Summary: We have completed our investigation. There was fault by the Council. The Council left Mrs X and her child in unsuitable accommodation for five months. It failed to properly respond to her complaint and to pay due regard to article 8 of her human rights. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. It will also review its approach to unsuitable temporary accommodation and provide its staff with training.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council placed her family in unsuitable interim accommodation when they fled domestic abuse in 2023. They complained they remained in unsuitable housing until June 2024.
2. Mrs X said the Council have since moved them into another unsuitable property. Mrs X also said her housing banding is incorrect.
3. Mrs X complained her family has been failed by the Council, and her physical health, mental wellbeing and emotional stability has deteriorated because of it. Mrs X said lack of support from the Council has exasperated health issues and Mrs X has subsequently had to leave her job.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated from June 2023, when Mrs X was referred to the Council’s homelessness team, to June 2024, when Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman.
8. I have not investigated matters relating to the condition or suitability of the accommodation Mrs X was moved into, in June 2024. This happened after Mrs X complained to us. We would expect the Council to have an opportunity to respond to a complaint before the Ombudsman carries out an investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered the complaint and information provided by Mrs X.
10. I made written inquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
11. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
12. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. l considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

13. 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.
14. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and her 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)
15. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• victims of domestic abuse.

16. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
17. 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 her 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)
18. It should be possible to tell an applicant about a decision to accept the main housing duty on or around day 57 of being in relief duty. Should a Council need more time to make its inquiries it is recommended that the Council takes no longer than a further 15 working days (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 14.17).
19. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.
20. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
21. Anyone who believes her temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
22. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the several decisions, one of them being the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted. Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether they have accepted the offer.

Housing allocations

23. 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))
24. 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))

25. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about her applications, including decisions about her housing priority.
26. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Human rights

27. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. This includes the right to life, freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, liberty and security of person, a fair hearing, respect for private and family life, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from forced labour, and education. The Act requires all local authorities - and other bodies carrying out public functions - to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
28. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making decisions on whether a body in jurisdiction has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can make decisions about whether a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in her treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
29. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 protects an individual’s right to respect for private life, family life, home and correspondence.

Domestic abuse

30. Housing authorities should have policies in place to identify and respond to domestic abuse. The Council should take an active role in ensuring victims have access to help and support (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 21.12).
31. A Domestic Abuse, Stalking & Honour-based Violence (DASH) assessment may be carried out to assess the risks to a victim and the action needed to protect them. This is a standardised assessment, which produces a score out of 24. A score above 14 should result in a MARAC referral, although the person carrying out the assessment may make a referral where the score is lower if they have serious concerns about the victim’s safety.
32. A multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) is a meeting where agencies share information about high-risk domestic abuse victims. The meetings can include representatives from the police, health, child protection, housing, probation and other relevant specialists. The MARAC provides a plan to safeguard the adult victim.

What happened

33. The following events are relevant to the complaint being investigated. I have not included everything that happened.
34. Mrs X has multiple health conditions. Mrs X also has a child under 11 with health conditions. Mrs X and her child have a variety of support needs.
35. At the start of July 2023, Mrs X’s health centre referred her to the housing department at the Council. On the same day, the Council made an appointment to see Mrs X two weeks later. There was no reference to domestic abuse in the referral. In the appointment letter the Council told Mrs X what to do if the situation changed or they needed emergency support.
36. In mid-July 2023 the Council started an initial assessment of Mrs X’s housing need.
37. Mrs X told the housing caseworker they were being subject to domestic abuse perpetrated by her ex-partner, Mr Z. Mrs X told the housing caseworker they had a child and explained her health conditions. Mrs X, Mr Z and her child lived together.
38. The Council’s records show Mrs X said she wanted to remain at home overnight. Mrs X said she never told the Council this. Instead, she said she told the Council she was not safe to stay at home.
39. The Council records show the housing caseworker invited Mrs X to contact the Council should this change and provided Mrs X with numbers to call should she need to leave. The housing caseworker recorded concerns for Mrs X’s safety and shared this concern internally. Mrs X was sent a letter by the Council explaining its duty to prevent homelessness.
40. The Council completed a DASH risk assessment with Mrs X. The outcome of the DASH was to make a referral to MARAC for Mrs X. The Council also completed a Vulnerability Assessment for Mrs X.
41. In mid-August 2023 Mrs X visited the emergency department of the local hospital due to ill health. Mrs X said the lack of support from the Council made her health worse. While in hospital Mrs X told staff it was unsafe to return home due to domestic abuse.
42. Staff in the hospital spoke to the housing department at the Council which arranged out of area interim accommodation for Mrs X.
43. The homelessness team at the Council spoke to children’s services who told it Mrs X’s child would not be accommodated. The Council found interim accommodation for Mrs X big enough for one person. Mrs X was discharged from hospital.
44. The Council sent Mrs X a decision letter accepting its relief duty. It also said it sent Mrs X a copy of her personal housing plan.
45. Due to Mrs X’s health conditions, they required care in the home. Hospital staff made recommendations about the personal care Mrs X would need on discharge from hospital. This care included help to wash, dress and bathe. An assessment completed in the community a few weeks after discharge found Mrs X needed more care than originally thought. Mrs X needed weekly help to do laundry and clean the accommodation and two daily calls to help with personal care and food preparation. Mrs X was unable to carry out these tasks safely, on her own.
46. A few days after being discharged from hospital the domiciliary care provider and Mrs X told the Council the accommodation was unsafe. There was not enough space in the accommodation to safely care for Mrs X. Mrs X went without the necessary domiciliary care for one month (this is explained in another complaint, 24009746, investigated by the Ombudsman).
47. A few days later children’s services chaired a multi-agency professionals meeting to discuss Mrs X’s child. A representative from Housing attended. The priority for Mrs X was to move from the current interim accommodation, into accommodation big enough for Mrs X and her child.
48. Despite this, a few days later, when the homelessness team contacted Mrs X, it was not clear about the issues Mrs X faced nor the multi-agency action plan to find Mrs X suitable accommodation. It told Mrs X to contact the temporary accommodation team to request a review of suitability.
49. At the end of August Mrs X submitted a complaint to the Council.
50. In mid-September Mrs X completed a medical report to form part of the Councils assessment of her needs. She said a social worker from the neighbouring borough helped her.
51. Housing attended another meeting chaired by children’s services. It appeared the needs of Mrs X and her child were explained thoroughly during the meeting.
52. Towards the end of September, in a complaint to the Council, Mrs X told it the domestic abuse was ongoing.
53. At the start of November 2023 Mrs X made another complaint to the Council, specifically about the housing department. This was acknowledged by the Council. The Council said it would reply by 20 November 2023. November. There is no evidence the Council responded to this complaint.
54. Around this time an MP advocated on behalf of Mrs X. The Council sent the MP an update. Mrs X continued to report the unsuitability of the property to the Council.
55. Towards the end of November, the Council carried out a medical assessment inform housing allocation for Mrs X. The report recommended that Mrs X should be housed in a level access property.
56. During December Mrs X continued to complain. The MP continued to advocate on behalf of Mrs X.
57. Towards the end of December, Mrs X’s domestic abuse advocate (from a specialist domestic abuse organisation) contacted the Council sharing concerns because Mr Z had located Mrs X. The Council did not contact Mrs X, conduct a domestic abuse risk assessment or review the placement’s suitability. The Council took no action.
58. At the end of December, Mrs X complained again to the Council. In this complaint she also reported issues with sewage at the property, a lack of hot water, insufficient central heating and noise from other residents. Mrs X’s carers also reported the issues with sewage.
59. Mrs X continued to complain to the Council into January 2024.
60. In mid-January the Council asked the letting agent to prioritise repairing the hot water and heating.
61. At the end of January, it was noted again in Council records that the Council were aware that Mr Z had located Mrs X. The domestic abuse advocate again shared concerns with the Council about Mrs X’s safety.
62. At the end of January Mrs X called the Council to ask when it would complete the suitability assessment.
63. The Council completed the suitability assessment at the end of January. The Council decided the property was unsuitable for three reasons: the inconducive layout for Mrs X’s health needs; being too small for Mrs X and her child; and due to Mrs X being located by Mr Z.
64. The Council carried out another medical assessment. The outcome of this, in addition to the previous recommendation of a level access property was that Mrs X could not live above ground floor without a lift. The property should be on one floor. Mrs X’s housing allocation remained at Band 3. The Council told Mrs X about her right to review.
65. Housing asked children’s services whether it should accommodate only Mrs X, or Mrs X and her child in the new interim accommodation.
66. Mrs X asked the Council for a re-assessment of her medical needs.
67. In the first week of March 2024, the homelessness caseworker contacted the temporary accommodation team to request accommodation for Mrs X and her child.
68. The Council replied to Mrs X’s MP with an update in mid-March.
69. The Council completed another medical assessment. Mrs X’s banding remained at Band 3, with recommendations about accessibility.
70. At the end of March, the Council accepted the main housing duty to Mrs X and Mrs X’s child. Mrs X’s banding remained at Band 3.
71. In April 2024 Mrs X submitted a suitability review request to the Council. The review request was closed shortly after as the Council said it had already decided the property was unsuitable in January. However, within the request from Mrs X, was a request to review her housing allocation banding. The Council did not respond.
72. Towards the end of April someone from the tenancy management team at the Council carried out an inspection of Mrs X’s property. On the same day the staff member asked the temporary accommodation team to urgently find new accommodation for Mrs X. It was noted that the accommodation was ‘completely unsuitable.’
73. At the start of May the Council, again, wrote to Mrs X’s MP with an update. Mrs X asked the Council for an update at the end of May. In mid-June Mrs X asked again for an update. The Council processed this as an enquiry.
74. The Temporary Accommodation Operations Manager wrote to Mrs X. It summarised the findings of the medical assessment and the suitability assessment completed in January. It told Mrs X there was a ‘severe shortage’ of suitable accommodation, and this was contributing to the delay. It referred to the matter as an enquiry throughout. It thanked Mrs X for the enquiry.
75. Mrs X then complained again to the Council. The Council responded directly to the email to update Mrs X they were on the priority list to be moved, but that a shortage of accommodation was causing the delay.
76. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman.
77. Five days later Mrs X moved into new temporary accommodation in a neighbouring borough to the Council. The Council discharged its main duty to Mrs X and notified the neighbouring borough of Mrs X’s arrival.

My findings

Unsuitable accommodation

78. Both Mrs X and her carers told the Council the accommodation was unsuitable very soon after they moved there in August 2023. Housing attended a multi-agency meeting a week after the placement started, chaired by children’s services, where a multi-agency plan was agreed. It was the role of housing to find alternative accommodation for Mrs X, and her child.
79. However, when Mrs X reported the unsuitability to the Council, it invited her to complete a medical assessment form, so that it could make an assessment about suitability of the property based upon her health needs. The Council said this is the process it follows when determining suitability based upon health.
80. Despite confirming in an internal email that the property was unsuitable, the Council did not take any action to look for alternative accommodation based on size, for Mrs X and her child, following the meeting with children’s services. This was fault by the Council.
81. The medical assessments carried out for Mrs X all outlined the need for adaptations to the bathroom area and for a level access property. Mrs X’s health professionals provided evidence that Mrs X shared with the Council of the impact of stress on her health conditions. They were greatly exacerbated by stressful situations. The Council should have reviewed the suitability of the accommodation considering the first report in November 2023. Failure to do so was fault.
82. The Council knew from December 2023 onwards that Mr Z had located Mrs X. Mrs X has physical health conditions that impact her mobility. These physical health conditions would make it even more difficult to escape a dangerous situation. The Council again failed to consider whether the accommodation remained suitable for Mrs X. This was fault.
83. As a result of these repeated failures, the Council did not complete a suitability assessment until the end of January 2024. Five months after the original issues were identified. The delay in carrying out a suitability assessment was fault by the Council. The review found the property was unsuitable. The Council already knew this to be the case, as its internal email from August shows. It did not, however, tell Mrs X about this. This was fault by the Council.
84. The Council should have sought alternative accommodation for Mrs X and her child in August 2023. Instead, Mrs X remained in the unsuitable property until June 2024, 10 months later. This was fault by the Council. When invited to comment on the delay of a further 5 months from acknowledging unsuitability to moving Mrs X, the Council did not.
85. In our Guide for Practitioners about unsuitable temporary accommodation (May, 2023) we recognise a shortage of available accommodation means Councils are not always able to fulfil its responsibilities. In these cases, we expect to see evidence of Councils trying to fulfil its duties at both an individual and strategic level. We expect Councils to act to reduce the impact of the unsuitable accommodation on the individuals affected.
86. The Council said its Accommodation Assessments and Lettings team was responsible for finding alternative accommodation for Mrs X and were trying to find alternative accommodation for her. When asked to provide evidence of the actions the team took for Mrs X, it did not. Instead, it provided a description of the sort of tasks the team would undertake weekly, when trying to source alternative accommodation. This hindered my analysis. It was encouraging to see suitability assessments completed for Mrs X and updated at various points where new issues were reported. However, it would have been much more impactful had I been able to properly evaluate the actions of the Council at the time Mrs X needed to move.
87. There is limited record of the Council liaising with other Council departments about Mrs X. In August 2023 it was recorded that Mrs X needed somewhere to live with her child. In February 2024 further delay was caused when the homelessness case worker waited weeks for an email response from children’s services to confirm this. Nothing is recorded in Council records about steps taken to minimize the risk of domestic abuse to Mrs X, once the Council knew Mr Z had located her. There is no evidence that the Council took meaningful steps to try to minimize the impact of the unsuitable accommodation on Mrs X. This was fault by the Council.
88. The impact on Mrs X of being left in the unsuitable property was profound. Mrs X could not bathe properly. The care workers could not provide personal care in the property. Mrs X could not attend medical appointments. Mrs X could not receive procedures to support health conditions, because the environment in the property was not conducive to recovery. Mrs X was located by the perpetrator of domestic abuse and lived in fear of further abuse. These are significant injustices to Mrs X.
89. In leaving Mrs X in unsuitable accommodation for the period August to June 2024 and without sufficient space for them to live with her child, the Council failed to have due regard for Mrs X’s Article 8 right to private and family life. This was fault by the Council.

Homelessness process and duties

90. Mrs X said she did not tell the Council she was safe to stay at home in July 2023. She said she felt let down by the Councils lack of action during this time. She felt support would have helped. As already explained, the Council records are in contrast with this account. Therefore, I am unable to make a finding about this point.
91. The Council delayed accepting the main housing duty to Mrs X. There were 226 days from the date of accepting relief duty to the date of accepting the main housing duty for Mrs X. The reason for this is unclear. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says when a Council is satisfied that an applicant has a priority need and has become homeless unintentionally, the relief duty comes to an end after 56 days. There was no doubt that Mrs X met these criteria. The delay in accepting main duty was fault by the Council. The Council should have accepted the main duty in October 2023. Its failure to do so delayed Mrs X’s statutory right to review the suitability of the accommodation.

Housing allocations

92. The Council asked its medical advisor to assess Mrs X’s needs several times. The evidence shows it considered the relevant information and arrived at a decision open to it under its allocations scheme. When the Council makes a decision properly, we cannot question the outcome. There was no fault in how the Council considered X’s priority on the housing register.
93. The reviews requested by Mrs X during 2024 seemed to focus on the suitability of her interim/temporary accommodation. The information provided by Mrs X is large in volume.
94. However, a request to review her banding was not responded to properly by the Council in April 2024. Internal communication between Council staff focussed only on the suitability element, not the banding. The Council did not properly respond to a request for a review of Mrs X’s housing banding. This was fault by the Council.

Complaint Handling

95. Mrs X complained to the Council several times about the suitability of the accommodation. The Council did not treat these communications as complaints. This was fault by the Council.
96. Mrs X complained to the Council at the start of November 2023. Despite acknowledging the complaint in November, it took the Council until February 2024 to make a stage one response.
97. Mrs X’s situation is complex. She required intervention from several Council departments. These factors may have had an impact on the Councils approach. However, it should not be a reason for not processing and dealing with a formal complaint properly. The Council failed to respond in a timely manner to Mrs X’s complaint about how it dealt with her homelessness and housing allocation. This was fault by the Council.

Wider injustice

98. In June 2024 we published a public interest report about matters very similar to those experienced by Mrs X. The injustice found was significant and impacted adults and children. The action plan was thorough and included a host of tasks for all staff to complete, from front line workers to senior management.
99. The Council agreed to produce an action plan to address the faults identified in the report. Several of the actions identified will now be due for review. This includes key operational procedures, scheduled to be completed in March 2025. Also, several of the actions were changes to routine practice that were highlighted as ‘ongoing’. It is important to understand the impact and success of any changes on daily decision making. As part of this investigation, I have requested an update on the Council’s action plan.

Back to top

Agreed action

100. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X from the fault by the Council, within four weeks of a final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following actions:
• Apologise to Mrs X in line with our guidance on Making an Effective Apology. 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
• Make a symbolic payment to Mrs X of £2,750. This is £250 for every month Mrs X spent in unsuitable accommodation from August 2023 – June 2024.
• Make a symbolic payment to Mrs X of £450 to recognise the distress experienced by Mrs X and Mrs X’s child when living in unsuitable accommodation. It is likely the situation exasperated Mrs X’s health conditions alongside the emotional distress experienced by both Mrs X and her child.
• Make a symbolic payment to Mrs X of £350 to recognise the poor complaint handling and failure to properly respond to a request for a review.
101. Within twelve weeks of my final decision the Council will:
• Share findings from this investigation with the appropriate homelessness and housing teams. Ensure learning is disseminated properly amongst staff.
• Reiterate good practice with homelessness and housing teams about responding to disclosures of domestic abuse. Review how and when DASH risk assessments are completed, reminding staff of the importance of understanding the dynamic risk to victims posed by domestic abuse.
• Decide how it will reduce the impact of unsuitable accommodation on residents who are unable to be moved due to the overall shortage issue. Consult our Guide for Practitioners to ensure as many options as possible are considered, including at a strategic level.
• Provide an update to the Ombudsman on the action plan relating to public interest report (22016576).
102. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

103. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault. The action the Council has agreed to take is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X and her child.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman