Summary: The Council failed to seek evidence about the domestic abuse Ms X reported in a trauma-informed way. This caused her avoidable distress while she sought homelessness support. The Council also failed to notify her of a key decision in relation to her homelessness, failed to offer her interim accommodation and gave her incomplete advice about her housing options. In recognition of the uncertainty, frustration and distress caused the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £850 and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed increasing her priority banding on the housing register despite her informing the Council she needed to move urgently due to risk of domestic abuse.
2. Ms X said due to the Council’s faults she went on to experience domestic abuse at her address and had to flee her home. Ms X said the Council’s actions caused her 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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation into a matter if we decide it was reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. The Council told Ms X in October 2023 that it had ended its prevention duty to her following her homelessness application from June 2023, as it said she was not at imminent risk of domestic abuse. It also told her she did not meet the criteria to have her priority banding on the housing register increased. The Council informed Ms X of her right to request a review of these decisions. Ms X disagreed with these decisions but did not request a review.
7. It was reasonable for Ms X to use her rights of review and the Ombudsman should not act as an alternative appeals body where a person can seek such reviews. For the reasons set out in our role and powers paragraphs above, I have not investigated the Council’s decisions from October 2023 about Ms X’s homelessness or her banding.
8. I have investigated Ms X’s complaints about her experience with this Council where the Council’s decisions were not subject to a review right that it was reasonable to have used.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
10. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
11. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
12. I considered all comments made 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

13. 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.
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, the council must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps to take, councils must assess the applicants’ case and have regard to their needs. This is called the prevention duty and applies for a period of 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 195).
15. If a housing authority 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)
16. 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. 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)
17. 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. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
18. Under this duty, councils do not have to provide a permanent secure or assured tenancy. Many accepted homeless households remain in temporary accommodation with limited security of tenure for a long time while they bid for permanent housing through the authority’s housing allocations scheme.

Interim accommodation and domestic abuse

19. The Domestic Abuse Act received Royal Assent on 29 April 2021, at which point most of its provisions became law. A key provision for councils is that it 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.
20. If a housing authority 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)

Evidence in domestic abuse homelessness cases

21. The Homelessness Code of Guidance (the Code) says councils should obtain an account of the domestic abuse and support the victim to outline their experience. However it says if the applicant’s experience has been documented already by a domestic abuse service – where possible – councils should utilise existing statements to avoid asking the victim to re-live their experience unnecessarily.
22. The Code says councils should not have a blanket approach toward domestic abuse which requires corroborative or police evidence to be provided, as in some cases this kind of evidence is not available due to lack of adult witnesses or victims being too afraid to report incidents to the police.

Review rights for homelessness decisions

23. 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.
24. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of several decisions, including bringing the prevention duty to an end. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)

Allocations

25. 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 the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
26. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Review rights for allocations decisions

27. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
28. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Blaby District Council’s housing allocations policy, 2023

29. This Council prioritises applicants using a banding system. Its bands are:
• Low housing need
• Medium housing need
• High housing need
• Priority housing need
30. An applicant will be considered to be in “high” housing need, if they have two or more needs from its medium housing band. This can include if they are both, homeless, and have a welfare need to move. A welfare need to move can include suffering harassment, with a need to move because of this.
31. An applicant will be considered to be in “priority” housing need, if they have a more urgent welfare need to move. The Council calls this an emergency welfare need and can include if the applicant is subject to “severe” harassment, threats of violence, actual violence or threats of abuse.

What happened

2023

32. During the period I am investigating Ms X was living in a housing association property.
33. On 8 June 2023 Ms X told the Council she had been experiencing domestic abuse. Ms X said the alleged perpetrator lived outside the home but she no longer felt safe in her property as they knew where she lived.
34. A housing officer carried out an assessment on same day and advised her to make a homelessness application. The next day the Council decided she was eligible, there was reason to believe she may be homeless due to harassment by the alleged perpetrator and that she was in priority need due to experiencing domestic abuse. It passed this onto the homelessness team on the same day.
35. Shortly after, the homelessness team contacted the police to seek more evidence about the type of abuse Ms X had disclosed. The police responded on 20 June to say it had been responding to ongoing reports by Ms X against the alleged perpetrator and associates which had led to Ms X being physically assaulted in the past.
36. On 22 June, the Council contacted Ms X and told her if she wanted to leave her home, she could go into a refuge, find a privately-rented property or approach another council as homeless. Ms X said these options were not suitable and she would stay in her home. The Council did not offer Ms X any interim accommodation and closed her case. It did not send her a letter informing her it was doing this.
37. The Council sent Ms X an email later that day repeating the housing options from the phone call and said she could ask her housing association if it could transfer her to another property.
38. Ms X provided further evidence to the Council from her psychiatrist in August 2023. This said she had received mental health support for years and had recently left an abusive relationship. The psychiatrist said Ms X had a lot of anxiety about the alleged perpetrator targeting her in her home.
39. In early September 2023 Ms X chased the Council to see if it had received her psychiatrist’s evidence and asked if the evidence could lead her to her priority band on the housing register being increased.
40. A case note following this shows a housing officer noting that Ms X was already in “high” band category on the housing register and was advised to apply as homeless in June in response to recent reports of domestic abuse. However they said her housing officer had closed her previous homelessness case and they were “not entirely sure why”.
41. On 8 September 2023 the Council carried out another homelessness assessment with Ms X and told her it owed her a prevention duty and sent her a letter confirming this and a personalised housing plan. The Council asked Ms X for more evidence relating to the domestic abuse.
42. According to the Council’s records, the domestic abuse service supporting Ms X carried out a risk assessment with Ms X in late September 2023 which scored her risk as “standard”, meaning current evidence does not indicate likelihood of serious harm. However the domestic abuse service did say Ms X required a move to alternative accommodation.
43. The Council contacted Ms X’s landlord who offered Ms X another property through its management transfer process. This was a two-bedroom property outside this Council’s area. Ms X declined as she had been assessed as needing a three-bedroom property and did not want to leave the area.
44. On 3 October 2023 the Council told Ms X it had ended its prevention duty to her following her homelessness application from June 2023. It said this was because she was not, “fleeing this property or at imminent risk or threat within your current home”.
45. The Council also informed Ms X it had decided she did not meet the criteria to have her priority banding increased as she did not have an “emergency welfare need” as set out in its allocations policy.
46. The Council told Ms X of her right to request a review of these decisions. Ms X did not request a review.

2024

47. On 29 January 2024 the domestic abuse service which had previously assessed Ms X’s risk from domestic abuse as relatively low, wrote to the Council to say due to more recent incidents including the alleged perpetrator tracking her location and their associates targeting her in public, Ms X required an urgent move to an address not known to the perpetrators.
48. The Council asked Ms X to make another homelessness application. This time the Council sent her a questionnaire to complete, asking her to provide considerable detail of all the forms of abuse she had experienced.
49. It asked her to outline what forms of abuse she had experienced, including dates of incidents and details, across six categories, including sexual, physical and emotional abuse. The Council said if she did not complete this questionnaire in seven days it would close her application.
50. Ms X completed and returned this questionnaire on 21 February, which she said she found traumatising as it caused her to relive all of her previous abuse. The Council told the Ombudsman it has since changed this questionnaire.
51. On 11 March 2024, the domestic abuse service again emailed the Council. They said there had been another incident in February, this time of Ms X being targeted at the property and Ms X was experiencing a significant deterioration in her mental health due to experiencing trauma flashbacks in the property.
52. Following a face-to-face meeting with several attendees from the Council and people supporting Ms X, the Council decided to change its position on 12 March 2024. It decided Ms X had a “priority” housing need and increased her priority band on the housing register and backdated this.
53. The Council offered Ms X interim accommodation in a hotel but Ms X said this type of accommodation would not be suitable and instead she has been staying with relatives while bidding for longer-term properties.

Back to top

My findings

June 2023 homelessness application

54. When Ms X approached the Council for assistance in June 2023, the Council had reason to believe she may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, due to her raising that she was at risk of domestic abuse.
55. The low threshold to offer interim accommodation was met but the Council failed to offer Ms X interim accommodation. This was fault.
56. The Council also failed to inform Ms X of all her housing options at this time, including interim accommodation, and temporary accommodation if a main housing duty was accepted, which would have to be suitable for her family’s needs while she bid for properties on the housing register.
57. In this case I cannot say, even on balance, whether Ms X would have accepted interim accommodation if it was offered to her at this time. The later evidence suggests Ms X’s preference was for a move to more permanent accommodation and Ms X refused interim accommodation when offered much later in 2024.
58. However the evidence also shows Ms X was not made aware of all her housing options in 2023 and we cannot know if she may have made a different decision if not for this. Instead Ms X has been caused uncertainty about whether she could have left her home sooner than she did at a time when she felt unsafe in her home.

Failure to send letter and inform of review rights

59. When Ms X did not agree to any of the housing options put forward by her housing officer in June 2023, the housing officer closed her case and ended the prevention duty it had accepted, without telling her.
60. The Council should have updated Ms X of this decision in writing and told her of her right to request a review of the decision. Not doing so was fault. This fault caused Ms X uncertainty and frustration.

Evidence requested by the Council

61. The Code is clear that when housing officers are assessing domestic abuse, previous statements should be utilised where possible and councils should avoid asking applicants to relive their experiences unnecessarily.
62. The case records show that Ms X was several times asked to explain and evidence the domestic abuse in this case. In 2024 the domestic abuse service supporting Ms X told the Council about an increased risk to Ms X and provided details of the incidents. However Ms X was still asked to complete a long questionnaire about the abuse which Ms X said she found re-traumatising.
63. The Council already had multiple statements by that point giving accounts of the abuse and risks reported by Ms X. It also could have sought additional detail if needed from the domestic abuse service. This questionnaire was not a trauma-informed document given the level of detail it sought. Seeking evidence in this way from Ms X was not in line with the Code and was fault. This fault caused Ms X distress.

Back to top

Agreed action

64. Within one month 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 £850 to reflect the distress and uncertainty caused to her by the Council’s faults.
65. Within three months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. remind all homelessness staff of the low threshold to offer interim accommodation to applicants, including in cases where there is reason to believe someone may be homeless due to domestic abuse;
2. ensure that training in trauma-informed communication is made available to its homelessness staff that communicate with domestic abuse victims; and
3. demonstrate that it has taken action to prevent officers in future failing to issue prevention duty decisions in writing to applicants along with their review rights.
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 an apology, a financial remedy and service improvements.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman