Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to accept that Miss X was homeless in December 2022, failing to offer interim or temporary accommodation, and failing to make reasonable adjustments for Miss X’s autism. As a result, Miss X remains living with her abusive ex-partner and experienced avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, offer Miss X temporary accommodation, make reasonable adjustments and make a payment to Miss X. It should also act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness when she needed to move to escape domestic abuse. She says the Council delayed progressing her case, provided confusing and contradictory advice and information, and pressured her to move out of an area where she has support and accesses services.
2. As a result, Miss X says she remained at risk of domestic abuse, which escalated over time, and experienced avoidable 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. 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

5. I considered the complaint and the information Miss X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Miss X and the organisation 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

Homelessness law and guidance

9. 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.
10. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
11. It is not reasonable for a person to continue to live in accommodation if it is probable this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against them. (Housing Act 1996, Section 177)
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)
13. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless as a result of domestic abuse, it should make interim accommodation available to the applicant immediately whilst it undertakes its investigations. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 21.25)
14. 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. This assessment must include:
1. The circumstances that have caused them to become homeless or threatened with homelessness
2. Their housing needs
3. Their support needs (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.7)
15. 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)
16. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is called the prevention duty. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
17. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty lasts 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
18. If, at the end of the relief duty, 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. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
19. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Reasonable adjustments

20. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
21. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
22. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

23. Miss X lives with her child and her ex-partner. In late December 2022, Miss X approached the Council for help to find somewhere else to live. The Council recorded that Miss X experienced domestic abuse from her ex-partner. Miss X told the Council about her health and disabilities, including autism. She told the Council she struggles in unfamiliar areas and so wanted to stay in the city.
24. The Council arranged a full assessment of Miss X a few days later. The records show Miss X explained she is autistic and gets easily confused. The Council did a risk assessment, which produced a score of 16 indicating a high risk. Miss X told the Council she did not want to leave until after Christmas. She told the Council she had a joint benefit claim with her ex-partner and so was financially dependent on him.
25. The Council accepted the prevention duty to Miss X. It sent her several emails explaining its privacy policy and its “one offer” policy which it asked Miss X to confirm she understood. The “one offer” policy said anyone owed a homeless duty will be "entitled to one offer of suitable accommodation”. It asked Miss X to confirm she understood that an offer might be in any part of Manchester or, if the Council could not secure accommodation within Manchester, in other areas of Greater Manchester.
26. In early January 2023, the Council sent Miss X a personalised housing plan. This included tasks for Miss X around finding private rented accommodation.
27. Miss X emailed the Council. She said she didn’t understand how the process worked and wanted to know what the Council would do to help her. The next day, Miss X asked the Council for interim accommodation. She said this was just for her. In a call with the Council, Miss X explained she was worried for her own safety if she tried to leave with the child. She was also concerned about the impact on the child of being away from school and friends in the area. Miss X said the abuse was ongoing, including threats to kill. The Council told Ms X that “when she gelt like she had to go, she should contact” the Council so it could “put her forward” for interim accommodation.
28. In late January, Miss X again asked for interim accommodation. The Council told her it couldn’t put her forward for interim accommodation until the day she was homeless.
29. At the beginning of February, the Council referred Miss X to its private rented sector team. This team matches homeless people with private rented properties across the country.
30. In late February, Miss X spoke to the Council. She said she wanted to leave. She said if she could move straight into a new tenancy she would take her child with her. But she didn’t want to take the child into interim accommodation and this is why she was staying.
31. In early April, Miss X contacted the Council again. She said matters had escalated and she was physically assaulted by a relative of her ex-partner. She said she needed to leave. The records show Miss X contacted the Council again a week later to ask it to “hang on” with a moving date. She wanted to wait until after her child’s birthday. She said she would get in contact with the Council when she was ready.
32. In July, the Council contacted Miss X to ask if she still wanted help to move. Miss X confirmed she did still want to leave. She asked about private rented properties. She told the Council she would live anywhere in greater Manchester. She said she could not live somewhere she hadn’t been before because of her autism.
33. In early August, the Council accepted the relief duty to Miss X. Throughout August, the Council and Miss X exchanged emails about “matching” her to a property. Miss X sought reassurance that if a property “won’t work for some reason” she would still be considered for other properties. The Council told her it “would look to match [her] with another suitable property” if one fell through “for any reason”.
34. In mid-August, the Council offered Miss X a tenancy in another city. Miss X was initially interested in this but was anxious about the practicalities and did not like the area. She said she understood “as we discussed” she could be put forward for another property if one didn’t work.
35. The Council told Miss X that this was a final offer of accommodation and that if she refused it, the Council would not have any further duty to her. It reminded Miss X that it told her about its “one offer” policy when she first approached. Miss X told the Council she did not read this information as she didn’t understand it because of her autism. She complained and said the Council needed “to make sure people understand, especially with mental impairments”.
36. Miss X agreed to view the property. However she then contacted the Council to say her ex-partner refused to let her move so far away with the child. She said “he was raging” about it.
37. The Council decided not to end its duty to Miss X when she refused the offer.
38. In September, Miss X told the Council the abuse was escalating and becoming a daily occurrence. In October, Miss X contacted the Council twice about temporary accommodation. In response, the Council told Miss X that any accommodation would “likely be outside of Manchester”.
39. The Council accepted the main housing duty to Miss X in December 2023. At the time of writing, she remains living with her child and ex-partner.

My findings

40. Miss X is autistic and has other conditions which affect her understanding. She told the Council she gets confused and overwhelmed easily. There is no evidence the Council considered whether it needed to make any reasonable adjustments for Miss X. It did not ask Miss X how best to communicate with her to make sure she understood important information. This was fault.
41. There is no evidence the Council properly explained its process or Miss X’s options in a way Miss X could understand. The personalised housing plan does not have sufficient detail for Miss X to be able to refer to it for this purpose. The assessment does not include this information either. The records show Miss X saying she did not understand how the process works and asking for clarification and reassurance several times. The Council should have set out, clearly and carefully, all the information Miss X needed. Failure to do so was fault. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty at an already difficult time. This is an injustice to Miss X.
42. This failure resulted in the confusion about the private rented offer in August. Miss X did not understand the “one offer” policy. She had, however, sought to clarify with the Council and believed she could be offered another property if she turned one down because the Council told her it would look for somewhere else if the offer fell through “for any reason”. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty. This is an injustice to Miss X.
43. The Council accepted the prevention duty to Miss X in December 2022. There is no evidence the Council considered whether it was reasonable for Miss X to continue to occupy her accommodation. This was fault. Had the Council properly considered the correct test, it is likely it would have decided it was not reasonable for Miss X to continue to occupy her accommodation because of the ongoing domestic abuse. It therefore would have decided Miss X was homeless and owed the relief duty in December 2022. It did not accept this duty until August 2023, a delay of eight months. If the Council had accepted the relief duty in December 2022, it would have accepted the main housing duty in late February 2023. It did not do so until December 2023. This was fault.
44. In early January 2023, Miss X asked for interim accommodation. The Council did not act on this, and instead put it back on Miss X to tell the Council when she needed to leave. This was fault. Miss X needed to leave an abusive situation. The Council should have offered Miss X interim accommodation as soon as she asked for it and given her the option to move to a place of safety. Telling Miss X that it could “put her forward” for accommodation does not amount to an offer and created avoidable uncertainty for Miss X about whether she would be offered anything if she left. This is an injustice to Miss X.
45. The evidence shows that Miss X did repeatedly tell the Council she needed to move and then change her mind as a given date approached. However, in the context of her autism and her fears about her child, this is understandable. The Council failed to tell her what would happen. It kept saying it could provide accommodation once Miss X “needed” to leave but only on the day. It at no point made a specific offer of interim accommodation. This was fault.
46. The Council should have offered Miss X temporary accommodation once it accepted the main housing duty. Its failure to do so was fault.
47. Miss X had a joint benefit claim with her ex-partner. The records show she was anxious about finances if she left. There is no evidence the Council considered this as part of its assessment of Miss X support needs. This was fault. Miss X did not get her own separate claim until July 2023. This would likely have happened sooner if the Council had supported Miss X to pursue it as part of her personalised housing plan. Instead, Miss X remained financially dependent on her abuser. This is an injustice to Miss X.
48. The evidence shows Miss X was highly anxious about leaving and conflicted about leaving her child behind. The Council should have supported Miss X to move in a planned way, with a specific offer of available accommodation. It should have worked with Miss X to reassure her about her safety if she chose to leave with her child. Miss X asked the Council for interim or temporary accommodation on several occasions, including after she was physically assaulted in April. Miss X told me that when she asked about temporary accommodation, she felt the Council was “reluctant” to offer this. The records support this. Instead of acting on Miss X’s request for accommodation, the Council told Miss X each time to come back “when” she needed it. The implication being that she did not need it yet.
49. The Council told Miss X on several occasions that temporary accommodation would likely be outside its area. This contributed to Miss X not wanting to take her child with her when she left as she worried about changing schools. This in turn made it harder for Miss X to leave herself and leave her child behind. Interim and temporary accommodation must be suitable. From her first contact with the Council, Miss X explained about her need to be in familiar areas because of her autism and anxiety. If she left with her child, the Council would have to consider the child’s education and welfare. There is no evidence the Council considered whether accommodation outside its area would be suitable for Miss X before telling her this would likely be its offer. This was fault.
50. As a result, Miss X has not been properly supported. She has not understood her options, feels misled and pressured to move to an unfamiliar location without any details about where or what this might be. I cannot say that Miss X would have accepted an offer of interim accommodation had the Council made one. However, it denied her the choice. This is a significant injustice. The Council should have accepted the main housing duty in February 2023. At that point, the Council had a statutory duty to provide suitable accommodation. It has not done so. As a result, Miss X remains living in unsuitable accommodation where she experiences domestic abuse. This is a significant injustice to Miss X.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. To remedy the injustice to Miss X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Make Miss X an immediate offer of specific and available temporary accommodation, having considered what will be suitable for Miss X and her child
• Discuss with Miss X whether she needs any reasonable adjustments and ask how best to communicate with her so she understands important information
• Pay Miss X £1000 in recognition of her avoidable distress, uncertainty and missed opportunity to access interim accommodation
• Pay Miss X £300 a month for each month she has remained in unsuitable accommodation since the Council should have accepted the main housing duty, for a total of £4,500
52. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
53. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Provide training and/or guidance to relevant staff about autism and reasonable adjustments in line with the Greater Manchester All Age Autism Strategy
• Remind relevant staff to record their consideration, particularly in cases of domestic abuse, of whether an applicant is homeless because it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy accommodation, in line with sections 175 and 177 of the Housing Act 1996.
• Ensure that information provided to homeless applicants includes sufficient information and detail about the options discussed in any assessment and reiterates any advice given verbally.
• Remind relevant staff of the duty to provide interim accommodation to homeless applicants who might be homeless, eligible, and in priority need and that to be an offer of accommodation, the accommodation must exist and be available to the applicant. Consider making any such offers in writing.
• Remind relevant staff that in cases where a homeless applicant has not taken up interim accommodation or has refused an offer, the Council must still provide temporary accommodation if it accepts the main housing duty.
• Using this case as an example, discuss with relevant staff the challenges and barriers victims of domestic abuse can face in leaving abusive situations and identify the steps the Council can take to support victims and create the best opportunity possible for them to leave.
54. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman