Summary: Mr X complains that the Council did not include his child as part of his homelessness application so did not provide suitable interim and temporary accommodation. Mr X also complains that the accommodation offered to end the main housing duty was unsuitable. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in how it made its decision that Mr X’s child was not ordinarily resident with him. The Council is at fault as it suggested contacting Mr X’s former partner who allegedly perpetrated domestic abuse against Mr X. But this fault did not cause significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. the Council wrongly refused to include his child as part of his homelessness application. As a result, the Council provided interim and temporary accommodation which was unsuitable as it could not accommodate his child.
2. that the Council’s decision to discharge the main housing duty was incorrect as the permanent accommodation offered was not suitable as it could not accommodate his daughter.
1. Mr X considers the Council’s actions have caused him considerable distress and financial hardship.

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 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)
4. 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.
5. 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

6. I have investigated how the Council considered if it should include Mr X’s child on his homelessness application and how it considered the suitability of his interim accommodation. I have not considered Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of his temporary accommodation. This is because Mr X had the right to seek a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation. The Council notified Mr X of the right to seek a review so I consider it is reasonable to expect him to have exercised that right.
7. I have not investigated the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty, including the suitability of the offer of accommodation to discharge the main housing duty. This is because Mr X had the right to appeal against the Council’s decision to the county court. Mr X has said he did not appeal as his solicitor warned him that the Council could claim costs. He has also said another Ombudsman scheme told him not to go to court. I have carefully considered Mr X’s reasons for not exercising his right of appeal. But I consider it would have been reasonable to expect him to appeal to the county court as it is the specific way provided by the law to challenge the Council’s decision. Mr X could have sought advice from housing charities such as Shelter and he may have been able to obtain help with legal fees. It would be a matter for the court to consider costs in the event Mr X was not successful and it is likely any consideration would take account of his means. I therefore do not consider it is appropriate to exercise discretion to investigate this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

9. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with 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)
10. 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)
11. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
12. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their 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) If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
13. When dealing with a family that has split up a council will need to take a decision as to which members of the family normally reside or might be expected to reside with the applicant. A court may have made a residence order indicating with whom the children will live but in many cases it will be a matter of agreement between the parents. (Housing Act 1996, section 176 and Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 6.9)
14. When considering applications from people fleeing domestic abuse, housing authorities may wish to seek further evidence where it is available and appropriate to do so. But it is essential that inquiries do not provoke further violence and abuse. Housing authorities should not approach the alleged perpetrator since this could generate further violence and abuse. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 21.24)
15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a number of decisions. This includes:

• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

16. Councils must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

What happened

17. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to the consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that has happened.
18. Mr X made a homelessness application in spring 2022. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment for Mr X which noted he was fleeing domestic abuse from his former partner. It also carried out a resident needs assessment to establish Mr X’s support needs. The Council accepted the relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan (PHP) for Mr X. It also offered interim accommodation for Mr X in supported accommodation. It later transferred Mr X to alternative interim accommodation.
19. In summer 2022, Mr X requested the Council add his child to his application. The officer dealing with the matter told Mr X that his child had been added and asked when they would stay with him. The Council’s records show an officer had an exchange of emails with Mr X a few weeks later about adding his child to his homelessness application. The officer noted Mr X claimed child benefit for the child. He also noted the child had not lived with Mr X for an extended period while he was in interim accommodation and the child was living with his former partner. The officer explained to Mr X that councils needed to decide which members of a family normally reside or might be expected to reside with the applicant.
20. Mr X provided the officer with some text messages between him and his former partner. The officer did not consider they showed Mr X had full time care of his child. The officer said the easiest way to show the percentage of time Mr X spent caring for his child was for him to send something from his former partner which explained this. He also suggested that Mr X could provide his former partner’s contact details so the Council could find out this information.
21. Shortly afterwards the Council accepted the main housing duty for Mr X. In its letter to Mr X notifying him of the decision the Council explained it had a duty to make one offer of suitable accommodation to him. It confirmed that it had assessed Mr X as requiring a one-bedroom property. The Council also confirmed Mr X’s interim accommodation had become temporary accommodation and was suitable for his needs. The Council’s letter explained that Mr X had the right to seek a review of its decisions and how he could request a review.
22. A few weeks later, Mr X told the Council that he asked it to include his child when he first made his homelessness application. He also said that the Council told him that it had no capacity to house his child when it offered temporary accommodation to him. Mr X complained this had not been put right despite providing evidence his child lived with him.
23. The Council explained it was still making enquiries to determine who Mr X’s child lived with the majority of the time. The officer dealing with the matter explained that he had not received confirmation that Mr X had full residence or was the main carer for his child. So, his child was not part of his application. The officer asked Mr X to send something from his former partner to confirm the current arrangement or provide his former partner’s contact details for the officer to contact her. Until such information was provided, Mr X would be offered a one-bedroom property.
24. Mr X disputed that he had not provided evidence to show he was the main carer for his child. He said his child remained with his former partner and other family members as they were not allowed to stay in the interim accommodation. He said the Council’s failure to provide suitable accommodation had caused the residency issue.
25. The Council explained that the previous evidence supplied by Mr X was not sufficient to show he had residence or was the main carer for his child. The Council again asked Mr X to provide written evidence to show he looked after his child for the majority of the time or provide his former partner’s details for the Council to contact her. Mr X continued to dispute the Council’s position that he had not provided evidence to show he was the main carer for his child.
26. The Council’s records show it contacted Children’s Services in the area where Mr X’s former partner lived to establish the care arrangements for Mr X’s child. Children’s Services advised Mr X’s child was living with his former partner at the time Mr X made his homelessness application.
27. The Council offered a one-bedroom property to Mr X which it considered to be suitable for his needs. It ended the main housing duty.
28. Mr X sought a review of this decision. The Council considered Mr X’s review request but did not uphold it. In its letter notifying Mr X of the decision, the Council said it accepted that Mr X’s child was living with him at the time it carried out the review. But this was not by mutual agreement of both parents and there was an impending court case to determine the residency arrangement. The Council had also carried out checks with other agencies to determine Mr X’s child’s residency. These showed they were ordinarily resident with Mr X’s former partner. The Council therefore considered that Mr X’s child was not part of his homelessness application so the accommodation offered to end the main housing duty was suitable for him. The Council invited Mr X to approach the Council again if the court awarded full time residence of his child to him.
29. The Council notified Mr X of his right to appeal to the county court if he disagreed with the decision. As noted above, Mr X did not appeal.
30. I understand Mr X has not approached the Council again as the court did not grant him full time residence of his child.

Analysis

31. Mr X considers the Council should have included his child in his homelessness application when he made his application in spring 2022 and provided interim accommodation that was suitable for his child. On balance, I do not consider Mr X included his child in his homelessness application when he first applied in spring 2022. The homelessness assessment and PHP do not refer to Mr X’s child. The resident needs assessment indicates the assessment is not for a family. I consider it is likely that these documents would have referred to Mr X’s child if he had included them in his homelessness application. I therefore do not consider there is evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision that the interim accommodation was suitable for Mr X.
32. Mr X has provided emails to show the Council said it would add his child to his application in July 2022. But councils require evidence to show whether a child is ordinarily resident with the applicant. So, I do not consider the Council was at fault for not proceeding to add Mr X’s child without evidence to show whether they were ordinarily resident with him.
33. There is evidence to show Mr X raised concerns about the suitability of his interim accommodation in summer 2022 as it could not accommodate his child. Councils must keep under review the suitability of interim accommodation. The Council took appropriate steps to review the interim accommodation by asking Mr X to provide evidence to show he was the main carer for his child.
34. But I do not consider the Council considered the risks to Mr X when it asked for his former partner’s contact details. As stated above, councils require evidence to show whether a child is ordinarily resident with the applicant, and this may include the agreement between parents. But, in cases where domestic abuse is a factor, the Code of Guidance is clear that councils should not contact the alleged perpetrator for additional information. I therefore consider the Council to be at fault in asking Mr X to provide his former partner’s details.
35. There is also no evidence to show the Council assessed the risks to Mr X when asking him to provide evidence from his former partner. The Council should have considered if it could obtain the required evidence of Mr X’s child’s residency in other ways, such as approaching children’s services or other agencies when Mr X raised his concerns about the suitability of the interim accommodation in summer 2022. The failure to do so is fault.
36. I accept there will be circumstances where the Council may need to depart from the Code of Guidance and contact the alleged perpetrator. But the Council should ensure it appropriately considers whether there is good reason to seek information from an alleged perpetrator and assess the risks to the applicant of doing so.
37. I do not consider the fault by the Council caused significant injustice to Mr X. This is because the Council did not contact Mr X’s former partner. The Council contacted other agencies later on and did not establish that Mr X was the main carer for his child. So, even if the Council had contacted the other agencies sooner, I cannot say the outcome would have been different.

Other issues

38. Mr X has raised a number of other issues in how the Council dealt with his homelessness application, including failing to protect him and his child from domestic abuse and failing to provide accommodation for them, unlawful eviction from his temporary accommodation, forcing him to sign a tenancy agreement and inaccurate records preventing him from claiming housing benefit. I have not investigated these issues as I cannot achieve anything by doing so. This is because they are not separable from the Council’s decision that there was no evidence to show Mr X’s child was ordinarily resident with him. The complaints are also not separable from the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty as it considered it had made a suitable offer. As explained at paragraph 7, Mr X had the right to appeal to the county court against this decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. That the Council will draw up procedures or guidance for considering homelessness applications where children might reasonably be expected to reside with the applicant when domestic abuse is a factor. This is to ensure officers appropriately consider if there is good reason to seek information from an alleged perpetrator and assess the risks to the applicant of doing so. The Council should also ensure officers appropriately record such decisions.
40. The Council should take this action within two months of my final decision. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

41. Fault no injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman