Summary: The Council failed to co-ordinate its children’s services and housing department to provide Miss X with help when she was at risk of violence from her former partner. As a result of the Council’s failings it took too long to move Miss X and she and her child were assaulted and Miss X was badly injured. The Council should pay
Miss X and her family a financial remedy to acknowledge the impact its failings had on her and invite partner agencies to review the handling of this case.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to rehouse her when she reported that she was being harassed by her ex-partner and was at risk of violence.
2. Miss X says as a result of this she has been forced to remain living in unsafe accommodation and has been assaulted and threatened by her ex-partner.

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. If we are satisfied with a council’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

5. I have spoken to Miss X about her complaint and considered the information she has provided to the Ombudsman.
6. I have also considered information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries. This includes records of its housing department’s contact with Miss X and comments from its children’s services department.
7. I have also considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies which is available on our website.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
9. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law

10. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council if:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))
11. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant. However councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, paragraphs 2.3 and 6.4)
12. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
13. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
14. 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;

Allocation of social housing

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;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

17. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
18. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
19. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Child Protection

20. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to local authority children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so. Practitioners who make a referral should always follow up their concerns if they are not satisfied with the response.
21. Referrals may come from the child, agencies involved with children such as health and schools, concerned family members, friends, neighbours or members of the public. When the council accepts a referral, the social worker has the lead professional role. The should clarify with the referrer, where possible, what the concerns are and how and why they have arisen.
22. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing.  The assessment may result in:
• No further action
• A decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs
• A decision to convene a strategy meeting (see below).
23. The child and family must be informed of the action to be taken.
24. An assessor may decide that no further action is necessary, that the child is in need or the child is in need of protection. Where the outcome is continued involvement, the council agrees a plan of action with other agencies and discusses this with the child and family.
25. Regular reviews of the plan are needed to see whether the plan is meeting the expected outcome and minimised risk to the child.

What happened

26. Miss X applied to the Council for rehousing in March 2019. On 15 May 2019 she contacted the Council to say she had recently been the victim of domestic violence. The Council advised Miss X to speak to her social worker.
27. In June 2019 the Council awarded Band 2 priority on Miss X’s housing application because she was at risk of violence form her ex-partner. This followed a referral from Miss X’s domestic abuse advisor which said:

“[Miss X] is a repeat victim of [domestic abuse] from previous partners & the [alleged perpetrator] subject of the recent MARAC referral. He is a serial perpetrator & has previously assaulted pregnant women. [Miss X] is currently expecting his child. Referred by MARAC in February 19 when [alleged perpetrator] was arrested and charged, however [Miss X] failed to give evidence against him and the case was withdrawn. Two days later he sent her a text message stating he was at her flat. She called the Police and returned to her flat with them where she found the taps had been left on. There was insufficient evidence to arrest the [alleged perpetrator] for this offence”.

28. The Council says the MARAC risk score for Miss X was not high enough to warrant a Band 1 award.
29. In July 2019 the Council’s children’s services department wrote to the housing department to set out the history of violence Miss X had suffered, including in front of her child, and said although she had a restraining order against her ex-partner it was not thought that this would keep her safe as he had made threats against her and turned up at the property. Children’s services said:
30. “[Miss X’s ex partner] is currently out of prison and this places [Ms X] and her children at serious and significant risk of harm or even death”.
31. The letter also explained that Miss X was pregnant and living with family. It said Miss X was unable to move to a refuge as this was away from her support network and her child’s school.
32. There is no record of the Council’s housing department taking action in response to this e-mail.
33. At the end of July 2019 a Child Protection Plan was produced by children’s services because of the risk to Miss X, her child and her unborn child. The plan noted that Miss X’s situation had been discussed at a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC). The plan said an Independent Domestic Violence Advisor (IDVA) would assist Miss X with rehousing. It also said her social worker and the IDVA would follow up on this in early August 2019.
34. The Council says:

“Case records indicate that the allocated social worker for the case supported [Miss X] to contact the local housing authority after her letter of 3 July 2019, and that [Miss X] was proactive in seeking support from other agencies who were working with the family”.

35. Miss X e-mailed the Council on 4 November 2019 to say she and her children were at risk of violence from her ex-partner. She said she had been advised she needed to move by the police and children’s services and was currently staying with her mother.
36. The Council replied on the same day and advised her she could approach the Council for help as a homeless person and gave her contact details for how to do so.
37. On 5 November 2019 Miss X e-mailed the Council to say that she had asked her social worker to provide the Council with supporting evidence. She said she was still living with her mother but would consider moving to private rented accommodation but felt she would fail any checks carried out. She said she had been advised to only bid on Council properties.
38. In another e-mail on 5 November 2019 Miss X explained her mother had a one bedroom flat and there was no room for her and the children. She explained about the history of violence she had encountered from her ex-partner and said she didn’t want to stay in temporary accommodation as she did not want to upset her children.
39. The Council replied to her e-mail on 5 November 2019 and gave her advice about what evidence it would need regarding her situation. The e-mail went on to explain that Miss X could apply for housing direct with a housing association or private landlord.
40. The Council arranged an appointment for Miss X to attend its housing office on
    14 November 2019. The Council says Miss X did not attend and did not want to go into temporary accommodation.
41. In early November 2019 Miss X sent in a new housing application form and enclosed medical evidence and crime reference numbers to support her need to move from her property.
42. On 22 November 2019 Miss X contacted the Council to ask if it had reassessed her application. She explained she was fleeing domestic violence and harassment. Miss X explained she had been waiting to be rehoused since March 2019 when she was assessed as being at high risk at a MARAC meeting.
43. The Council replied on the same day and explained Miss X had been awarded Band 2 priority for “exceptional need to move” and that this related to “the high risk MARAC you are referring to”.
44. On 26 November 2019 Miss X’s social worker sent a “multi agency proforma” to the housing department. In the form the social worker said that Miss X was at risk of violence from her former partner and that he was attending the property and making threats against her and her children. The social worker explained there was a marker on the address for the Police to attend but it would still take time for Police to attend so there was a risk to life if Miss X was not moved.
45. On 4 December 2019 the Council wrote to Miss X to say it had decided to keep her application in Band 2. The Council’s notes of its decision say:

“… applicant was previously awarded Band 2 Threats of Abuse on 28/06/19. Received [multi agency proforma] and now awarded Band 2 [child in need]”.

46. Miss X contacted the Council on 5 December 2019 and asked why she had not been awarded Band 1 priority. The Council advised her to look at its allocations policy summary.
47. Miss X wrote to the Council on 12 December 2019 to request a review of its decision about her priority.
48. On 19 December 2019 Miss X e-mailed the Council and said:

“[since the appeal] I have had further police matters… and police have been called were social services have been called to see if kids council continue to stay with me due to the danger the police have also offered to provide me a letter. I have also got a letter from Womens aid requesting u look further in to this as he is continuing his violence is destroying the property door which had been fixed twice. I have been advised [by] my social worker and [womens] aid worker to remain at my mothers property as police are looking to arrest [the alleged perpetrator] which we believe will cause more violence and harassment when [he is] released from the police station. I do know that it can take up to 56 day for my application to be looked in to but I just wanted to provide u with more evidence for when my case [is] being looked in to”.

49. The Council replied to Miss X on the same day and asked her to provide copies of any letters she received from Women’s Aid or the Police.
50. Miss X replied by e-mail and said that her 4 month old son had been assaulted. She said “I don’t understand what I must do to be classed [as a] priority. I’ll end up dead b y the time u lot finish if I return to my flat I will lose my kids my property is classed as a danger zone”
51. Miss X provided a letter from Women’s Aid. It said Miss X’s application should be considered for Band 1 priority due to the risk posed to her by her ex-partner. Women’s Aid said Miss X was considered “a high risk victim of domestic abuse” by the Police and MARAC.
52. The Council replied on the same day and explained Miss X could approach for assistance as a homeless person and be provided with temporary accommodation.
53. On 23 December 2019 Miss X e-mailed the Council again to say she had provided supporting information from Women’s Aid. She also said she had been advised she could stay with her mother, go into a refuge or into temporary accommodation.
54. On 30 December 2019 a note was made on the Council’s systems saying Women’s Aid “would need to send the MARAC minutes regarding the customer or if the police deem this an immediate threat to life then a tier referral could be sent”.
55. The Council contacted Women’s Aid on 17 January 2020 and asked for a copy of the MARAC minutes.
56. The Council wrote to Miss X at the end of January 2020 to say it had not upheld her review and her application would remain in Band 2. The Council’s letter said:

“You were awarded a Band 2 Threat of abuse award in June 2019. A Child In Need, Band 2 award was made 4 December 2019. You have submitted supporting letters from agencies, including [Women’s Aid] and your childs nursery, plus crime reference numbers. There is evidence that you have had threats of ab use recently via your social workers Multi Agency Proforma submission, which also illustrates that you have a police SIG marker on your property.

“In order for use to make a Band 1 award due to Exceptional Need we require a Tier 1 referral from the police or recent MARAC minutes. Please be advised to gain one of these… and forward it [to the Council]”.

57. The Council’s notes say the MARAC minutes provided by Women’s Aid were historic.
58. In February 2020 Miss X e-mailed the Council and said:

“Hi. I have been assaulted [by ex-partner] in my property today leaving me with a broken nose while I’m 8 weeks pregnant… police have been out and offered me a police rier letter which I should receive later on today as [the police fear] for my safety… this was only gonna get worse and now it has come down to [me] having 2 black eyes and a broken nose I have also been hospital who have contacted safeguarding and the police and they have advised me not to return home I must return to my [mother’s]. [The Council] need to do [something] about this now cause I’ll end up dead”.

59. On 18 February 2020 the Council awarded Miss X Band 1 priority. She was offered a property on 27 February 2020 and her tenancy started on 6 April 2020.
60. In February 2020 the Council received information from the Police which indicated Miss X was at higher risk and so it placed her application into Band 1. Miss X was rehoused in May 2020.

My findings

61. There is significant fault in the way the Council has treated Miss X during a period in her life when she and her children were clearly vulnerable and at risk of violence. Sadly, these failings left Miss X in a situation where her very young baby was assaulted and she was violently attacked.
62. The fault lies with both the Council’s housing and children’s services department. There has been a lack of communication between these departments which has resulted in Miss X being left with no support and having to provide information to the housing department which children’s services already have on file.
63. The Council was entitled to rely in information it received from MARAC in June 2019 when it awarded Miss X Band 2 priority. There is nothing within the referral sent to the housing department which would indicate she was at immediate risk.
64. However, the Council’s children’s services wrote to the Council in early July 2019 and said that there was an “serious and significant risk of harm or even death” to Miss X, her child and unborn child. The Council’s housing department placed the letter on file and took no action. This is fault. At the very least the Council’s housing department should have contacted children’s services to ask for more details and explain the process for obtaining a higher priority status.
65. Section 213B of the Housing Act 1996 (as inserted by the Homelessness (Review Procedure) Regulations 2018) sets out a duty on public authorities to refer cases to the local housing authority where a person is or may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. Children’s services said that at “no point did [Miss X] or any other party indicate that [she] was or may be homeless or that she had been threatened with homelessness.  [Miss X] requested assistance from [children’s services] with respect to a management transfer, and the Trust duly contacted the local housing authority to support her request to be re-housed.”
66. This statement is simply not true. Children’s services produced a child protection plan at the end of July 2019. This said Miss X needed to be rehoused urgently and that this would be led by Women’s Aid. Children’s services had also identified that Miss X was at serious risk of “harm or even death” if she remained in the property. It is not the case that Miss X requested help from children’s services with a “management transfer”. The need for Miss X to move was identified within the Child Protection Plan. The Council should have referred Miss X to its housing department as being threatened with homeless as a result of violence. Failure to do so was fault.
67. The Council says it has no records of further action being taken by the social worker to find out what progress was being made with Miss X’s housing. This is fault. The plan said the social worker would ask Women’s Aid for an update in early August but this did not happen. The Council is responsible for carrying out regular reviews of the plan and there is no evidence this happened. As a result, Miss X was left to deal with her housing matters on her own at a time when she was in fear for her life and the lives of her child and unborn child.
68. It was also open to the Council’s housing department to identify that Miss X was homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says “authorities should take particular attention to identify instances where information on an inquiry about a social housing allocation scheme, or an application for an allocation of housing under Part 6, provides reason to believe that the applicant might be homeless or threatened with homelessness. This should be regarded as an application for homelessness assistance.”
69. The evidence provided to the housing department by Miss X and her children’s services in July 2019 should have been sufficient to trigger a homelessness application. The Council advised Miss X she could approach as homeless, but it should have gone further than this in these circumstances and accepted an application. Miss X indicated she was open to moving to private rented accommodation and the Council may have been able to assist her with this.
70. As the Council failed to consider what duties it owed to Miss X as a homeless person, at the very least she missed out on receiving a personalised housing plan. This would have set out the steps both Miss X and the Council could take to secure social or private housing. As a result Miss X is left with uncertainty of whether she might have been rehoused sooner if she had received this assistance.
71. In November 2019 Miss X’s social worker sent the housing department further information about Miss X’s situation. This included details of recent incidents involving Miss X’s ex-partner. The housing department made no direct contact with social services about this information and instead put the onus on Miss X to provide information from other professionals at a time when she was extremely vulnerable. It was also open to Miss X’s social worker to contact the housing department to find out what information was required for a Band 1 award but there is no evidence this happened. The failure of both departments to communicate with one another is fault. The Council should not have put the onus on Miss X to provide information which it already had on its records and could easily obtain and share.
72. Instead, Miss X was left in a situation where her life and the lives of her children were put at risk. The Council put the onus on her to provide information from professionals which it could have easily obtained. I would have expected children’s services to co-ordinate responses from professionals including the Police to support Miss X’s application. I would also have expected the housing department to clearly explain to children’s services what information it required.
73. The failure to communicate left Miss X in an extremely vulnerable position. She and her children were subjected to threats from her ex-partner and Miss X was violently assaulted and her young baby was hit.
74. Children’s services and the housing department should have communicated with one another in July when children’s services first wrote to say there was “serious and significant risk of harm or even death”. It seems likely that the necessary information about the risk posed to Miss X could have been collected from relevant agencies at that point resulting in a Band 1 priority award.
75. I am satisfied, on balance, that Miss X would have been rehoused much sooner if this had been the case. I cannot hold the Council responsible for the actions of Miss X’s ex-partner, but the fault I have identified means she was left in a situation where a violent incident was inevitable. This situation was entirely preventable.
76. I have taken account of the fact the Council offered to provide Miss X with temporary accommodation during this period in reaching a view on an appropriate remedy. Although Miss X could have accepted an offer of temporary accommodation it remains the case that the Council should have taken action to enable Miss X to move to permanent accommodation sooner.

Agreed action

77. The Council has agreed to take the following action I recommended to remedy the injustice caused to the family as a result of the fault I have identified:
• Write to the family and apologise for the Council’s overall failings and the fact it left her in a situation where her life and lives of her children were at risk.
• Pay Ms X £2500 for the injuries she and her baby suffered as a result of the failure to move her sooner.
• Pay Ms X £2450 to acknowledge the prolonged distress caused as a result of having to continue living in the property for longer than she should have.
• Offer to provide Miss X and the children with trauma counselling if this is something Miss X feels would be of benefit and if she is not receiving similar help elsewhere.
78. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
79. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services and prevent similar fault recurring in future:
• Invite other members of MARAC to hold a join review of the handling of this case to see what lessons can be learned and what improvements can be made to individual services and communication between services.
• Produce a joint working agreement or protocol between children’s services and the housing department to set out responsibilities and communication channels when dealing with families who are homeless or who need to move from their accommodation.
• Provide training to children’s services staff on the Council’s duties to homeless families and remind staff of the Council’s duties under section 213B of the Housing Act 1996 (as inserted by the Homelessness (Review Procedure) Regulations 2018).
• Remind relevant staff that homelessness applications can be considered alongside housing applications.
• Remind staff in the housing department to review and take necessary action when supporting information is received in relation to a housing application.
80. The Council should take this action within six months of my final decision and provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.

Back to top

Final decision

81. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault causing injustice. The action I have recommended provides a suitable remedy for this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman