Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his homelessness application when he was fleeing domestic abuse and suffering mental health issues. He also complains the Council has repeated its failures from his previous complaint. We find fault with the Council for its handling of Mr X’s homelessness case. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X a financial remedy in recognition of the distress and missed accommodation. The Council has also agreed to carry out further service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his homelessness application in August 2024 when he was fleeing domestic abuse and suffering from severe mental health issues.
2. Mr X complains the Council has repeated its failures from the upheld Ombudsman decision of a similar matter.
3. Mr X also complains the Council has failed to provide a response to his review request of the homelessness decision in August 2024.

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. 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)
5. When considering complaints we 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.
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 considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

9. 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.
10. 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

11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 defines domestic abuse as:
16. 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.
17. 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;
18. It does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct.
19. 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.
20. 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

21. The Ombudsman has previously decided on a similar case for Mr X. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council for its handling of Mr X’s case when he fled domestic abuse in August 2023. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not carried out proper enquiries on his case, which resulted in him being without accommodation when he was in priority need. The Council agreed to pay Mr X a financial remedy to recognise its poor handling of the case. Mr X did not need accommodation at the time of the Ombudsman’s previous investigation as he had secured accommodation elsewhere.
22. In August 2024, Mr X approached the Council again for homelessness assistance. He told the Council that he had had to return to previous accommodation where he had experienced domestic abuse. He requested accommodation as he was homeless due to fleeing from domestic abuse which had started again. He said he was sleeping in his car, and he had tried to take his life several times recently.
23. The Council wrote to Mr X and provided general advice. It said it was satisfied he had a tenancy that was due to start in September 2024, and recommended he contact his landlord and request to start the tenancy early. It said it recognised he was temporarily homeless, but that it was satisfied Mr X did not meet the criteria for the provision of temporary accommodation, as he was not in priority need, and signposted him to other advice services.
24. Mr X replied to the Council expressing that he wished to appeal the decision and requested accommodation due to fleeing domestic abuse. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s request for a review.
25. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman about the decision. The Ombudsman asked the Council to clarify if it had carried out a review and to provide all documents on how it made the decision Mr X was not in priority need. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council provided documents from Mr X’s previous case, and did not confirm if it ever carried out the review of the August 2024 decision or responded to Mr X about this.

Analysis

26. The Ombudsman has already found significant fault with this Council for its handling of Mr X’s case when he previously fled domestic abuse.
27. When Mr X told the Council he was homeless in August 2024, he explained he was again fleeing domestic abuse, that he was sleeping in his car and that he had made several attempts on his own life in the past few months.
28. A person is homeless if they have no accommodation anywhere or they cannot gain access to their accommodation, or it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy. Mr X had no accommodation accessible to him at the time he approached the Council. The Council accepted this when it referred to him as “temporarily homeless” in its advice letter to him.
29. This means the Council should have considered his approach as a homelessness application, not a request for advice. Given that Mr X had told the Council of his circumstances and that he was seeking accommodation, I do not accept the Council’s view that he was only seeking advice. The Council had reason to believe Mr X might be homeless, and that he may be in priority need given the circumstances of his approach and his previous history. On balance, I am satisfied that the Council’s actions amount to fault, and had it acted correctly, it would have accepted that Mr X may have been homeless and in priority need when assessing his homelessness application. It would therefore have provided Mr X with interim accommodation whilst it assessed his case.
30. The Council’s duty would likely have ended when Mr X was able to start his new tenancy.
31. I find fault with the Council for failing to properly consider Mr X’s homelessness approach. This has meant Mr X was without interim accommodation when he may have been in priority need.
32. The Council has further compounded the distress to Mr X at a difficult time, as it has repeated the failures previously identified by the Ombudsman. The actions and improvements by the Council from that investigation have not addressed the underlying issue of the Council failing to properly identify and assess homelessness applications.

Back to top

Agreed Action

33. Within four weeks the Council has agreed to

• Write to Mr X and apologise for its handling of his case.
• Pay Mr X £250 for the time spent without accommodation
• Pay Mr X £500 for the distress caused.
• Provide further training for housing and homelessness staff on identifying and carrying out homelessness application, paying particular attention to when there may be reason to believe an applicant is in priority need.
• Circulate this investigation, Mr X’s previous investigation, and the lessons learnt to housing and homelessness managers and team leaders.

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

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman