Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide Ms X with interim accommodation when it had reason to believe she might be homeless and in priority need. As a result, Ms X spent four weeks sleeping rough. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X for the injustice this caused. Ms X had a right to review and then appeal the Council’s decision that she was not homeless. Therefore, we did not investigate Ms X’s complaint that this decision was wrong.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council:
1. failed to provide her with interim accommodation despite having reason to believe she was homeless and in priority need after she fled domestic abuse; and
2. wrongly decided she was not homeless.
2. As a result, Ms X says she remains rough sleeping and at risk.

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 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. Normally, we cannot investigate a complaint until the organisation complained about has had an opportunity to consider and respond to it. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider there are good reasons. In this case, we exercised discretion to investigate the complaint because Ms X told us she was rough sleeping and at ongoing risk of domestic abuse. We decided the urgency of her situation meant we should consider the matter now.
8. I have not investigated the complaint at b) in paragraph one. This is because the Council’s decision that Ms X is not homeless has a statutory right of review and then appeal to court. Ms X asked the Council for a review of this decision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered the complaint and the information Ms X and the Council provided along with relevant law and guidance.
10. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
11. Ms 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

What happened

12. Ms X approached the Council as homeless in early June 2024. Six days later, she called the Council to complain because no one had contacted her. The Council told Ms X it had tried to call her three times but had not been able to reach her. Ms X gave the Council her email address and asked that it use this if it could not reach her by phone.
13. The Council spoke to Ms X the next day. She said she was sleeping rough in the Council’s area. She said she had fled domestic abuse from another area (Council B) over a month earlier. She said she had experienced further violence since arriving in Liverpool. Ms X told the Council she had no accommodation. She had been living with her ex-partner who was abusive.
14. The Council’s records show it tried to call Ms X again but could not get through. Ms X then called back out of hours. The Council’s records say it advised her to make her own arrangements for that night and an officer would contact her the next day.
15. The next day, after trying to call her, the Council sent Ms X an email. It asked for details of where she had been staying since arriving in Liverpool. It also asked her for information about any police involvement with the assaults she had described.
16. Ms X told the Council she had been paying to stay in hotels sometimes and was rough sleeping otherwise. The Council asked its outreach team, which works with those rough sleeping, but this team said it had not seen her. The Council asked Ms X for copies of her bank statements.
17. Its notes record that it suspected she had housing. It said it needed more information from Ms X and the police. It noted Ms X had no connection to the area and it was unclear why she had come there.
18. After the weekend, the Council again asked Ms X for details of any police reports. It asked her to resend documents she sent with her application at the start of the month because it said they were too small to read. This included a medical letter which said police brought Ms X for an assessment after she reported an assault. This letter also recorded that Ms X was homeless following a “domestic incident” with her ex-partner.
19. The Council’s records show it had concerns about Ms X’s mental health but did not have any “proof of homelessness”. It recorded that Council B where she had connections could support her.
20. In late June, Ms X told the Council she wanted to complain. She said she had provided the information the Council asked for more than once. She said she was still rough sleeping. The Council asked Ms X to contact the police in Council B to ask for information to support her application. It said she would have to show that the whole of that city was unsafe for it to help her.
21. In early July, the Council contacted Council B to ask for information about any support it was providing Ms X. Council B told the Council it had awarded Ms X priority on its housing register because of her need to flee violence and harassment.
22. Three days later, the Council wrote to Ms X with a decision that she was not homeless. This gave Ms X a statutory right of review and then appeal to court.

My findings

23. The Council has a duty to provide interim accommodation while it makes inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes if it has reason to believe someone might be homeless and might be in priority need. (Housing Act 1996, s188(1))
24. The Council had reason to believe Ms X was homeless. This is why it made inquiries of Council B and the police. It also had reason to believe Ms X was in priority need. This is both because it had reason to believe she was a victim of domestic abuse and because of its concerns about her mental health.
25. Therefore, the Council had a duty to provide Ms X with interim accommodation from, at the latest, 10 June 2024 until it decided Ms X was not homeless in early July. Its failure to do so was fault.
26. As a result, Ms X missed out on being accommodated for almost four weeks. Ms X says she was rough sleeping throughout this period. The Council says its outreach team could not confirm this. On balance, taking into account the letter from the hospital and Council B’s acceptance that Ms X needed to flee violence and harassment, I consider she was roofless for this period. This is a significant injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. To remedy the injustice to Ms X from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. Pay Ms X £500 in recognition of the impact on her of being without interim accommodation for four weeks.
28. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
29. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
1. Remind relevant staff that the duty to provide interim accommodation arises as soon as it has reason to believe an applicant might be eligible, homeless, and in priority need.
30. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

31. 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