Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application after he fled domestic abuse. The Council was at fault for a delay in sending him a letter confirming it had accepted a relief duty and issuing a personal housing plan. It has already apologised, which was appropriate to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to offer interim accommodation when he asked for homelessness assistance after fleeing domestic abuse. He also complained the Council delayed accepting a relief duty and issuing a personalised housing plan. He said this caused distress and frustration and he was forced to sleep in his car and on the streets.
2. He said the officer dealing with his application was hostile and lacked empathy, and fabricated evidence, which added to his distress.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, 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:
• the information Mr X provided and spoke to him about his complaint;
• the information the Council provided in response to our enquiries;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
8. Mr 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 applications and duties

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. Where the council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it should make enquiries to enable it to decide if they are eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)
11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless then the council will owe the ‘relief duty’. This requires the council to take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person for at least six months. The relief duty usually lasts for 56 days.
12. After this period, the council should decide whether it owes the applicant the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty if it is satisfied the applicant is eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless.
13. 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 11)

Interim accommodation

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.  Examples of priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• people with serious health problems;
• some elderly people; and
• (from July 2021) those homeless as a result of fleeing domestic abuse.
1. The threshold for the duty is low as the local authority only has to have a “reason to believe” the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.
2. When a council accepts a main housing duty, it must provide temporary accommodation, which may be the same accommodation as the interim accommodation. The main difference is there is a statutory right to ask for a review of the suitability of temporary but no such right for interim accommodation.

Domestic abuse

16. Councils will need to assess whether the applicant is a victim of domestic abuse or if they are at risk of domestic abuse (the Code, paragraph 21.20).
17. Domestic abuse is defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. This says behaviour is abusive if it consists of any of the following:
1. physical or sexual abuse;
2. violent or threatening behaviour;
3. controlling or coercive behaviour;
4. economic abuse; or
5. psychological, emotional or other abuse.
18. To amount to domestic abuse, the abusive behaviour must be towards someone who is “personally connected”. This includes those who are, or have been, in an intimate relationship with each other, and those who have, or have had, a parental relationship in relation to the same child.
19. The Code says councils should seek an account of the applicant’s experience to assess whether the behaviour they have experienced is abusive and whether they would be at risk of domestic abuse if they continued to occupy their accommodation (paragraph 21.21).

DASH assessment

20. 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.

What happened

21. Mr X completed an online homelessness application in mid-March 2023. He said he was at risk of financial, psychological and economic abuse, he was stressed and “very low mentally” and he was street homeless.
22. The following day he spoke to officer 1. Officer 1’s record of their conversation says Mr X told them:
• he had separated from his wife in October 2022 and left their Council property, the tenancy for which was in his wife’s sole name;
• his income had gone into a joint account, from which the couple’s bills were paid, but the account was now closed and there were no ongoing issues with finances;
• he had rented a room in another council area but was asked to leave after a week as he was sleep walking. He gave an address for that accommodation but was not able to provide information about the landlord.
23. Mr X asked about interim accommodation. Officer 1, told him that, based on the information provided, the Council was not under a duty to provide this.
24. Mr X complained. The Council spoke to him by telephone five days after his initial approach and arranged an interview at its offices with officer 2. Officer 2’s record says:
• officer 2 carried out a DASH assessment, but the only point scored was where money was involved. Mr X told them “she was taking all my money and she was buying things for me”. No other domestic abuse was alleged;
• when officer 2 queried the address on Mr X’s bank statements, Mr X said he had rented a room at that address for one week, but the landlord asked him to leave because he was sleep walking and had tried to enter someone else’s room. He said he was using the address for bank statements only. He was not able to provide details for the landlord;
• officer 2 said they could not accept he was homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse as he had left some months ago and had rented elsewhere in the meantime. Therefore, the Council would not provide interim accommodation, but would assist in him other ways, such as accessing private rented accommodation;
• officer 2 explained that as Mr X was working, he could claim assistance with housing costs based on one room only. Mr X said he could not live in one room due to his sleep walking. The record says officer 2 asked Mr X if he had seen a GP about his sleep walking and Mr X said the GP had told him it was a normal frequent condition and advised him to lock his room at night. The record says officer 2 advised him he needed to be realistic about his expectations and find ways to manage his condition (Mr X told me he had not seen a GP about his sleep walking since coming to the UK several years ago);
• officer 2 shared information about a room that was available and suggested he arrange a viewing, showed him how to access Homefinders and the My social housing app, and agreed to make a referral to a housing charity.
25. On 22 March, Mr X raised concerns again. He said the Council had not followed the law or its own policy because it had:
• completed its assessment but had not advised him if it accepted a relief duty nor issued a personalised housing plan (PHP):
• not referred him to an independent domestic violence advocate (IDVA):
• not arranged interim accommodation, which meant he was now at higher risk than before he asked for assistance.
26. Officer 2 replied that:
• they had not completed their assessment and would not issue a decision until they had done so;
• explained Mr X could self refer to an IDVA and provided a contact number;
• asked for details of his former landlord, and for a statement of the domestic abuse he had suffered; and
• he was not deemed to be in priority need and there was therefore no duty to arrange interim accommodation.
27. Mr X maintained he was a victim of domestic abuse and said a homeless charity had advised him the Council was not following the law. He said in one email that the landlord issue was not relevant, in another he questioned where the Council got the information that he was renting which he said was not true. He later provided contact details for the landlord.
28. Council records show it accepted a relief duty on 29 March and a PHP was prepared. Mr X complained again on 28 April and the Council responded on 31 May 2023. The Council said there was a relief duty letter and PHP on file, but it was unclear if these had been sent. This part of the complaint was therefore upheld. The Council noted Mr X had not been in touch with officer 2 about his application since 23 March, and suggested he contact them.
29. The letter accepting the relief duty (dated 29 March 2023) and PHP were sent by email on 1 June 2023. Mr X was unhappy with the PHP because it did not say he was homeless because he was fleeing domestic abuse. He said he was rough sleeping and in fear for his life. He again asked for interim accommodation.
30. Mr X spoke to a manager on 2 June. In that call he mentioned he had seen a GP about back and leg pain and been prescribed Nurofen. He agreed to provide details of his GP. The manager agreed to provide interim accommodation, which was arranged the same day, in the area where Mr X said he was working.
31. Mr X complained again on 11 June. He again said he was a victim of domestic abuse, and the Council should have arranged interim accommodation earlier. He said he had told officer 2 he was sleeping rough, and they had sent him a leaflet about sleeping rough and suggested he look for private rented accommodation. He said he had not rented a room and the Council officer had lied about that.
32. The Council responded on 14 July 2023. It said:
• Mr X had given the same information to officer 1 on 17 March and officer 2 on 21 March. There was no evidence an officer had lied or fabricated evidence;
• officer 2 had completed a DASH assessment, which was designed to assist them to establish if he was a victim of domestic abuse. Therefore, he was treated as a victim of domestic abuse;
• it agreed the letter accepting a relief duty and PHP were not sent in a timely manner, for which it had already apologised; and
• it provided interim accommodation for him on 2 June.
33. The Council subsequently asked Mr X to provide relevant documents, following which it accepted a main housing duty on 1 August 2023. At that point Mr X’s interim accommodation became temporary accommodation, which meant he could ask for a review of its suitability. Mr X asked for a review as he said he was struggling to sleep due to the behaviours of other occupants. In October, following the review, the Council moved him to alternative accommodation, which he told me was better.
34. Also on 1 August, the Council accepted his housing register application. It placed him in band B in the homeless queue and said he was eligible for a studio property. Mr X considers he should be in band A as he is a victim of domestic abuse. He has not asked for a review of the Council’s decision about the priority band or made a formal complaint about this. He told me he considered his case was urgent because he was struggling to sleep in the original temporary accommodation.

Analysis and my findings

35. The Council was under a duty to provide interim accommodation if it had reason to believe Mr X may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. Reason to believe is a low bar.
36. There is no dispute that when Mr X approached the Council for assistance on 16 March, he was homeless and eligible for assistance.
37. An applicant is in priority need if they are fleeing domestic abuse. Councils must determine whether fleeing domestic abuse is the immediate cause of their homelessness. If it is, the applicant will automatically be in priority need.
38. In the initial call with officer 1, Mr X said:
• he had fled domestic abuse in October 2022, and there had been no domestic abuse since then;
• in the period before contacting the Council he had been sleeping in his car and had briefly rented a room.
39. A few days later, Mr X had a face-to-face interview with officer 2. He provided the same information about renting a room and added that he was still using that address for bank statements. A DASH assessment was completed. The only point scored related to money.
40. Both officers concluded domestic abuse was not the immediate cause of his homelessness. On this basis, they decided the Council did not have a duty to arrange interim accommodation. Although the record does not specifically state they decided they did not have reason to believe he may be in priority need, this is implied by the advice they gave Mr X.
41. It is not my role to say whether the officers made the correct decision. I am satisfied they considered relevant factors and there was no fault in the decision-making process.
42. Mr X mentioned he had been sleep walking, and officer 2 asked him about that. It would have been good practice for them to record their reasons for deciding the sleep walking did not mean they had reason to believe he may be in priority need. Based on the records seen, and my conversation with Mr X, I am satisfied the Council was not required to provide interim accommodation based on Mr X sleep walking.
43. Officer 1 failed to complete a DASH assessment, which should have been done at the first contact and that was fault. This did not cause a significant injustice to Mr X because he provided essentially the same information when he spoke to officer 2 so, on balance, officer 1 would not have reached a different decision if they had completed a DASH assessment.
44. Mr X later denied having rented a room and said the records were inaccurate. However, I note the records show he provided the same information to two different officers on separate days. He provided an address for the room, which the records stated matched the address on his bank statements and provided details of the landlord for that address. On balance, I am satisfied the Council maintained appropriate records.
45. The Council made some initial enquiries and accepted a relief duty on 29 March. It also prepared a PHP at that time. However, there is no record to show these were sent to Mr X at the time, which was fault. The Council, in its complaint response dated 31 May 2023, upheld his complaint about a delay in issuing these, and apologised. The Council sent them on 1 June.
46. The delay in sending the documents caused some uncertainty for Mr X about whether it had accepted a duty, although the records show officer 2 discussed with him all the steps in the PHP. On this basis, an apology for the delay was a sufficient remedy for the injustice caused.
47. On 2 June, in a telephone call with a manager, Mr X said he had seen a GP about pain in his back and leg. He agreed to provide GP details for the Council to make enquiries. The Council agreed to arrange interim accommodation and did so the same day. The basis for this decision is not clear from the records. However, if it was making enquiries with the GP, it is arguable it now had reason to believe Mr X may be vulnerable on health grounds, and therefore it was appropriate for it to arrange interim accommodation at that point.
48. After making further enquiries, the Council accepted a main housing duty on 1 August. This means it was satisfied that Mr X was unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. Although there was a delay in issuing this decision – the 56 days of the relief period ended on 30 May – this was because Mr X did not provide all the information and documents the Council asked for until July 2023. There was no undue delay in it reaching its decision when all the documents were provided. Therefore, I have not found fault.
49. At the same time, the Council accepted Mr X’s housing register application, and placed him in band B in its homeless queue on the housing register. Its allocations scheme says urgent cases will be awarded band A, and all other cases where the main housing duty is accepted will be awarded band B. There is no indication that Mr X’s case is urgent, particularly given the Council has arranged temporary accommodation for him.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will remind relevant officers of the need to complete a DASH assessment at the earliest opportunity where an applicant says they are at risk of domestic abuse, violence or stalking.
51. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault causing personal injustice. The Council has already apologised and this is sufficient to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman