Summary: The Council failed to provide Ms X with interim accommodation when she first tried to flee domestic abuse. Ms X also experienced several months without hot water in her hostel accommodation due to service failure. The Council was not at fault for the restrictions the hostel placed on visitors attending the accommodation. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £850 and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. When Ms X fled domestic abuse in 2023, Ms X complained the Council:
1. failed to provide her with any interim accommodation when she first approached it as homeless in July 2023;
2. failed to provide suitable interim accommodation in September 2023 as the property had no hot water and she was not allowed visitors, and;
3. failed to backdate her housing register priority to the date she first applied as homeless.
2. Ms X said the Council’s faults caused her to return to the accommodation where she was experiencing abuse for several months, put her at risk of harm and caused her a period of significant 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
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 provided by Ms X and the Council.
8. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
9. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
10. I considered all comments received by Ms X and the Council on a draft decision before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. 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. The definition of “priority need” includes those seeking assistance with homelessness after fleeing domestic abuse. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
13. If a council is satisfied the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it will owe a relief duty. This duty means a council must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
14. If homelessness is not successfully prevented or relieved, a council will owe a main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
15. 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)

Domestic abuse and homelessness

16. The Code sets out in chapter 21 how councils should approach cases involving applicants who are homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse. It says:
• If there is evidence that would give the authority reason to believe the applicant may be homeless as a result of domestic abuse the authority should make interim accommodation available to the applicant immediately whilst they undertake their investigations (21.25);
• It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against an individual (21.18); and
• Councils should be aware that the initial approach by the applicant may be the first time a victim has disclosed their abuse and that the period during which a victim is planning or making their exit, is often the most dangerous time for them (21.32).

What happened

17. Ms X approached the Council in person and said she was homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse from a family member in July 2023. On that day the Council completed an accommodation form and noted that she was homeless, in priority need, at risk of harm and was a victim of domestic abuse. It noted that she required interim accommodation and some areas were unsafe for her.
18. Ms X said the Council informed her there was no interim accommodation available at all that day. The Council’s records say that it offered Ms X interim accommodation, but only in an area that was unsafe for her due to domestic abuse which Ms X declined. It says it then told her it had no other accommodation available.
19. The Council told Ms X she should stay with family or friends if she could not return home. Ms X said she could not stay with any family or friends as they would inform the alleged perpetrator where she had gone. However as nothing was available Ms X returned to the property and continued to live with the alleged perpetrator for two more months.
20. The Council contacted Ms X the day after her initial approach to offer alternative interim accommodation. However at that time Ms X said she no longer wanted to continue with her homelessness application. The Council did not keep a record showing what advice it gave during the first approach, or in the call the next day, it did not detail any safety checks it made, or record details of the interim accommodation it offered the day after her initial approach.
21. Shortly after, the Council made a “not homeless” decision. In its decision it said it had no reason to believe she was homeless or threatened with homelessness because when she was offered accommodation, she said she “did not want to proceed with the homeless application”.
22. Ms X approached the Council as homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse again in September 2023. She also raised a formal complaint. In her complaint she said she should have been provided with somewhere to stay when she first approached in July 2023 and asked for something to be provided now.
23. The Council recorded Ms X’s homeless approach and that she could safely stay at home for a few days while the alleged perpetrator was away. Ms X accepted interim accommodation shortly after in a hostel. The Council accepted a relief duty and then accepted a main housing duty in November.
24. Ms X reported to the hostel’s manager that her hot water was not working after she moved in. A contractor attended within days and ordered parts for the repair. By early October the repairs still had not been carried out and Ms X contacted the Council. The Council responded to say the contractor was aware but was still awaiting the necessary parts.
25. Ms X chased the Council again in mid-October as the issue was ongoing and she had been showering at a gym for several weeks. The Council offered Ms X a move to an alternative hostel but she said she would prefer to stay where she was and wait for the water to be fixed.
26. The contractor carried out several different repairs over several visits between October and December but most were unsuccessful and Ms X continued using the showers at a gym.
27. The contractor successfully repaired the hot water by mid-December 2023, meaning Ms X was without hot water - or only had intermittent hot water - for almost three months. A different issue impacted the entire building’s water between early to mid-March 2024 but this was resolved within two weeks and Ms X was placed in a hotel during this time.
28. Ms X also raised concerns with the Council about the hostel’s policy of not allowing visitors. She said she felt isolated in the accommodation and wanted to have some visitors as a means of support. The Council told Ms X that she could complete the hostel’s visitor request form. Ms X did this but her request was declined.
29. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint and apologised for her experience in July. However the Council repeated that the only accommodation available to Ms X that day were in her unsafe areas and she then withdrew her homeless application. The Council did not agree that it was at fault, or that her banding on the housing register should be backdated to her initial approach in July 2023.
30. Regarding the hot water, the Council apologised but said it had regularly followed up with the hostel and multiple repairs had been made to try and fix the issue. It said it had also offered Ms X an alternative hostel which she declined. Regarding the hostel’s visitor policy, it said this was in place due to the vulnerability of many residents including those who had fled abuse and was therefore in place for safety reasons.
31. Ms X was unhappy with this response and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Record keeping

32. Councils should record the advice they give to homeless applicants and details of any offers of accommodation they make in line with homelessness duties.
33. The Council could not provide any case records showing the advice it gave Ms X during her initial homeless approach at the Council’s offices in July 2023, the details of the interim accommodation it offered the following day, or any of the advice it gave to her once it became aware she had returned to the alleged perpetrator’s property.
34. This was poor record keeping by the Council and was fault. This fault has caused Ms X frustration, uncertainty and has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate this part of her complaint. I have come to my findings regarding July 2023 based on other evidence received.

Complaint 1a) failed to provide interim accommodation

35. When Ms X approached the Council as homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse, the Council had a duty to provide her with interim accommodation. That interim accommodation had to be suitable.
36. Ms X’s and the Council’s account of what was offered on this day differs and I have given equal weight to both accounts. However in neither account, was Ms X offered suitable interim accommodation. The Council failed to comply with its duties under homelessness legislation and this was fault.
37. As set out in paragraph 16 of this decision, the period when a person first discloses domestic abuse and plans to leave the perpetrator, is crucial and is also the most unsafe time for the victim. Instead of being provided with interim accommodation after Ms X approached the Council for support, she returned to the property she shared with the perpetrator later that day.
38. The Council offered Ms X another accommodation the day after but by this time Ms X had returned to her home and when asked, said she wanted to withdraw her application. Due to the record keeping failure referenced earlier we do not know what kind of offer was made, or what further advice or information Ms X was provided with during this conversation. We also cannot know how much having avoidably returned to the property where she was experiencing abuse affected Ms X’s judgment and therefore her decision about fleeing the following day.
39. The Council’s failure to offer interim accommodation at the earliest point caused Ms X distress and was a missed opportunity for her to flee domestic abuse sooner.

Complaint 1b) failed to provide suitable interim accommodation

40. Hot water repairs: The case records show there were valid reasons for the length of time it took the contractor to resolve the hot water issue. The Council regularly followed up with the hostel regarding the repairs to the hot water. It also offered Ms X alternative accommodation but she declined this and said she would prefer to stay where she was.
41. The issues repairing the hot water were outside of the Council’s control and amount to service failure. This service failure caused Ms X inconvenience and frustration and the Council should pay Ms X a symbolic financial remedy. However the amount of this remedy takes account of the fact Ms X may have been able to mitigate the impact of the injustice she experienced by accepting a move to alternative accommodation.
42. No visitors rule: In hostels where vulnerable people live, including people fleeing abuse, hostel management are entitled to set rules around visitation for safety reasons. In refuges these rules can be even more restrictive for these purposes.
43. Ms X was aware of the visitors issue, as well as the hot water issue, when she was offered alternative accommodation by the Council and decided that still she would prefer to stay.
44. The Council considered the issue, followed up with the hostel, decided the hostel’s position was appropriate in balancing Ms X’s needs against the needs of other residents. It also offered Ms X alternative accommodation. This was appropriate action to take. The Council was not at fault.

Complaint 1c) failed to backdate her housing register priority to the date she first applied as homeless

45. In recognition of the uncertainty and distress caused by the Council’s faults in this case, I have made a recommendation for the Council to backdate Ms X’s joining date on the housing register, to the date she would have joined, had the homelessness process begun when she first approached for help in July 2023.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. 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;
2. Pay Ms X £150 in recognition of the uncertainty and frustration caused by the Council’s poor record keeping of its communications in July 2023;
3. Pay Ms X £500 to recognize the missed opportunity and distress caused by its failure to provide suitable interim accommodation in July 2023;
4. Pay Ms X £200 to reflect the frustration caused to her by the lack of hot water at her accommodation; and
5. Backdate Ms X’s joining date on the housing register, to the date she would have joined if the Council began the homelessness process from the date of her initial approach in July 2023.
47. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to remind homelessness staff:
1. of the importance of recording the advice it gives to homeless applicants when they approach as homeless, including details of accommodation offered to people fleeing domestic abuse;
2. that interim accommodation offered to eligible homeless applicants must be suitable, meaning if a person is fleeing domestic abuse, they must be offered accommodation where they will not be put at risk, including making a booking into a hotel if needed; and
3. of the importance, as set out in the Code at 21.32, of being aware that the most crucial and dangerous period for victims of domestic abuse is when they first make plans to flee, and for officers to be aware of this when taking an initial homelessness application.
48. 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.
49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and the Council agreed to apologise, pay 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