Summary: The Council gave Ms X incorrect advice and failed to communicate with her properly when she asked the Council for help to flee domestic abuse and due to receiving an eviction notice. The Council also failed to offer Ms X interim accommodation. In recognition of the uncertainty caused by the Council’s faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £600, review its housing and homelessness decisions on this case and consider what duty it may currently have to provide Ms X with alternative accommodation. The Council has also agreed to carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to provide her and her children with sufficient housing support after they became homeless due to domestic abuse.
2. Ms X complained the Council failed to provide them with suitable accommodation and failed to properly consider her child’s medical needs.
3. Ms X said the Council’s actions have caused her uncertainty and distress and the Council should offer her an allocation of suitable social housing to recognise the injustice caused.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide the person can ask for a Council review. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. Ms X first approached the Council for housing help in November 2022 as she said she needed to leave her home due to risk of domestic abuse from a perpetrator that lived outside the home.
8. After the Council initially accepted a relief duty, it later that day issued a “not homeless” decision. This carried a right of review which Ms X did not use. Ms X then did not follow up with the Council about its decisions until much later the following year.
9. It was reasonable for Ms X to have requested a review of this decision at the time and the Ombudsman should not act as an alternative appeal body in these circumstances.
10. I have decided, in line with section 24A(6) of the Local Government Act 1974, that I should not investigate the Council’s decision from November 2022 that Ms X was not homeless.
11. Instead I have begun my investigation from Ms X’s second approach to the Council in August 2023 but I refer to earlier events for context.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
13. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
14. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
15. I considered all 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

Interim accommodation

16. 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.
17. Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 says a person is homeless if they have no accommodation which is available for their occupation. A person who has accommodation is to be treated as homeless where it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy that accommodation.
18. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation, or help to get accommodation, and gives reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
19. Whilst making these inquiries, 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).
20. The Domestic Abuse Act 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.

Allocations of social housing

21. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with this published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

Leeds City Council’s allocations policy

22. Leeds City Council prioritises housing register applicants in bands ranging from Band A (most urgent need for rehousing) to Band D (least urgent need for rehousing).
23. An applicant may be assessed as being in Band A for reasons including but not limited to:
• if a household member’s medical condition is severely affected by the property they reside in and it is not possible to make adaptations; or
• where an applicant needs to move due to experiencing abuse. (section 5.1.7)
24. The Council’s policy also allows in certain circumstances for a higher priority award to be made of Band A+. It says this may be awarded where a household has more than one distinct assessed need which falls within Band A.” (sections 5.1.9 - 5.1.10)

Review rights

25. Housing and homelessness applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including but not limited to:
• decisions about their housing priority on the housing register;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness; and
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end.
26. Statutory guidance says that applicants should request a review of decisions within 21 days of receiving the decision.
27. Statutory reviews of homelessness decisions then carry a right of appeal to a county court on a point of law. Decisions about priority on the housing register do not.

What happened

28. As set out under What I Have and Have Not Investigated, I am not investigating events before August 2023. However I have referred to some earlier events below for context.

November 2022 – first request for housing support

29. Ms X and her children lived in a privately rented property for several years.
30. On 28 November 2022 Ms X approached the Council to say she could no longer stay at the property. Ms X was living in a different local authority area but approached Leeds City Council because she said she needed to move out of local area for her safety and she had some connections to Leeds.
31. Ms X told the Council she and the children were at risk of domestic abuse from a perpetrator living outside the home. She said the most recent incident was the previous night when the alleged perpetrator tried to gain entry to the property and made threats against her and the children. Ms X said the person had abused her child in the past and provided a crime reference number.
32. On the same day, the Council carried out an assessment with Ms X. It noted the domestic abuse and searched for refuge places for Ms X but none were available. It told Ms X over the phone that it had accepted a relief duty to her and put this in writing. It also placed Ms X on its housing register in its highest priority band, Band A.
33. On the same day the Council carried out a risk assessment to consider the domestic abuse reported in more detail and decided the risk was lower than it had understood previously. The Council sent Ms X its decision that she was “not homeless” and told her of her statutory right of review.
34. Ms X did not request a review and when the Council did not hear from her it closed her case. It also removed her banding on the housing register and Ms X remained living in her property.
35. Ms X did not follow up with the Council in the months after this to seek clarification or further help with her housing situation.

August 2023 – second request for housing support

36. Ms X next contacted the Council’s housing team again in August 2023, when her landlord issued her with an eviction notice. Ms X provided the Council with the eviction notice on 11 August 2023.
37. Four days later a housing officer told her she did not have a local connection, so she should apply to another Council. The Council later accepted this advice was fault, as local connection is not a criteria for making homelessness enquiries.
38. Ms X insisted that a homelessness application be taken and the Council carried out an assessment on 25 August 2023. It decided it owed her a prevention duty but did not send her a letter confirming this until October 2023.
39. On 2 October 2023 Ms X contacted the Council again. She said she did not feel safe in her home due to the ongoing risk of domestic abuse and said the landlord may soon seek a possession order. On this date Ms X also raised a complaint about her experience with the Council’s homelessness team.
40. The Council responded at the final stage of its complaints process on 16 November 2023. It accepted fault for giving incorrect advice and failing to communicate with her about the duties it owed her when she first approached it as homeless. It backdated her position of Band A on the housing register to November 2022, when she first applied for housing support due to domestic abuse.
41. It then backdated her joining date on the housing register another six months earlier, to May 2022, to improve her chance of being matched with a property. However the Council said despite her being in its highest priority band, it still may take her a long time to be rehoused due to the demand for social housing.
42. Ms X continues to live in her privately rented property as the landlord did not seek a possession order and is no longer pursuing the eviction. However Ms X says her landlord still ultimately seeks the property back and her living situation is insecure.
43. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman on 13 December 2023 as she said an appropriate remedy for the faults in this case would be for the Council to make her a suitable offer of social housing.
44. Ms X remains on the housing register and is bidding on properties. However in relation to her homelessness, according to a letter the Council sent us, the Council decided to end its prevention duty to her in February 2024. The Council decided there was a “reasonable prospect that she would be able to secure other suitable accommodation” as she “earns a good wage” which would be sufficient to rent locally. It said it was reasonable for her to remain in her current home in the meantime. The Council said it sent Ms X this letter in February 2024 but cannot provide evidence to confirm that it sent this. Ms X said she did not receive this letter.
45. Since Ms X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council has again apologised for its faults in this case and has offered to review this decision outside the statutory timeframe if requested.

Ms X’s child’s medical needs

46. During the period I am investigating Ms X also raised with the Council several times that the private property she was living in was no longer suitable for her child’s medical needs.
47. The Council decided on 29 November 2023 that it could not award Ms X Band A for medical reasons. The Council said while it agreed her child had several housing requirements due to their medical conditions which were not met in their current home, it could not award her Band A.
48. It said, “You have been assessed by a colleague at Leeds Housing Options and awarded Band A (urgent) priority due to being threatened with homelessness due to domestic abuse. Therefore, you no longer meet our criteria for a Medical Needs priority award.”
49. The Council told Ms X she could seek a statutory review of this decision within 28 days. Ms X did not request a review within the given timeframe, but did a few weeks later than this, in January 2024. This review has not been carried out.

My findings

Homelessness support

50. When Ms X’s landlord issued her with a section 21 eviction notice and Ms X sought help from the Council in August 2023, the Council refused to take a homelessness application. It told her to apply to another Council where she had a local connection. The Council has accepted this advice was fault. This fault caused Ms X frustration and distress.
51. When the Council later made homelessness enquiries after Ms X insisted it take an application, it decided it owed her a prevention duty due to the eviction notice. However it did not send her this decision in writing until almost two months later. This poor communication was fault and caused Ms X uncertainty and further frustration.
52. Ms X said the Council failed to send her a key decision letter again in February 2024 when it ended the prevention duty. I cannot come to a finding on whether this happened, even on balance, as the Council’s account contradicts Ms X’s and there is not enough evidence to confirm either position. However the Council has agreed to allow Ms X to request a review of this decision outside the usual timeframe regardless, which we agree would be appropriate action to take.
53. I have recommended a financial remedy and a service improvement in recognition of this and agree with the Council that it should offer Ms X a review of its February 2024 end of prevention decision outside the statutory timeframes.
54. If Ms X does not agree with the Council’s review decision on a point of law, we would expect her to use her right of appeal to county court to resolve this, unless she had a good reason for not being able to do so.

Domestic abuse

55. From October 2023, Ms X told the Council that in addition to the eviction notice, she needed to move due to domestic abuse. She said the most recent incident had been two months earlier and she remained at risk. The Council did not offer Ms X any interim accommodation while it made further enquiries into whether it was reasonable for her to continue living at the property.
56. On the balance of probabilities, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 16-20 of this decision, the threshold was met for the Council to make her an offer of interim accommodation at this time, while it gathered more information. The Council failed to provide interim accommodation and this was fault.
57. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities whether Ms X would have accepted this interim accommodation as she said she was seeking a move to more long-term social housing. I also cannot say whether the Council would have then gone on to decide it owed her a main housing duty after this. This is because in February 2024, the Council ended the prevention duty as it considered she was not homeless and could reasonably remain in her home.
58. However this was a missed opportunity and Ms X has been caused uncertainty by the Council’s fault, which is an injustice to her.

Ms X’s child’s medical needs

59. The Council decided in November 2023 that it could not award Ms X Band A due to her child’s medical needs because she had already been awarded Band A in another category (domestic abuse).
60. This decision does not take account of the discretion set out in the Council’s allocations policy to consider composite Band A needs which can lead to an award of Band A+. The Council failed to explain its decision properly with regards to its allocations policy. This was fault and has caused uncertainty to Ms X about whether the Council has properly considered her request for higher banding due to her child’s medical needs.
61. I cannot say, if not for this fault, what decision the Council would have come to regarding Ms X’s priority banding. Therefore I have recommended that the Council carry out this review again.

Back to top

Agreed action

62. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following actions:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the faults in this case;
2. Pay Ms X £250 to reflect the frustration and uncertainty she was caused by the Council’s incorrect advice and poor communication when she approached it for housing support;
3. Pay Ms X £350 to reflect the uncertainty and the missed opportunity caused by the Council failing to offer her interim accommodation in October 2023 when she raised concerns about domestic abuse;
4. Give Ms X the opportunity to request a review of its February 2024 decision to end its prevention duty. Its review should consider any risks of domestic abuse and clearly explain its reasons. The Council should consider whether to offer Ms X alternative accommodation pending review; and
5. Carry out a review of Ms X’s banding on the housing register, taking account of her child’s medical needs and any other relevant factors. This should consider whether the Council should exercise discretion to award composite banding. Any change in banding should be backdated accordingly.
63. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following actions:
1. If the Council changes its decision to end its prevention duty following its review and decides Ms X is eligible, homeless and in priority need, it should demonstrate that it has accepted a relief or main housing duty to her and that it offered the family interim or temporary accommodation without delay;
2. Remind all staff that deal with homeless applicants of practices which could be considered as “gatekeeping” such as wrongly telling homeless applicants to apply to another council before first making enquiries into their situation;
3. Remind homelessness staff that they must offer interim accommodation to applicants where they have reason to believe the person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need. It should remind staff that people who are homeless due to needing to flee domestic abuse are automatically in priority need;
4. Remind homelessness staff that they should issue duty decision letters at each stage of the homelessness process and clearly record their thinking regarding the duties the Council owes, including consideration of the Council’s duty to provide interim accommodation;
5. Demonstrate that it has investigated the reasons that duty letters were created in this case but not sent to the applicant until later, and show what action it has taken to resolve this issue; and
6. Remind housing allocations staff that when carrying out banding reviews for applicants on its housing register it should explain its reasoning in line with its allocations policy, including if relevant, why any composite banding needs either do or do not apply.
64. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

65. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and the Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, carry out reviews of key housing decisions and make service improvements.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman