Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide sufficient support when he became homeless due to domestic abuse. The Council was at fault as it did not consider its duty to provide interim accommodation when Mr X first presented as homeless, did not consider if the interim accommodation offered to him was suitable, failed to investigate if Mr X’s eviction was justified when ending its duty to provide temporary accommodation, failed to protect his personal property, delayed in responding to his emails and delayed in dealing with his request to increase his housing priority. The faults caused Mr X to be street homeless for one month and caused distress and uncertainty to him. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mr X and making a total symbolic payment of £1350.

The complaint

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

• refused to offer interim accommodation when he first made his homelessness application as it wrongly considered he was not in priority need despite fleeing domestic abuse and being vulnerable due to his disabilities.
• placed him in interim accommodation which was unsuitable for his disabilities and where his abuser’s relative was living which placed him at risk.
• wrongly said he was intentionally homeless.
• told him it had booked interim accommodation at a hotel but the hotel did not have the booking.
• ignored him for six months despite Mr X making calls and sending emails, and despite contact from his GP, MP and a local councillor.
• wrongly refused to provide further temporary accommodation when he was evicted from his temporary accommodation.
• failed to protect his possessions when he was evicted which meant he lost irreplaceable personal possessions.
• failed to update his priority on the Council’s property pool which hampered his search for housing.
• placed him in unfurnished accommodation when discharging the main housing duty and did not provide support to enable him to furnish the property.
• Wrongly considered he was not homeless.

2. Mr X said the Council’s failings significantly affected his mental health, caused him to lose personal belongings that cannot be replaced and incur costs for accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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.
8. 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

9. I investigated events from July 2023 to August 2024. Mr X made his complaint to us in September 2024. I exercised discretion to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application of July 2023 as I could carry out a meaningful investigation from this date. But I do not consider there are good reasons to investigate Mr X's applications of February and March 2023. It was open to Mr X to make a complaint to us sooner about those applications.
10. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council placed him in unfurnished accommodation when discharging the main housing duty. Before we can investigate a complaint the Council must be aware of the complaint and have had the opportunity to respond to it. There is no evidence to show Mr X has made this complaint to the Council and the Council has considered the complaint through its complaints procedure. I therefore cannot consider the complaint with this investigation.
11. I also have not considered Mr X’s complaint that the Council does not consider him to be homeless. This is a new issue and outside the scope of this investigation. Furthermore, Mr X has the right to seek a review of this decision and to appeal to the county court. I consider it is reasonable to expect him to do so.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mr X and the Council have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments before reaching a final decision on the complaint.

What I found

Law and guidance

14. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
15. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
17. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
18. Examples of applicants in priority need include people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age and victims of domestic abuse.
19. If there is evidence that would give a council reason to believe the applicant may be homeless as a result of domestic abuse then the council should make interim accommodation available to the applicant immediately whilst they undertake their investigations (Homelessness Code of Guidance 21.25)
20. 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)
21. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)

Housing allocations

22. The Council is a member of a housing allocation scheme that also includes councils in neighbouring areas. This is called Property Pool. Applicants are prioritised by housing need and placed into 4 bands. Band A is for applicants with the highest priority. This includes applicants who are owed a homelessness duty and applicants fleeing domestic abuse.

What happened

23. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to my consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.
24. Mr X approached the Council as he was homeless. The Council’s record of its contact with Mr X shows he disclosed he was fleeing domestic abuse and had mental health conditions. There is no evidence to show how the Council considered if it had a duty to provide interim accommodation to Mr X at this time.
25. Approximately a month later the Council carried out a homelessness assessment for Mr X. The record of the assessment notes Mr X could not return home due to bail conditions following an incident of domestic abuse. The Council made enquiries of the police to determine if Mr X was in priority need. The information from the police stated Mr X had been arrested for alleged domestic abuse and placed on bail.
26. The Council accepted the relief duty. The Council told Mr X that it was unlikely it would offer interim accommodation due to the information from the police, unless he could provide evidence, such as doctors letters, to show he had a significant mental health condition. I understand Mr X did not provide medical evidence at this time.
27. Some months later Mr X contacted the Council to make another homeless application as he was street homeless. Mr X said he was in priority need due to domestic abuse and because of his vulnerability due to his mental health conditions. I understand a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) considered Mr X to be at high risk of domestic abuse.
28. The Council offered interim accommodation to Mr X which was in a hotel. I shall call this hotel A. Shortly after moving to the accommodation Mr X contacted the Council to say he could not stay at hotel A as it triggered his mental health conditions. The Council’s records note it told Mr X to contact the hotel management. It also advised Mr X not to leave the hotel as it may consider him to be intentionally homeless. Mr X said he was unable to contact the hotel management due to his mental health conditions. He left hotel A.
29. Approximately two weeks later, the Council offered accommodation to Mr X at another hotel. I shall call this hotel B. Mr X said that he travelled to the hotel but found it did not have a record of his booking. Mr X said he was unable to contact the Council so he was street homeless. The Council then offered Mr X further interim accommodation at hotel C which was self contained.
30. Approximately three months later, Mr X notified the Council that he had been evicted from hotel C. The accommodation provider said it had evicted Mr X as he had breached its rules and regulations. Mr X denied any such breaches.
31. Mr X contacted the Council on a number of occasions to request further accommodation. The Council did not respond to Mr X. Mr X contacted a councillor and his MP as he did not receive a response from the Council.
32. Some weeks later the Council notified Mr X that it had ended its duty to provide temporary accommodation as he had been asked to leave hotel C.
33. A month later, the Council offered a property to Mr X to discharge its main housing duty. Mr X again requested temporary accommodation until he could move into the new property. The Council refused to offer temporary accommodation due to his eviction from hotel C. The Council’s records show it considered the decision to end the accommodation was justified as Mr X had breached the hotel rules on multiple occasions.
34. Mr X has provided evidence to show hotel C told him that it had disposed of his personal property following his eviction.

Priority band

35. Mr X was on the Council’s housing register. The Council’s records show Mr X requested his priority band be increased to band A when he first made his homelessness application. The Council advised Mr X that it could not request a banding change due to the pending police investigation. It said social housing providers would not accept his application for a period of time if he was convicted.
36. The Council’s records show Mr X again requested a priority band increase when he was placed at hotel A. There is no evidence to show the Council considered his request and notified him of its decision.
37. Mr X contacted the Council shortly after he was placed at hotel C and then two months later. He said the Council had told him his band would be increased to band A but this had been overlooked. Mr X requested the banding be changed from band B to band A. Mr X did not receive a response so he chased on a number of occasions.
38. Approximately four months later, the Council agreed to increase Mr X’s priority to band A. This would be backdated to when the Council first accepted the relief duty nine months earlier.

Complaint

39. Mr X made a complaint to the Council about a number of issues. These included that the Council had failed to provide adequate support when he first made his homelessness application, wrongly blamed him for domestic abuse, placed him in unsafe accommodation as a person who presented a risk to him was also at hotel A and failed to respond to his many emails including following his eviction. Mr X said the Council’s failures had significantly affected his mental health.
40. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint through its two stage complaints procedure. The Council partially upheld his complaint at stage two. It said:

• The Council had taken too long to undertake a homelessness assessment when Mr X first approached the Council. It apologised for the delay.
• Its decision that Mr X was not in priority need when he first approached was correct. This was because the police had reported Mr X was the alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse and was subject to bail conditions. So, the Council did not consider he was at risk of domestic abuse.
• It should have investigated Mr X’s concerns about the standard and condition of hotel A. The Council apologised for not doing so.
• The Council did not offer further interim accommodation to Mr X when he left hotel A as it considered the accommodation was suitable.
• Mr X did not raise concerns about a person who was a risk to him being at hotel A when raising his concerns about the condition of the hotel. Mr X’s IDVA raised the concern a few days later. Mr X’s doctor also notified the Council that the person had threatened Mr X. The Council then offered alternative temporary accommodation to Mr X.
• Hotel B notified the Council that Mr X had taken up the booking but the Council had not followed this up with Mr X. The Council apologised to Mr X.
• The Council had advised Mr X of the rules and regulations when placed at hotel C and the responsibility for complying remained with him. It considered Mr X would have been given the opportunity to collect his belongings. The Council also said Mr X had not mentioned he was unable to collect them in emails with officers.
• It acknowledged that it had not responded to a number of his emails following his eviction from hotel C. It should have also informed Mr X that it would not provide any further temporary accommodation following his eviction from hotel C. The Council apologised to Mr X and offered a payment of £400 to Mr X to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience caused.

Analysis

Refused to offer interim accommodation when Mr X first made his homelessness application as it wrongly considered he was not in priority need

41. There is no evidence to show the Council considered if it had a duty to provide interim accommodation to Mr X when he first approached the Council for assistance. The threshold for triggering the interim accommodation duty is low as the Council only needs to have a reason to believe an 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 the applicant may be homeless due to domestic abuse.
42. The Council’s records of Mr X’s first contact note he was fleeing an abusive partner. So, the Council should have considered if it had a duty to provide interim accommodation to Mr X at this point. Its failure to do so was fault. On balance, the Council would have provided interim accommodation if it had considered its duty at this time as Mr X said he was fleeing domestic abuse.
43. The Council acknowledged it delayed in carrying out a homelessness assessment when Mr X first approached the Council for assistance. This was fault which will have caused some uncertainty to Mr X.
44. On balance, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision that Mr X was not in priority need following its homelessness assessment. The Council made this decision after making enquiries of the police. I am mindful of Mr X’s position that he was not the alleged perpetrator. But the Council was entitled to rely on the evidence from the police as it was relevant information at that time. It was also a matter for the Council to decide what weight it placed on that information. The Council also gave Mr X the opportunity to provide medical evidence for the Council to decide if he had priority need due to vulnerability. So, there was no fault in how the Council reached its decision that Mr X was not in priority need. I therefore do not have ground to question the Council’s decision.
45. As stated above, the Council would have offered interim accommodation to Mr X if it had considered its duty when he first presented as homeless. But it is likely the Council would have withdrawn that accommodation when it decided he was not in priority need. So, the Council’s failure to provide interim accommodation to Mr X when he first presented as homeless caused him to be street homeless for approximately one month. The Council should remedy this injustice.

Placed Mr X in unsuitable interim accommodation and telling Mr X he was intentionally homeless

46. The law provides that interim and temporary accommodation should be suitable for the needs of the applicant. There is no evidence to show the Council assessed the suitability of hotel A before offering the accommodation to Mr X. So, it cannot demonstrate that the accommodation was suitable for Mr X, particularly in view of his mental health conditions. This was fault.
47. I understand the Council did not initially offer further accommodation as it considered hotel A was suitable. But, as explained above, there is no evidence to show the Council assessed the suitability of the accommodation for Mr X. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council also acknowledged that it did not investigate his concerns of noise and cleanliness at the hotel. So, the Council was not in a position to make a judgement on whether hotel A was suitable. It was also not in a position to determine if Mr X was intentionally homeless.
48. There is no evidence to show the Council was aware that a person who was a risk to Mr X was also staying at hotel when it placed him there. The evidence shows it only became aware that the person could be there some days after Mr X had left the property. But there is no evidence to show the Council considered the potential risk from the person possibly being at hotel A when making its initial decision not to offer further interim accommodation to Mr X. This was fault.
49. I cannot know if the Council would have considered hotel A to be unsuitable if it had carried out a suitability assessment, investigated Mr X’s concerns about hotel A and considered the potential risk to him. But the faults caused uncertainty to Mr X as to whether the Council would have offered alternative interim accommodation sooner. The Council should remedy this uncertainty.

Booking at hotel B

50. The Council’s records indicate that it made a booking at hotel B for Mr X and the hotel advised the Council that Mr X did not attend. Mr X said the hotel told him it did not have a booking for him. Due to the conflict of evidence, I cannot know, even on balance, if there was fault by the Council in the booking process which prevented Mr X from staying at the hotel. But the Council accepted that it should have identified Mr X had not stayed at the hotel sooner than it did. This was fault. I do not know when the Council would have been able to contact Mr X and provide alternative accommodation to him. But the fault causes uncertainty to Mr X as to whether he could have been accommodated sooner. The Council should remedy this injustice.

Ignored Mr X’s emails and calls

51. The Council acknowledged it failed to respond to Mr X’s calls and emails. This included the period when Mr X was evicted from hotel C and asked for assistance. The Council’s failure to respond caused significant distress to Mr X. The Council has appropriately and proportionately remedied the injustice to Mr X by offering a payment of £400. This is in accordance with our guidance on remedies

Wrongly refused to provide further temporary accommodation to Mr X following his eviction from hotel C

52. The Council’s records show it considered Mr X’s eviction from hotel C to be justified so it would not provide further temporary accommodation. But there is no evidence to show the Council made any enquiries of the hotel to satisfy itself that the eviction was justified or that the hotel had warned Mr X about his conduct before evicting him. Furthermore, Mr X disputed the reasons for the eviction so the Council should have investigated whether or not the reasons for Mr X’s eviction were valid. So, the Council did not properly make its decision to refuse to provide further temporary accommodation to Mr X.
53. I cannot know, even on balance, if the Council would have provided further temporary accommodation if it had properly satisfied itself that Mr X’s eviction was justified. But the fault caused uncertainty to Mr X which the Council should remedy.

Failure to protect Mr X’s belongings following his eviction from hotel C

54. Mr X has provided evidence to show hotel C disposed of his personal property when he was evicted. The Council therefore failed in its duty to protect Mr X’s personal property. This was fault which caused distress to Mr X. Mr X has provided details of the property he says was disposed of and its value. But it is not appropriate or proportionate to recommend the Council makes a payment for the value of the lost belongings. I cannot know, even on balance, what property was lost and its value. Furthermore, loss of personal property is a legal matter, and it is open to Mr X to make a claim against the Council.

Delay in updating Mr X’s priority band

55. The Council’s records show Mr X requested band A priority when he first made his homelessness application. I am mindful that the outcome of the police investigation could have affected Mr X’s eligibility or qualification for the housing register. But there is no evidence to show that the Council decided whether or not to increase Mr X’s priority band when the police investigation ended. There is no evidence to show why the Council took some nine months overall to make its decision to increase Mr X’s banding. There is also no evidence to show the Council kept Mr X informed about the progress of his request or responded to his chasing emails regarding his banding. On balance, this was fault.
56. I note the Council backdated Mr X’s band A priority to the date when it initially accepted the relief duty. But the delay in considering Mr X’s request to increase his priority could have prevented him from successfully bidding on a property during the time he was waiting for the Council to increase his priority. The Council should therefore consider if the delay in increasing Mr X’s priority is likely to have caused him to miss out on an offer of a property. In doing so, the Council should consider any bids made by Mr X during this period and consider if any would have been successful but for the delay in increasing his priority to band A. If the Council finds Mr X missed out on an offer it should remedy his injustice.

Back to top

Action

57. The Council will:
1. Send a written apology to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty caused to Mr X 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 I have recommended in my findings.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mr X to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused by its failure to consider the suitability of Mr X’s interim accommodation, failure to investigate if Mr X’s eviction was justified when ending its duty to provide temporary accommodation to him and the delay in checking if he had booked into temporary accommodation. This payment is in addition to the payment of £400 already offered by the Council for its failure to respond to Mr X’s emails.
3. Make a symbolic payment of £500 to acknowledge the distress caused to Mr X by the failure to protect his personal belongings.
4. Make a symbolic payment of £350 to acknowledge the distress caused to Mr X by being deprived of suitable accommodation for a month when he first presented as homeless.
5. Consider if the delay in increasing Mr X’s priority to band A caused him to miss an offer of a property during the period of delay. In doing so, the Council should consider any bids made by Mr X during this period and consider if any would have been successful but for the delay in increasing his priority to band A. If the Council finds Mr X missed an offer it should offer an appropriate remedy.
6. By training or other means, remind officers of the low threshold for triggering the Council’s duty to provide 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.
7. By training or other means, remind officers that they should assess the suitability of interim accommodation offered to applicants to ensure it meets their needs and keep brief records of the assessment.
8. Establish a system for checking whether an applicant has booked into interim accommodation in order to check whether the booking has been utilised and to resolve any issues with the booking.
9. By training or other means, remind officers that it should seek evidence from an accommodation provider to establish if an eviction was justified in the event the Council relies on the eviction when ending its interim or temporary accommodation duty.
58. The Council should take the action at a) to d) within one month and the action at e) to i) within two months of my final decision.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

60. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr X’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice as recommended.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman