Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to promptly make decisions and communicate with her properly when she was homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide her with interim accommodation. The Council was at fault. These faults have caused Ms X distress, frustration and uncertainty regarding whether she could have accessed accommodation sooner than she did. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £700 and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to follow homelessness law and guidance when she approached the Council as homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse.
2. Ms X complains the Council;
1. delayed making enquiries into her homelessness;
2. failed to communicate with Ms X properly;
3. failed to provide her with interim and temporary accommodation; and
4. delayed deciding what duties it owed her.
3. Ms X said the Council’s faults avoidably left her street homeless and caused her significant distress.

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. 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

6. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
8. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
9. I considered comments made by Ms X and the Council on draft decisions before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

10. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Relief duty

11. Where a council is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it is subject to a duty (unless they make a local connection referral) to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. This duty arises regardless of whether the applicant may be in priority need. It does not extend to the authority having to secure accommodation (although it may choose to do so).
12. When a council decides the relief duty has come to an end (usually after 56 days), it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Interim accommodation and domestic abuse

13. If a council has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, then it must provide interim accommodation for them. (Housing Act 1996, section 188).
14. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 changed the definition of “priority need” to include those seeking assistance with homelessness after fleeing domestic abuse. This part of the Act became law on 5 July 2021 and means in most cases, people who are fleeing domestic abuse will be provided with interim accommodation.

Main housing duty

15. If homelessness is not successfully relieved, the applicant is in priority need and they are not homeless intentionally, the council will owe the applicant a main housing duty (s193(2) of the Act). This means the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This may be social housing or private rented accommodation with a lease of at least 12 months. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

What happened

16. Ms X applied to the Council as homeless on 27 February 2023 through an online application form. She said she was of no fixed abode at that time and was sleeping on various friends’ sofas. Ms X did not mention fleeing domestic abuse in this form.
17. A housing officer, Housing Officer A, called Ms X to make further enquiries into her homelessness and complete an assessment on 10 March 2023 (eleven days later).
18. The notes from this call show Ms X told the Council she was single, with no dependent children and became homeless after her relationship broke down. Ms X said the breakdown of her relationship had in turn caused problems between her and her own family members so she could not stay with them.
19. Housing Officer A’s notes show Ms X being asked if any domestic abuse had taken place and Ms X responded to say “no”, but she did need to avoid certain areas “as she did not want to bump into her family”.
20. The housing officer told Ms X she should carry on making her own arrangements for accommodation and in the meantime, provide the Council with further documents so it could continue its enquiries into her case.
21. Ms X chased Housing Officer A for an update multiple times in the two weeks following this call. Homelessness outreach services found Ms X rough sleeping and left multiple messages for her housing officer asking them to call Ms X back. Housing Officer A did not return any of these contacts until 27 March 2023 when they responded to Ms X by email asking her to send some further identity documents.
22. On 27 March, Ms X sent her housing officer a letter from her doctor. This doctor’s letter disclosed that Ms X had fled domestic abuse.
23. On 29 March 2023 a homelessness outreach worker left another voicemail for the Council, again asking them to call Ms X as she had been found rough sleeping. The outreach worker said in this message that Ms X had fled domestic abuse.
24. Ms X sent the further requested documents to Housing Officer A on 19 April 2023 and made further requests in the following weeks for an update on her case.
25. The records show Housing Officer A returned Ms X’s call on 4 May 2023 but the call did not connect. The housing officer tried again on 10 May 2023 but without success.
26. In the days after this, Ms X said she had no missed calls and chased contact again. She repeated that she was homeless and had been sleeping at her workplace.
27. On 16 May 2023 a different housing officer, Housing Officer B, returned her contact. They said she would have a decision on her homelessness application soon but she was not likely to be in priority need.
28. On 6 June 2023 Ms X made a stage one complaint to the Council. She said for the first time in her own words to the Council that she was homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse and complained she had not received any updates from the Council.
29. On 20 June 2023 the Council notified Ms X that it had accepted a relief duty to her and would help her find accommodation. It said it had decided she was not in priority need so she was not entitled to interim accommodation. If she disagreed with its decision regarding her priority need, it said she should provide any reasons why. It also sent her a personalised housing plan which set out the steps both she and the Council would take to relieve her homelessness.
30. On 23 June 2023 the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage one of the complaints process. It acknowledged that her housing officer had not kept in regular contact with her initially and the service she experienced was “far below the level of service expected”. It apologised for this and said it had now accepted a relief duty to her.
31. Regarding the domestic abuse, it said, “I understand that (Housing Officer B) has asked you about these issues and that you have advised that your main focus at this time is to resolve your homelessness”. It did not explain this further. Ms X was unhappy with the response and asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two of the complaints process.
32. The Council has provided written notes from a telephone call dated 29 June 2023. It uploaded the written notes several months after the call rather than writing them into the case record at the time. I have summarised the notes as follows:
33. Housing Officer B called Ms X to follow up regarding the domestic abuse she had raised through the complaints process. The housing officer said if she had fled domestic abuse she would be entitled to interim accommodation. However Ms X asked for domestic abuse not to be considered as part of her case and said instead she would make her own arrangements for accommodation.
34. Ms X has a different recollection of this call, which I have also summarised below:
35. Ms X said she was not offered interim accommodation during this call. She said she would have accepted this if offered, as she was homeless. Ms X said instead Housing Officer B told her they could “change” her application to a “domestic abuse case” if she would like, but this would delay her being offered housing, so she asked for the application to continue as it was to have a better chance of being housed sooner. Ms X told Housing Officer B she would continue to sleep at her workplace in that case and they said ok.
36. On 6 July 2023 the Council made Ms X its first offer of accommodation - a private-rented studio property in London. However Ms X did not receive these messages as her phone was broken. This offer was also withdrawn when it emerged not to be affordable for Ms X.
37. Ms X said she spoke to Housing Officer B again in early August. During this call she said Housing Officer B told her she could access interim accommodation but it would be outside of London. Ms X said she could not move outside London as she would not be able to afford to travel to her workplace.
38. On 10 August 2023 the Council made Ms X another offer of a private-rented studio property in London. Ms X attended the property but refused the offer as she said once she arrived she realised it was in an area where she would be at risk of domestic abuse. This area was not previously listed as unsafe in her suitability assessment so the Council was not aware of this.
39. The Council responded at stage two of the complaints process on 5 September 2023. It accepted again that the initial service she received was poor but repeated that she had asked for domestic abuse not to form part of her homelessness application so she was not offered interim accommodation. It signposted her to the Ombudsman if she was still unhappy.
40. On 8 September 2023 Housing Officer B contacted Ms X again to enquire about the domestic abuse that had been flagged previously. In this call, Ms X again said she had fled domestic abuse and this had been the key issue from the beginning. Later that day Ms X was provided with bed and breakfast accommodation in London which she accepted and has remained in.
41. The Council accepted a main housing duty to Ms X on 15 September 2023. However Ms X has not yet been matched with a suitable property and remains in bed and breakfast accommodation.

My findings

1a) The Council delayed making enquiries into Ms X’s homelessness

42. It took the Council eleven days to contact Ms X following her 27 February homelessness application. In that application she made the Council aware she was already homeless and sleeping on people’s sofas.
43. We would expect the Council to have systems in place to process and respond to homeless applications more swiftly than this, particularly when the applicant is already homeless.
44. The Council delayed making enquiries into Ms X’s homelessness. This was fault. This fault caused Ms X additional frustration and distress at an already difficult time.

1b) The Council failed to communicate with Ms X properly

45. Ms X, and other professionals working with her, tried to reach Housing Officer A for an update on her case multiple times. These calls and messages were not responded to until much later. This was poor communication by the Council and was fault.
46. On 29 March one of these messages raised that Ms X was street homeless because she had fled domestic abuse. Around this time, Ms X also sent the Council a doctor’s letter which disclosed she had fled domestic abuse. However the Council did not follow up with Ms X about any domestic abuse for several months.
47. The Council has accepted its communication with Ms X during this time was poor and has apologised. However it should also have followed up with Ms X sooner regarding the domestic abuse disclosures in March 2024. Not doing so was fault and caused Ms X distress and uncertainty about whether she could have been offered interim accommodation sooner.

1c) Failed to provide Ms X with interim and temporary accommodation

48. The Council was under a duty to provide Ms X with interim accommodation once it had reason to believe she was homeless, eligible and in priority need.
49. All parties now know that in February, Ms X was homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse and would have been entitled to interim accommodation from not long after this time. However there is no record of the Council being made aware she was homeless due to domestic abuse until late March 2023. These disclosures were missed by the Council and not followed up until late June. Missing these communications was fault by the Council as set out above.
50. The Council followed up with Ms X regarding the domestic abuse in a phone call on 29 June in response to her stage one complaint. This stage one complaint was the first written record of Ms X disclosing domestic abuse in her own words to the Council.
51. During this call, the Council said it would offer Ms X interim accommodation if it changed her case to show domestic abuse but Ms X declined this. Ms X said this account is incorrect and she was not offered interim accommodation or she would have accepted it, as she was homeless.
52. The Council failed to record the notes of this call contemporaneously and instead uploaded the notes several months later. As a result, this evidence is less reliable than the other records in its case file. This poor record keeping was fault by the Council.
53. The Council also should have sent Ms X its 29 June 2023 decision that she was not in priority need to her in writing and provided the reasons for its decision. Not doing so has led to a dispute which cannot be resolved about what was discussed during the phone call of that date.
54. Ms X said the Council raised interim accommodation with her again in early August. She said Housing Officer B told her she could access interim accommodation, but it would be outside London. Ms X confirmed she had declined this, as she would not be able to afford to commute to her workplace from outside London.
55. Even accounting for the fact that any interim accommodation offered to Ms X would have had to be suitable for Ms X’s needs, it is possible that an earlier offer of accommodation outside London - provided she could reasonably commute to work from there - would have been suitable. It may also have been the only suitable and available accommodation during several periods in this complaint. As Ms X declined accommodation of this kind, I cannot say on balance whether Ms X would have accepted a formal offer of interim accommodation sooner than she did were it not for the Council’s faults.
56. Instead Ms X has been caused distress and uncertainty about whether the Council accurately recorded key conversations it had with her and whether she could have accessed accommodation sooner than she did.
57. I have recommended a financial remedy to recognise the injustice caused, which is at the higher end of the scale set out in our Guidance on Remedies for uncertainty and distress. This is because the impact on Ms X of this uncertainty was more significant while she was vulnerable, homeless, and fleeing domestic abuse.

1d) Delayed deciding what duties it owed Ms X

58. The Council decided it owed Ms X a relief duty more than sixteen weeks after she first approached the Council as homeless, and more than fourteen weeks after the Council made its initial enquiries.
59. Ms X delayed providing some documents but the Council also delayed significantly in responding to her requests for more information about what documents were needed.
60. Even accounting for any delay on Ms X’s part, the Council avoidably delayed deciding whether Ms X was owed a relief duty. The Council was at fault. This fault caused Ms X further frustration and distress at an already challenging time.
61. The Council then took 81 days between the start of the relief duty on 20 June and its acceptance of a main housing duty on 8 September. The Council had sufficient information by the end of the 56 days given in law, that Ms X was homeless, in priority need and not homeless intentionally. I cannot see any reasonable cause for its delay in coming to a main housing duty decision. This delay was fault.
62. If not for this fault, Ms X would most likely have joined the housing register sooner than she did. Ms X still has not been matched with a property and waiting lists in this Council’s area are very long, so we cannot say, were it not for this fault, that she would have been matched with a property before now.
63. Instead this fault has caused Ms X frustration due to her waiting an avoidably long time for a decision on her housing application.

Back to top

Agreed action

64. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the faults in this case; and
2. Pay Ms X £700 to recognize the frustration, distress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s faults.
65. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Remind its housing staff that where they decide to depart from a legal duty, such as treating an applicant as not in priority need when it has reason to believe they are, that it send this decision to the applicant in writing and seek their agreement;
2. Remind its housing staff to record notes from its phone conversations with housing applicants on the same day as the conversation occurs to ensure reliability;
3. Demonstrate it has taken steps to improve its capacity to respond promptly to homeless applicants and ensure it does not miss important information through messages, as occurred in this case; and
4. Demonstrate that it has looked into what led to its delays in the following areas and considered how to prevent these occurring in future:
• processing Ms X’s initial homelessness application;
• deciding it owed Ms X a relief duty; and
• deciding it owed Ms X a main housing duty.
66. We publish Guidance on Remedies which sets out, in section 3.2, our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
67. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

68. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and recommended the Council apologise, pay Ms X a financial remedy and carry out service improvements.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman