Summary: The Council's delay providing Miss X with interim accommodation when she was homeless because of domestic abuse was fault. This left Miss X living with avoidable fear of further abuse for 24 days. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X. It should also act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council delayed providing interim accommodation when she was homeless because of domestic abuse.
2. Miss X also complained that the Council displayed a lack of awareness and understanding about domestic abuse and the risk to victims.
3. As a result, Miss X says she and her child spent 24 days living in fear.

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 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)
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 Miss X provided.
7. I considered the information the Council provided along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Miss 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

Homelessness law and guidance

10. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) 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. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
13. 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 paragraph 21.25)

What happened

14. Miss X is a UK national. She lived abroad with her now ex-partner and their child. In Spring 2024, Miss X and her child returned to the UK to escape domestic abuse. Miss X went to stay with a family member.
15. Miss X approached the Council as homeless a few days after landing in the UK. She told the Council about the domestic abuse. She provided details of ongoing threats from her ex-partner, who knew the address of her family member and made specific threats towards her there. Miss X provided a police crime reference number and the name of the officer dealing with her case.
16. The Council triaged Miss X and offered her an appointment in early April. Its notes record that it had reason to believe she might be eligible, homeless and in priority need. The Council's internal communication shows it intended to offer Miss X interim accommodation the next day. It advised Miss X of this.
17. The next day, however, the Council reversed this decision. This is because it was not satisfied Miss X was eligible. UK nationals who have recently returned from living abroad will only be eligible for assistance if they are "habitually resident" in the UK. "Habitually resident" is not defined in law. It is a question of fact for the Council to decide whether Miss X had acquired habitual residence. The Code of Guidance says factors relevant to this include:
• How long the person has been out of the country
• How long they have been back
• The reason for their return
• The ties and connections they retained the UK while abroad
• The intended permanence of their return

(Homelessness Code of Guidance, Annexe 1)

18. Miss X contacted the Council a few days later. The Council explained the issue of habitual residence. It noted that Miss X was upset as she "was under [the] impression she would be offered accommodation". Miss X told the Council she didn’t think it had made sufficient inquiries. The Council's records say it asked Miss X to provide various documents.
19. A week later, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) told Miss X it was satisfied she was habitually resident and therefore qualified for benefits.
20. A domestic abuse service working with Miss X contacted the Council. It advised that it considered Miss X was at high risk remaining with her family member. The Council's records say it told the service that it was waiting for Miss X to provide information about her eligibility. The same day, the DWP referred Miss X to the Council as homeless. The referral form set out information relevant to whether Miss X was habitually resident.
21. A few days later, Miss X spoke to the Council on the phone. She said she had emailed what she had been able to, as requested. She told the Council the DWP had confirmed her habitual residence.
22. Two days later, the Council had a telephone call with another council (Council B), which Miss X had also approached for help. Council B relayed information it had about the risk to Miss X. The Council told Council B that it was not satisfied Miss X was eligible and so could not provide interim accommodation. It also told Council B that Miss X had been at the address for three weeks and "nothing had happened". The implication being that she was not at immediate risk.
23. The same day, Miss X sent proof that the DWP considered she was habitually resident. The Council told Miss X it was now satisfied she was eligible.
24. The Council provided interim accommodation six days later.
25. Miss X complained to the Council about its delay providing interim accommodation and its approach to the risk of domestic abuse. In response to her complaint, the Council said:
• It did tell Council B that it did not consider she was at immediate risk because the perpetrator lived abroad and she had been there several weeks already
• It apologised if Miss X found this "invasive or discriminatory" as it was not its intention, however it had to make decisions about eligibility and risk based on evidence
• When she first approached it "was not satisfied" Miss X was eligible
• It provided interim accommodation within a week once it was satisfied Miss X was habitually resident.

My findings

26. The Council has a duty to provide interim accommodation if it has reason to believe an applicant may be eligible, homeless, and in priority need. Both "reason to believe" and "may be" are low thresholds.
27. Miss X was in priority need because she has a dependent child. Whether the Council had a duty to provide interim accommodation depended on whether it had reason to believe she might be eligible and might be homeless.
28. In response to Miss X's complaint, the Council said it had no reason to believe Miss X was eligible. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it also had no reason to believe Miss X might be homeless because the perpetrator lived abroad and so the likelihood of violence occurring was low.

Eligibility

29. Eligibility can be a complex issue. The Code of Guidance says councils should have procedures in place to carry out appropriate eligibility checks. It says councils should ensure staff are given training on the "complexities of the housing provisions" about eligibility. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 7.3 and 7.4)
30. In its initial assessment, the Council recorded that Miss X was eligible because she was a UK national. There is no evidence it considered, or told Miss X about, the question of habitual residence. This was fault. This denied Miss X the opportunity to provide relevant information at the time. It led the Council to make an initial offer of accommodation which it then withdrew. These are injustices to Miss X.
31. Had it properly considered the matter, the Council would have asked Miss X the relevant questions. This would have given Miss X the opportunity to provide information on the points in paragraph 17. On balance, had it done so the Council would have had reason to believe Miss X might be eligible. The threshold is low. Miss X had a clear intention to return to the UK having booked a one-way flight, had family here, and had maintained financial and business interests here.
32. Instead, the Council waited until it was satisfied Miss X was eligible. This was to apply too high a threshold and was fault.

Homelessness and domestic abuse

33. When she first approached, the Council recorded that it had reason to believe Miss X might be homeless because of domestic abuse. The officer noted that the perpetrator knew the address where Miss X was staying and had made specific threats to her there.
34. A different officer questioned whether there was a credible risk to Miss X such that she was homeless. The Council later commented to Council B that Miss X had been at her relative's property for three weeks without incident. This is despite the information it had from Miss X and the domestic abuse service that Miss X was at high risk.
35. Chapter 21 of the Code of Guidance sets out the approach councils should take to domestic abuse. This includes assessing risk. It advises councils to use the same risk assessment as that used by the domestic abuse service in this case and which assessed Miss X to be at high risk. (Code of Guidance 21.21) However, the Council said the risk assessment did not consider the risk to Miss X in the property. It appears, therefore, that it did not consider this to be a significant factor in its assessment of whether Miss X might be homeless. This was not in line with the Code of Guidance and was fault.
36. In response to my enquiries and a draft of this decision, the Council said it did not think there was "a probability of violence occurring" towards Miss X at her relative's property. This is not the correct test. The relevant question for the Council is in section 177 of the Housing Act 1996. This was amended by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 to say it is not reasonable for someone to continue to live somewhere if it is "probable that this will lead to violence or domestic abuse" against them. Domestic abuse is defined in law and includes violent or threatening behaviour and psychological and emotional abuse. It is not limited to physical violence.
37. The Council wrongly focussed on the physical threat to Miss X and failed to consider the impact on her of other forms of domestic abuse. This was fault. I am concerned that the Council's approach in this case demonstrates a lack of understanding and awareness about domestic abuse and assessing risk. I have recommended service improvements to address this.
38. At the time she approached, the Council only needed reason to believe Miss X might be homeless because of domestic abuse. This is a low threshold. The information it had more than met this threshold. The Code of Guidance emphasises that if a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless because of domestic abuse, it should provide interim accommodation immediately. (Code of Guidance 21.25) The Council's failure to do so, even after it was satisfied Miss X was eligible, was fault.

Conclusion

39. The Council should have provided interim accommodation to Miss X the day she approached, while it made inquiries about her eligibility and homelessness. Failure to do so was fault.
40. Once the Council accepted it had a duty to provide accommodation for Miss X, it still took a further six days to do so. The duty is immediate and this further delay was fault.
41. As a result, Miss X spent 24 days without interim accommodation. Although she stayed with family, she lived in constant fear that her ex-partner would carry out the violent and specific threats he made. Miss X has described the impact on her of her remaining in her relative's property at the time:

"[f]or twenty-four days every noise sent waves of panic through me, and I found myself unable to sleep for fear that we were not safe. The resulting sleep deprivation left me barely able to function, which significantly impaired my ability to care for my child."

42. This is a significant injustice to Miss X.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. To remedy the injustice to Miss X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Pay Miss X £500 in recognition of her avoidable distress and missed opportunity to access interim accommodation 24 days sooner
44. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
45. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Share a copy of this decision with staff in the relevant departments to identify learning from this complaint.
• Remind relevant staff that the low threshold triggering its duty to provide interim accommodation applies to questions of eligibility as well as homelessness and priority need.
• Ensure staff responsible for triaging homeless applicants have the training necessary to carry out eligibility checks, in line with the expectations of the Code of Guidance.
• Ensure the Council provides interim accommodation on the same day its duty to do so arises.
• Provide training or guidance to relevant staff on domestic abuse and the duties and expectations introduced by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and Chapter 21 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance.
46. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

47. 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