Summary: The Council failed to meet its duty to provide Ms X with interim, or temporary, accommodation when she told the Council she needed to flee her home due to domestic abuse. As a result, Ms X and her children remained living in the property where she reported being at risk of abuse, for fourteen months. The Council also failed to inform Ms X for almost a year that she had been added to the housing register. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make Ms X an offer of suitable accommodation, pay Ms X £3,050 and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:
1. Failed to offer her interim accommodation when she approached the Council as homeless due to domestic abuse;
2. Did not made sufficient efforts to find her temporary accommodation, or suitable long-term housing since it accepted the main housing duty;
3. Delayed informing her she could bid on properties on the housing register; and
4. Failed to communicate with her properly.
2. Ms X said the Council’s actions have caused her frustration, distress and meant she spent longer living in unsafe accommodation than she should have.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, 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. 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. Due to challenging circumstances for Ms X during this time, I have exercised discretion to investigate a fourteen-month period, during which some of the events complained of were brought to us late. This is because the events were key to understanding the complaint and the Council investigated these earlier events through its complaints process and so I am satisfied it has had the opportunity to respond to them.

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 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

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. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
15. 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)
16. 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

17. The Code sets out in chapter 21 how councils should approach cases involving applicants who are homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse, including:
• 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;
• 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; and
• Applicants at risk of domestic abuse should not be expected to return home on the strength of an injunction - such as an occupation or non-molestation order – as these are not always effective.

DASH assessment 

18. A Domestic Abuse, Stalking & Honour-based Violence (DASH) assessment may be carried out to assess the risks to a victim and the action needed to protect them. This is a standardised assessment, which produces a score out of 24. A score above 14 should result in a MARAC referral, although the person carrying out the assessment may make a referral where the score is lower if they have serious concerns about the victim’s safety. 

Reviewing housing decisions

19. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of certain Council decisions, including the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of the date of the review request. If the applicant disagrees with the review decision, they can appeal to a county court. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Allocations

20. 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 and must prioritise certain groups, including homeless people. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
21. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Allocations scheme, London Borough of Waltham Forest, February 2021

22. This Council prioritises the applicants on its housing register using a banding system, with bands ranging between band 1 (most priority) to band 5 (least priority).
23. Band 4, or, “Medium Priority” can be awarded for several reasons, including where an applicant has approached the Council as homeless and is in the process of having their case assessed.
24. Band 3, or “Medium Priority Plus” can also be awarded for several reasons. This includes where the Council has accepted a main housing duty to the applicant.

What happened

Homeless application

25. Ms X approached the Council as homeless and said she and her children needed to flee their property due to risk of domestic abuse. Ms X said the alleged perpetrator lived outside the home but knew her address.
26. The next day a homelessness officer carried out an assessment. They noted she was eligible, in priority need and recorded that the Council would accept a relief duty to her.
27. Rather than offering Ms X interim accommodation right away, the officer said to Ms X the Council currently had a waiting list for interim accommodation. They said she may want to approach another local authority, or the Council would try and offer her either a private-rented property, or interim accommodation. The Council asked Ms X to complete a domestic abuse questionnaire and it gave no advice about remaining safe in her current home.
28. Shortly after, the Council informed Ms X by letter that it had accepted the relief duty and sent her a PHP. The Council noted in this letter that it had a duty to provide her with interim accommodation and said it would do this, “once a suitable offer of accommodation becomes available”.
29. The PHP said in the meantime she should seek properties in the private rented sector and join various schemes to find social or affordable housing. It said the Council would assist her by providing one month’s rent and deposit if she found a privately rented property herself.
30. In the meantime, the Council made further enquiries into the domestic abuse risk posed to Ms X by contacting services that had supported her. The services said Ms X had reported experiencing several forms of domestic abuse from the alleged perpetrator.
31. For several more months Ms X remained in the property where she said she was at risk of domestic abuse while she chased the Council asking for alternative accommodation. Ms X could not find a suitable private-rented property and the Council said no interim accommodation suitable for the size of her family had become available.
32. Several months later, the Council accepted a main housing duty to Ms X. From this point the Council owed a duty to provide her with temporary accommodation. The Council first made Ms X an offer of accommodation a month after it accepted the duty. Ms X refused it as she said there were disrepair issues at the property and asked for a statutory review of the suitability of the offer.
33. Due to factors outside the Council’s control, shortly after this the Council no longer had access to the property and so could not carry out its statutory review. It said without accessing the property it did not have enough evidence to decide whether the offer was suitable, so it withdrew the offer and retained its main housing duty to Ms X.
34. A few months later, Ms X found a private-rented property and contacted the Council to obtain the first month’s rent and deposit. The Council said in email correspondence that it appeared affordable and began the process of considering the request, but within two days of her approaching the Council, the property was let to someone else.
35. A month after this, Ms X found another private-rented property and asked the Council for the initial month’s rent and deposit. The officer said she needed to provide multiple forms of evidence about the property including gas certificates and once these were received it would take around two weeks to process. Ms X also missed out on this property.
36. To manage her safety at the accommodation during this period, Ms X put in place various security measures including injunctions. However she said these still did not make her feel safe.
37. Ms X continued to live in the property until the period when my investigation ends (a period of fourteen months). The Council made no further offers of accommodation during this time as it said nothing suitable was available.

Housing register

38. A few weeks after Ms X approached the Council as homeless the Council automatically added her to its housing register. It placed her in Band 4 – the band it awards to people who are being assessed as homeless. The Council did not inform Ms X that it had added her to its housing register and so Ms X did not bid during this time.
39. After the Council accepted the main housing duty several months later, it automatically increased her banding to Band 3. Again it did not inform Ms X of this and so Ms X continued not to bid during this period.
40. Around eleven months after Ms X was first placed on the housing register, an officer informed her she should be bidding. Ms X enquired how she should do this as she was not aware.
41. Ms X has been bidding since that time and during the period I have investigated, has not been matched with a property. The Council advised that applicants in Ms X’s situation will wait several years to be matched with a property on the Council’s housing register.

Recent public interest report

42. In February 2024 the Ombudsman issued a public report against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. We found fault with the Council for not providing interim or temporary accommodation for a family for a significant length of time. The faults in that case cover a similar period to this one.
43. In response to our investigation the Council provided us with evidence of service improvements and scrutiny work it had undertaken, including:
• A campaign to procure more interim and temporary accommodation, including larger accommodation for families;
• Consideration of our public report at several Council committees;
• Recruitment of more housing staff;
• Increased oversight of officers’ caseloads by managers; and
• Additional staff training in homelessness duties.
44. As these recommendations had not yet taken effect during the events Ms X complained of, I have not repeated the same service improvements here.

My findings

Complaints 1a and 1b - failed to provide interim, temporary or long-term accommodation

45. The Council was aware as soon as Ms X approached it for help, that it had a duty to provide Ms X with interim accommodation but it did not provide it. When it found it had no accommodation in its own stock, or in the private-rented sector, it failed to consider other options, such as booking Ms X into a hotel for her safety. The Council was at fault.
46. The Council’s first and only offer of accommodation made to Ms X during this time, was several months after she first approached as homeless. Ms X sought a statutory review of the suitability of the offer due to disrepair issues, but the Council could not access the property to review its suitability. If the Council did not already have evidence to demonstrate the condition and suitability of the offer, on balance, it is most likely that the Council did not perform its due diligence in ensuring the accommodation was suitable before it made the offer. This was fault by the Council.
47. As a result of the faults above, for fourteen months Ms X remained in a property known to the alleged perpetrator and where she felt unsafe. There is no evidence the Council disputed the level of risk Ms X reported during this time, and it obtained evidence from multiple professionals supporting her which reflected Ms X’s reports. Ms X took the safety measures that she could however she maintained throughout to the Council, that this did not make the property safe.
48. The Council’s faults led to a significant period in unsuitable accommodation for Ms X and her family and have also caused her frustration, uncertainty and distress.

Complaints 1c and 1d – failure to communicate with Ms X properly, including failure to tell her she was on the housing register

49. The case records show Ms X chasing her housing officer and staff in the temporary accommodation team regularly and highlighting concerns about her safety in the accommodation. Ms X did not always receive timely responses and enquiries were not made by the Council into her safety. Instead she was usually informed to wait for a property to become available. This poor communication was fault.
50. The Council also failed to inform Ms X that she had been added to the housing register. Ms X was on the register and able to bid for almost one year before she was made aware. This was fault by the Council. If not for this fault, Ms X would have been bidding on properties for eleven months longer than she has been to date.
51. Due to the waiting times at this Council Ms X most likely did not miss out on a property because of the fault. However this poor communication caused Ms X uncertainty and frustration at an already challenging time. I have recommended a service improvement to prevent recurrence of this fault in future.

Financial support to find private properties

52. Ms X found private-rented properties in London which were affordable, on two occasions during the period I have investigated. She asked the Council to provide the first month’s rent and deposit, as it agreed it would in her PHP. However on both occasions, the letting agent let the properties to someone else while Ms X was waiting for the Council to consider her request. In relation to one of the properties, the case notes recorded that it would take the Council two weeks to consider her request for the funds.
53. There are many factors involved in deciding who a private property is let to and we cannot know whether Ms X would have secured those tenancies if the Council had provided Ms X with the funds more quickly. However I have recommended a service improvement in relation to this, due to the likelihood of injustice being caused to others by the length of time the Council is taking to consider these requests.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. 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. Make Ms X an offer of suitable alternative accommodation. In line with housing law, we recognize this may be suitable temporary accommodation and does not have to be an offer of social housing;
3. Carry out a DASH risk assessment with Ms X to assess the risk currently posed to her;
4. Pay Ms X £1,000 to reflect the five months she spent in unsuitable accommodation;
5. Pay Ms X £300 to reflect the uncertainty caused about whether she was made an offer of suitable accommodation;
6. Pay Ms X £1,400 to reflect the further seven months she spent in unsuitable accommodation; and
7. Pay Ms X £350 to reflect the uncertainty and frustration caused by the Council’s poor communication and failure to inform her for almost one year that she had been added to its housing register.
55. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Demonstrate that it has considered how it can make its processes quicker for providing applicants with their first month’s rent and deposit, particularly given the competitive and fast-paced nature of the private rental market; and
2. Demonstrate that it has investigated why Ms X was not told she had been automatically added to the housing register, or when her banding changed, and taken action to prevent recurrence of this fault in future.
56. 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.
57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and recommended an apology, a re-assessment, 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