Summary: The Council accepted it was at fault for a delay in moving Ms X to alternative accommodation after she reported an assault by her former partner, for not properly considering whether the alternative accommodation was suitable, and a failure to secure that property following a break-in. It apologised and made a payment to remedy the distress and anxiety caused. The payment was not sufficient to remedy the injustice and the Council will pay Ms X a further £3262. It has already made changes to its processes to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. Delayed moving her to alternative accommodation after she was assaulted by her former partner, despite a multi-agency assessment conference concluding she was at high risk of further domestic abuse;
2. Moved her to alternative accommodation that was not suitable for her because it was too close to the previous property and was in an unsafe area, and delayed in repairing her front door following a break-in;
3. Moved her to alternative accommodation outside its area but this was too close to the prison her former partner was now in, which meant she was still at risk from his family. She was there for four months before the Council moved her again.
2. Ms X said the failings meant she was living in unsafe accommodation for more than two years, and now suffers anxiety and depression as a result. For a long time she felt unable to leave the house due to her fear of harassment.
3. Ms X also complained the Council has refused to award additional points on its housing register on the basis she was fleeing domestic abuse and a MARAC had determined she was at high risk. This means that it will take longer for suitable permanent housing to be identified.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The events complained about happened more than a year before Ms X complained to us. However, Ms X was dealing with issues relating to her housing situation during this period and she complained to us within a reasonable time after the Council completed its complaints process in April 2022. Therefore, I consider there are good reasons for exercising discretion to investigate. In addition, I am satisfied there is sufficient information available to reach sound conclusions about the complaint, and that a worthwhile outcome can be achieved, despite the lapse of time since the earliest events complained of.
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council 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 council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
8. The Council investigated complaints about events to August 2021. Ms X has raised further issues in her complaint to us that the Council had not considered through its complaints process. I exercised discretion to consider these on the basis they were closely related to the matters the Council had considered and because this was a more efficient use of resources. The Council was given the opportunity to comment on my approach and did not object to it.
9. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
10. Applicants can ask the council to carry out a statutory review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided, following which they can appeal on a point of law to the county court. In this case, the Council did not carry out a statutory review and therefore the right of appeal to the court did not arise. On this basis, I am satisfied it is appropriate for me to investigate.
11. 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

12. I considered:
• the information provided by Ms X and the Council;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
13. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness and temporary accommodation

14. Where a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless, it may owe them a main housing duty under the Housing Act 1996. This is a duty to secure accommodation for them. Until it is able to discharge this duty, it is required to provide temporary accommodation. This accommodation should be suitable for the applicant and those who live with them. If an applicant considers the temporary accommodation is unsuitable, they can ask the council to carry out a statutory review of its suitability, following which they can appeal on a point of law to the county court.

Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)

15. A MARAC is a meeting where agencies share information on high risk domestic abuse cases. The meetings can involve representatives from the police, health, child protection, housing, probation and other relevant specialists. The MARAC provides a plan to safeguard the adult victim.

DASH assessment

16. 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.

Housing allocations

17. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  Most councils keep a housing register that records information about applicants waiting for housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
18. 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 medial or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
19. This Council’s scheme uses a points system in which it awards applicants points based on their circumstances. Due to the shortage of properties, only those with a score of 100 or more are eligible to bid for social housing. The maximum number of points it can award is 1,000. When considering an offer, the Council considers the number of points awarded and the applicant’s qualifying date, which may be the date the Council accepted them onto its housing register or the date the number of points awarded changed.
20. Relevant to this case, an applicant will be awarded 200 points where the Council has accepted it owes them a main housing duty and has provided temporary accommodation.
21. Applicants identified as being at high risk by MARAC are awarded 1000 points provided the following also apply:
• they are assessed as having an exceptional reason for requiring social or affordable housing; and
• no other housing solutions are available.

In such cases, the Council will make a direct offer to the applicant.

What happened

22. Ms X became homeless after fleeing domestic abuse. The Council accepted a main housing duty, and provided temporary accommodation for her in secure housing, property 1. Despite the security arrangements, her former partner was able to access property 1 and attack her in 2019. She reported the attack to the police and the Council. The Council initially said it was safe for her to return, which she did after a short time sofa surfing. She sought assistance from a domestic abuse charity, following which a MARAC confirmed she was at high risk and should be moved to accommodation outside the Council’s area.
23. Three months after the attack, the Council agreed to move Ms X. It provided alternative temporary accommodation at property 2 a short distance from the property 1. Ms X said she lived in fear of a further attack from her former partner and his associates. She also said she suffered threatening behaviour whilst living at property 2. Property 2 was broken into not long after she moved there and although she told the Council the front door was not secure, it took a year to rectify this.
24. In July 2021, a DASH assessment was carried out. This recorded there were no further incidents with Ms X’s former partner and that a further MARAC was not needed.
25. In August 2021 Ms X moved to property 3, temporary accommodation outside this Council’s area. Ms X said property 3 was close to the prison her former partner was in, which meant she continued to be at risk from his family and associates. She said the Council told her she had to accept this property, or it would stop assisting her. The Council said it was not made aware that Ms X may be unsafe in that area and therefore considered property 3 was suitable when it offered it.
26. Ms X told me the property was accessed via an alley, which was infested with rats and pigeons, and she had problems with inappropriate behaviour by a neighbour. As a result, she felt too afraid to leave the property and a relative had to assist her taking her child to school.
27. Ms X asked the Council to review the suitability of property 3 in late August 2021 with the assistance of an advocate. The Council acknowledged the request in mid-October and carried out the suitability review in November 2021. It decided property 3 was not suitable and moved her to property 4, in its own area, in December 2021. In relation to property 4 it said:
• Ms X’s case had not been considered by MARAC and it was not aware of any further incidents after 2019;
• Property 4 was close to Ms X’s employment and her child’s school;
• Ms X had told it this area was safe on four occasions in November and December 2021;
• Ms X is actively seeking social housing in that area.
28. Ms X says she still does not feel safe, but the Council said she had not asked for a review of the suitability of property 4.

Complaints handling and my findings

29. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process in August 2021. Ms X was unhappy with the response and the Council responded at stage 2 of its process in February 2022.
30. The Council accepted it did not respond appropriately to Ms X’s concerns and police evidence when she lived at property 1. It accepted it should not have advised her she was not at risk and should return to property 1. It further accepted it should have assessed the suitability of property 1 and provided alternative accommodation straightaway. The failure to do so was fault.
31. The Council also accepted it should have taken more care when identifying an alternative property, property 2, because of the potential risks. And that it should not have left Ms X with a damaged door for 13 months. It accepted it should have replaced the door immediately and made enquiries about the suitability of the accommodation. The failure to do so was fault.
32. The Council apologised for the poor service. After further consideration, in April 2022 it offered to pay Ms X £3,338 to remedy the injustice caused by living in unsuitable accommodation from the date she reported the attack to the date she was rehoused in property 3. It said this was based on £100 per month for that period. Ms X accepted this offer, and the payment was made in April 2022. Having considered the evidence, I consider this was not a sufficient remedy for the injustice caused and will recommend a further payment.
33. Also in its stage 2 complaint response, the Council said it takes domestic abuse very seriously and set out the changes it had made to improve its response, including establishing a new specialist domestic abuse housing team. It said it had significantly improved its practices and procedures and had delivered extensive training to staff to ensure they better met residents’ needs.
34. In response to our enquires, the Council provided further information about the changes it had made to prevent recurrence of the faults identified. On the basis of this, I am satisfied that further recommendations are not needed.
35. The Council did not consider Ms X’s complaint about property 3 through its complaints process: Ms X moved to property 3 after making the original complaint. The Council said it was not aware of any risk associated with the area in which property 3 was situated when it made the offer, although I note Ms X’s account is that she did raise concerns when it offered property 3. The advice given in such situations is to accept the property and then ask for a review of its suitability, which is what Ms X did. She requested the review in August 2021 but the Council did not acknowledge this and pass the request to the relevant team until mid October, around six weeks later. This delay was fault. This caused a delay in carrying out the review.
36. The review concluded the accommodation was not suitable, following which Ms X moved to property 4. On balance, Ms X remained in unsuitable accommodation for an extra six weeks as a result of the delay but the payment the Council offered covers this period. There was no delay in carrying out the review after acknowledging receipt and no undue delay in arrange the transfer after deciding property 3 was unsuitable.
37. The Council has said it considers property 4 is suitable for Ms X. Ms X has expressed doubts about this. It is appropriate for Ms X to request a review of the suitability of property 4 if she remains concerned about her safety.

Housing register application

38. In her complaint to us, Ms X also said the Council had refused to award additional points on its housing register on the basis she was fleeing domestic abuse and a MARAC had determined she was at high risk.
39. In response to my enquiries, the Council said Ms X was owed 200 points as it had accepted a main housing duty and had provided temporary accommodation. She did not meet the criteria for an award of 1,000 points because her case has not had MARAC involvement since 2019 and the other criteria set out at paragraph 21 did not apply and had never done so.
40. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered how many points Ms X was entitled to under its allocations scheme.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will pay Ms X a further £3,262 to remedy the anxiety and distress caused by its failure to respond properly to her concerns about her safety between 2019 and 2021. This is makes a total payment of £6,600. This is calculated on the basis of £200 per month for the thirty three months Ms X lived in unsuitable temporary accommodation and is in line with our guidance on remedies, which recommends a payment of between £150 and £350 per month.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman