Summary: The Council’s failure to decide whether it owed Mr X a homelessness duty in 2022 was fault. It failed to recognise that he was homeless because of domestic abuse and failed to provide interim accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate Mr X’s housing application, make a payment and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed to recognise he was homeless as a result of domestic abuse. It did not accept his application or arrange interim accommodation.
2. Mr X said that, because of Council failings, he had to sleep in his car 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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 complaint and the information Mr X and the Council provided.
7. I referred to relevant law, policy, and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Mr 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

Homeless law and guidance

10. 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.
11. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain 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)
12. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
13. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. A person who is homeless because of being a victim of domestic abuse is in priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
14. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
15. 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 usually lasts 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

What happened

16. Until August 2022, Mr X lived with his sibling in a property owned by another family member, who I will call Y. Mr X says he left the property because verbal abuse and threats of violence from his sibling made him fear for his safety.
17. Mr X contacted the Council in September 2022. The Council’s records say he told the Council he was sleeping in his car because of a “feud” with his sibling. The Council booked Mr X an appointment with a letting agent to discuss private rented accommodation. It took no further action.
18. Mr X contacted the Council again in October. He said the accommodation available from the letting agent was too expensive. In a follow up email, the Council provided Mr X with details of a hostel, which would cost £150 a week. It noted Mr X had refused this when offered. It said it would request an officer be assigned to his case and asked him to complete an application to the Council’s housing register.
19. In November, Mr X contacted the Council again. The Council asked for Y’s details. Mr X complained to the Council that he had been homeless since August and the Council had taken no steps to help him.
20. The Council responded to his complaint in December. It said it had given him appropriate advice and information. It said it had allocated an officer to his case, who would do an affordability check to see how much he could afford to pay in rent.
21. The allocated officer spoke to Mr X on the phone the next day. The records show Mr X told the Council Y owned the property but did not live there. He had lived there with his sibling. But he did not want his sibling to know where he was.
22. The Council asked for various documents from Mr X to support his homeless application and an application to the housing register. This included proof of his address history, income, and contact details for Y.
23. Mr X provided proof of his income and address history. He told the Council he did not know Y’s contact details.
24. At the end of January 2023, the Council wrote Mr X a letter. This said it had decided it had no reason to believe he was homeless. It said that Mr X told it he had left his previous address because of a family breakdown with Y. It said he had refused to provide Y’s details so the Council could confirm this. All the documents he provided showed that address.
25. The same day, Mr X emailed the Council. He asked how he could complain or appeal against the decision.
26. Mr X contacted the Council again in February. He said:
• He had been homeless since September 2022 and asked the Council for help several times but it did not help him
• It took the Council from September to January to make a decision on his case
• It did not give him a right to review that decision
• The officer had wrongly said he was homeless because of a disagreement with Y and ignored the domestic abuse from his sibling.
27. The Council did not respond to this email.
28. Mr X made another complaint to the Council in January 2024. The Council’s stage one response did not uphold the complaint. It said it asked Mr X for information which he didn’t provide and there was no indication Mr X told it about domestic abuse. It said it would raise a new case.
29. A week later, the Council accepted the relief duty and Mr X joined the housing register. The Council decided Mr X was not in priority need because the domestic abuse he disclosed happened in 2022 and he was no longer at risk.
30. In response to Mr X’s stage two complaint, the Council said:
• He had no right of review because it closed the case as advice only
• It accepted it didn’t respond to Mr X’s email in February 2022 and this was fault
• It had implemented training for its staff

My findings

31. Mr X complained about matters from 2022. This means part of the complaint is late. We can exercise discretion to investigate late complaints if there is a good reason the person didn’t complain sooner. In this case, Mr X asked how to appeal or complain in January and February 2023 and the Council failed to respond. This was in time for the events complained about. Mr X was homeless and managing a mental health condition. Taken together, these are good reasons his complaint was late and so I have exercised discretion to investigate. The Council has all the relevant records and so the passage of time has not affected my ability to reach sound conclusions.
32. The Council has a duty to make inquiries and decide what, if any, further duty it owes if it has reason to believe someone might be homeless. This is a low threshold. The information the Council had about Mr X in September 2022 met this low threshold. Failure to make a decision carrying a statutory right of review was fault.
33. The Council repeated this failure in October and November. Despite telling Mr X in October that it would refer his case to an officer, the Council did not do so until December, after he complained. This was fault.
34. The Council offered Mr X interim accommodation in October. However, it told Mr X this would be expensive. Accommodation provided to homeless people must be suitable. There is no evidence the Council considered Mr X’s finances to establish what he could afford to pay. Nor did it give him any advice or information about his entitlement to housing benefit. This was fault. It denied Mr X the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to accept the accommodation.
35. The Council told Mr X it would do an income and expenditure assessment to check what was affordable in December 2022. There is no evidence it did so. This was fault.
36. The evidence shows no real discussion with Mr X about the reasons for his homelessness or why he left the property shared with his sibling. Nor did it explain why it needed Y’s contact information. Mr X told the Council he didn’t want his sibling to know where he was. This should have prompted the Council to ask why. That the Council did not have a good understanding of Mr X’s circumstances is demonstrated in the January 2023 letter in which it says Mr X was homeless because of a dispute with Y. Mr X had never told the Council anything about Y except that they owned the house.
37. In response to his complaint, the Council said Mr X never told it about domestic abuse. But it failed to give him the opportunity to do so. This was fault.
38. Mr X did tell the Council, explicitly, about domestic abuse in his email in February 2023. The Council accepts it failed to respond to or act on this email. This was fault. The Council should have contacted Mr X, made inquiries and decided whether it owed him a duty.

Injustice

39. If the Council had acted without fault, it would have made proper inquiries into Mr X’s circumstances in September 2022. This would have included the circumstances leading to his homelessness. On balance, had it done so, it would have accepted Mr X was homeless and accepted the relief duty. It should have issued a personalised housing plan with steps for Mr X and the Council to take to relieve his homelessness, including support to apply to the housing register. It did not do so until February 2024. This delay of 16 months denied Mr X statutory review rights and delayed his access to the housing register. This is a significant injustice to Mr X.
40. The Council’s recent decision that Mr X is not priority need was based on the passage of time since 2022. It appears, therefore, that the Council now accepts Mr X was a victim of domestic abuse in 2022. On balance, therefore, had it made proper inquiries and explored with Mr X the reasons for his homelessness, it would have had reason to believe he was in priority need in 2022. It would therefore have had a duty to provide suitable interim accommodation. I cannot say Mr X would have accepted this, but the uncertainty and missed opportunity is an injustice.
41. The Council’s 2024 decision that Mr X is not in priority need carried a statutory right of review which it was reasonable for him to use.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Backdate Mr X’s priority on the housing register to September 2022
• Pay Mr X £300 in recognition of his missed statutory review rights and the distress caused by the Council’s failure to respond to him in February 2023
• Pay Mr X £500 in recognition of the uncertainty, missed opportunity, and distress caused by the Council’s failure to make proper inquiries into his circumstances and offer interim accommodation.
43. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
44. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind relevant staff of the low threshold to trigger the Council’s duty to make inquiries into possible homelessness and that where this threshold is met, the Council must issue a decision with a statutory right of review.
• Remind relevant staff that inquiries into homelessness should include giving the applicant the opportunity to provide relevant details and context.
• Remind relevant staff that victims of domestic abuse may not disclose abuse directly or voluntarily and that officers should exhibit appropriate professional curiosity to explore the reasons for apparent reluctance or refusal to provide information.
45. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

46. 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