance of providing sufficient refuge accommodation for their needs.
85. I also recognise the Council referred to its plan, regarding men and marginalised communities, to address inequalities for all victims and noted it had expanded support for men.
86. But its current provision of refuge accommodation excludes 25% of all domestic abuse victims in its area because they are men. I can’t see the Council has given any specific consideration to how it could address this inequality in the provision of safe accommodation for male domestic abuse victims.
87. Based on the evidence seen, my view is the Council has not shown it has properly considered its strategy for the provision of refuge places for male domestic abuse victims. This is fault.
88. The Council’s failure to properly consider the provision of safe accommodation for male domestic abuse victims has an impact on the support available to men in its area who are currently experiencing, or may in the future experience, domestic abuse.

Agreed action

89. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for its failures in the way it responded to his requests for homelessness assistance. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. pay Mr £750 to recognise the impact of the Council’s failure to provide him with suitable interim accommodation for the period from his first approach to when he told the Council he no longer wanted contact from it about his homelessness.
3. pay Mr X £750 to reflect the avoidable upset, worry and uncertainty caused by its failures. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies; and
4. review Mr X’s housing register application (provided he wants to continue with this), to ensure he has had the opportunity to provide all relevant medical and other information, and that his priority has been properly assessed.
90. And within three months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. provide training or guidance on domestic abuse to all housing staff dealing with homelessness and allocations applications to ensure they understand:

• the changes introduced by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;
• the requirements of chapter 21 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance; and
• how to appropriately deal with homelessness and housing register applicants at risk of domestic abuse;
2. share with its housing staff our recently published Good Practice Guide - Domestic abuse in housing ; and
3. report to us on the action it has taken to ensure it has given proper consideration to the need for provision of refuge accommodation for male victims of domestic abuse within its area.

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

Back to top

Final decision

92. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy this injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman