The Investigation

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide sufficient support when he became homeless due to domestic abuse. In particular, it failed to:

• carry out a proper assessment of his housing circumstances;

• provide interim accommodation for a month;

• provide alternative interim accommodation when he told the Council the alleged perpetrator knew where he was living;

• book interim accommodation so he was street homeless for three days;

• assist him with the removal and storage of his belongings;

• deal with his request for a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation; and

• award band two priority to his housing register application.

2. Mr X considers the Council’s actions show it has discriminated against him as he was not treated the same way as a female survivor of domestic abuse. Mr X also considers the Council’s actions have caused the loss of his belongings, caused significant distress and put him at risk of harm and abuse.

Legal and administrative background

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We 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. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

5. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, Section 26D and 34E, as amended)

Relevant law and guidance

6. 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.

7. 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 21.25)

8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally 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)

9. 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)

10. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, Section 202) If the council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, Section 204)

11. Councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent a loss of a person’s property or to mitigate damage when it has reason to believe there is a danger that an applicant’s property will be lost or damaged. The danger arises as the applicant is unable to protect or deal with their property, for example, if they are ill or unable to afford to have it stored themselves, and no other suitable arrangements have been made. The duty applies when the council is subject to a homelessness duty including the duty to provide interim accommodation, the relief duty and the main housing duty. Councils can make a reasonable charge for the removal and storage of an applicant’s personal property. (Sections 211 and 212 of the Housing Act 1996 and 20.6 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance)

12. 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))

13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

How we considered this complaint

14. We have investigated events from January to October 2024.

15. We produced this report after examining relevant documents.

16. We gave Mr X and the Council a confidential draft of this report and invited their comments. The comments received were taken into account before the report was finalised.

What we found

Homelessness application

17. Mr X lived with a relative. In late January, he contacted the Council by telephone to make a homelessness application. Mr X said he told the Council that he was fleeing domestic abuse from the relative.

18. The Council arranged to carry out a homelessness assessment by telephone for Mr X at the beginning of February. Mr X said the assessing officer did not call him as arranged. Mr X then sent emails to the Council to ask when the assessment would take place. In his email of 8 February, Mr X said the Council should provide him with interim accommodation as he had priority need due to domestic abuse.

19. The Council contacted Mr X the following day to carry out a homelessness assessment. Mr X said he told the assessing officer that he was fleeing domestic abuse. The Council’s records do not note any details of the assessment. The Council did not offer interim accommodation to Mr X at this time.

20. On 27 February, the Council carried out another homelessness assessment and accepted the relief duty. It also referred Mr X to a single homelessness project as one of the Council’s steps to relieve his homelessness. The Council’s records of the assessment noted Mr X was fleeing domestic abuse. The Council did not provide interim accommodation to Mr X at this time.

21. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision to refer him to the single homelessness project. The Council upheld Mr X’s review request. In its letter notifying Mr X of the decision the Council noted he was fleeing domestic abuse. But the Council did not offer him interim accommodation.

22. Mr X’s representative contacted the Council to warn he may judicially review the Council’s decision not to provide interim accommodation for Mr X. On 13 March, the Council provided interim accommodation to Mr X in bed and breakfast accommodation. We will call this hotel A. This was approximately six weeks after Mr X first made his homelessness application.

23. Shortly after moving into hotel A, Mr X told the Council that he was at risk as his relative was aware of his location. Mr X said he did not receive a response and he remained at hotel A.

24. Mr X also told the Council that he needed help with the removal and storage of his personal property. Mr X said the Council told him that he needed to make an upfront payment of £500 for the removal and storage of his property. Mr X said he could not afford the charges so he lost his property.

25. In early July, the Council told Mr X that it needed to move him from hotel A to hotel B. Mr X said he contacted the Council as he considered hotel B was unsuitable for his needs, but it did not respond. The Council did not confirm the booking at hotel B. Mr X said that as a result he was street homeless for three days during which time he was assaulted. The Council said Mr X did not move into hotel B when it offered the accommodation to him.

26. In mid-July, the Council accepted the main housing duty to Mr X and offered hotel B as temporary accommodation. Mr X requested a review of the suitability of hotel

B. The Council concluded hotel B was unsuitable for Mr X.

Housing register application

27. Mr X applied to the Council’s housing register in February. The Council considered he qualified for the housing register and placed him in band 4 which is the band for applicants owed the relief duty. The Council then placed Mr X in band 3 when it accepted the main housing duty.

28. Mr X requested that the Council increase his priority to band two as he considered his medical conditions were adversely affected by his housing. The Council’s independent medical advisor considered Mr X’s case and noted he was vulnerable due to his medical conditions. But the independent medical advisor did not make specific housing recommendations to the Council. In August, the Council notified Mr X that he would remain in band 3.

29. Mr X requested a review of this decision. The Council has not provided any evidence to show it has carried out the review.

Complaint

30. Mr X made a complaint to the Council as he believed the Council failed to consider his circumstances when carrying out a homelessness assessment. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint through its two stage complaints procedure. It partially upheld his complaint and offered a total payment of £325.

31. In July, Mr X made a further complaint to the Council about its failure to contact him about hotel B which meant he was street homeless for three days. The Council acknowledged it had failed to book hotel B, so it did not provide interim accommodation for three days. It noted Mr X declined the accommodation when it was reoffered. The Council offered a payment of £100 to Mr X to acknowledge he may not have been street homeless if it had completed the booking of hotel B.

32. In response to our enquiries, the Council said:

• it accepted it owed a duty to provide interim accommodation to Mr X from 1 March. It was unable to explain the delay in offering interim accommodation;

• officers made enquiries when Mr X notified it that his relative was aware he was living at hotel A. They concluded that Mr X would not be at risk of domestic abuse if he continued to occupy hotel A;

• its policy is to recover the actual cost of removals and storage of applicants’ personal belongings from the applicant; and

• over the last six months it has taken an average of 119 days to make a main housing duty decision after the 56 day relief duty ended. The Council is recruiting additional staff to meet demand for the service and avoid delays in decision making.

Conclusions

Homelessness assessment and interim accommodation

33. There is no record of Mr X’s homelessness assessment of 9 February. There is also no evidence to show the Council assessed the risk from domestic abuse to Mr X at this time. So, we cannot be satisfied, even on balance, that the Council properly considered the circumstances that led to Mr X’s homelessness. This was fault.

34. The Council delayed in considering its duty to provide interim accommodation to Mr X. The Council’s record of Mr X’s initial contact in late January does not record he was fleeing domestic abuse. So, on balance, we consider Mr X did not disclose domestic abuse at this time. But the emails provided by Mr X show he disclosed domestic abuse to the Council on 8 February. There is no evidence to show the Council considered if it had a duty to offer interim accommodation at this time. This was fault.

35. The Council did not consider its duty to offer interim accommodation to Mr X following its further homelessness assessment of late February. The Council’s records show Mr X disclosed the domestic abuse during the assessment and it referred to the domestic abuse in its review decision letter. It is concerning that officers did not recognise Mr X may be in priority need as he was fleeing domestic abuse, so it had a duty to offer interim accommodation. This was fault.

36. The threshold for triggering the interim accommodation duty is low as the Council only needs a reason to believe the applicant may be homeless and may be in priority need. The Homelessness Code of Guidance provides that a council should provide interim accommodation immediately if there is evidence that would give the authority reason to believe an applicant may be homeless due to domestic abuse. We therefore consider, on balance, that the Council would have offered interim accommodation to Mr X from 8 February if it had properly considered its duty at this time. As a result, Mr X was denied interim accommodation between 8 February and 13 March and he was street homeless for five weeks.

37. Mr X said the Council discriminated against him as it did not treat him the same as it would treat women fleeing domestic abuse. As explained above, the Council was at fault as it did not consider its duty to offer interim accommodation when Mr X disclosed domestic abuse. But there is no evidence to show the fault was caused by the Council discriminating against Mr X because of his gender.

38. The Council said that officers considered Mr X’s concerns about his relative being aware that he was at hotel A. They did not consider he was at risk of domestic abuse, so the accommodation was suitable. There is no evidence to show how the Council reached this view, how it assessed the risk to Mr X and why it considered he was not at risk. So, we cannot be satisfied the Council properly assessed the risk to Mr X and this was fault. There is also no evidence to show how the Council notified Mr X of this decision. We cannot know, on balance, if the Council would have considered hotel A remained suitable if it had properly assessed the risks to Mr X. But the fault meant Mr X did not know if the Council would be moving him. This will have caused distress to Mr X.

39. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council acknowledged that it failed to book hotel B when Mr X’s stay at hotel A came to an end. So, Mr X did not have accommodation for three days which will have caused him distress. We understand Mr X did not move into hotel B when the Council offered it to him again. So, we cannot conclude, on balance, that the Council’s failure to book hotel B caused him to be street homeless.

Main housing duty

40. The Homelessness Code of Guidance provides that councils should be able to notify applicants whether it accepts the main housing duty 57 days after accepting the relief duty. The Council accepted the relief duty to Mr X on 27 February. The Council should have decided whether it owed the main housing duty 57 days later, by late April. It did not do so until July which was a delay of three months. This was fault which will have caused distress and uncertainty to Mr X. It also delayed Mr X’s right to seek a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation.

41. The Council said it is taking action to deal with the current delays in making main housing duty decisions. But the delays will cause injustice to other applicants, so we are recommending improvements in this area.

Mr X’s request for the Council to store his personal property

42. The Council’s policy on the storage of applicants’ personal property does not meet its duties under Sections 211 and 212 of the Housing Act 1996 to take reasonable steps to protect personal property. The Council’s policy provides that it will charge applicants the actual costs of the service and its procedure shows it requires those costs to be paid upfront. But an applicant may not be able to protect their property if they cannot afford storage fees.

43. The Council can make reasonable charges for storage, but it should take into account an applicant’s personal circumstances. This includes how much they can pay. The Council risks fettering its discretion if it requires all applicants to pay the actual charges, and upfront, without considering their individual circumstances including their ability to pay. So, the Council’s policy means it is not meeting its duty to take reasonable steps to protect the personal property of applicants who cannot protect it themselves. This is fault.

44. Mr X said the Council told him he had to pay £500 upfront for the Council to protect his property. There is no evidence to show what the Council told Mr X. But we consider, on balance, the Council told Mr X that he needed to pay the actual charges upfront as this was consistent with its policy. The Council therefore failed to properly consider its duty to protect Mr X’s property. As a result, Mr X lost his personal property. We cannot know what property Mr X lost, or its value, so we are recommending a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress caused.

Mr X’s request for a review of his housing priority

45. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision of August not to increase his priority to band 2. There is no evidence to show the Council considered Mr X’s request. This was fault which will have caused distress and uncertainty to Mr X.

Recommendations

46. The Council must consider the report and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. The Council should consider the report at its full Council, Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and we will require evidence of this. (Local Government Act 1974, Section 31(2), as amended)

47. In addition to the requirements set out above, the Council has agreed to take the following action within three months of the date of this report.

• Send a written apology to Mr X to acknowledge the distress and loss of opportunity caused to him by the faults identified above. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology we have recommended in our findings.

• Make a symbolic payment of £800 to Mr X to acknowledge the distress caused to him by being street homeless for five weeks longer than necessary. This payment is in line with our guidance on remedies which recommends payments in the range of £150 to £350 a month plus a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress caused by being street homeless.

• Make a symbolic payment of £800 to acknowledge the distress caused by the Council’s failure to properly consider the risk to Mr X from his relative, failure to book hotel B for three nights, delay in accepting the main housing duty and by its failure to properly consider its duty to protect Mr X’s property. We generally recommend payment of up to £500 for distress. But we consider it is proportionate to recommend a higher payment to recognise the cumulative effect of the faults on Mr X and that they occurred at a stressful period for him.

• Consider Mr X’s request of August 2024 for a review of the Council’s decision to place him in band 3

• By training or other means, remind officers of the low threshold for triggering the Council’s duty to offer interim accommodation when an applicant first makes their homelessness application. It should also remind officers of the provisions of Section 21.25 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance when dealing with applicants who may be fleeing domestic abuse.

• Draw up an action plan with target timescales to reduce the Council’s delays in considering the main housing duty to ensure it is making these decisions within the required timescales.

• Review its policy on the protection of property for people to whom it has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect property. This is to ensure the Council’s policy meets its duties under Section 211 and 212 of the Housing Act 1996.

Decision

48. We have completed our investigation into this complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council should take the action identified at paragraph 47 to remedy that injustice.

Print this page