Summary: Mx Z complained about the way the Council has dealt with their homelessness when they were fleeing domestic abuse. The Council was at fault for the delay in providing interim accommodation, in ending the relief duty, in reaching a decision on Mx Z’s homelessness and in responding to Mx Z’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to Mx Z.

The complaint

1. Mx Z complained about the way the Council has dealt with their homelessness when they were fleeing domestic abuse. In particular they complain the Council delayed providing interim accommodation and in reaching a decision on their homelessness. This has caused them distress, frustration and uncertainty and meant they were without a property for longer than they should have been.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. Most homelessness decisions carry a right of review, followed by a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.
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 evidence provided by Mx Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I gave Mx Z and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

Duty to make enquiries

8. Where the council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it should make enquiries to enable it to decide if they are eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184) Councils should work with applicants steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or find 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)

Relief duty

9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless then the council will owe the relief duty. This requires the council to take reasonable steps to help them to secure suitable accommodation. The relief duty usually lasts for 56 days.

Interim accommodation

10. If the council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and in priority need, it has an immediate duty under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 to provide interim accommodation, whilst it makes its enquiries. Examples of those in priority need includes those who are pregnant, have a dependent child or (from July 2021) are fleeing domestic abuse.

Main housing duty

11. 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)

Review rights

12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions. If the decision is upheld at review, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
13. The code of guidance says where a decision is against the applicant’s interests the notification must explain clearly and fully the reasons for the decision.

Background

14. Mx Z lived in a housing association property with a secure tenancy in Council B’s area.
15. In 2021 Mx Z fled to Council C’s area because of threats from a relative. Mx Z did not end their tenancy in Council B’s area. Mx Z approached Council C as homeless. Council C accepted it owed Mx Z the main housing duty and provided temporary accommodation and then permanent accommodation in early 2022.

What happened

16. Mx Z contacted this Council in late February 2024. Mx Z reported they were fleeing domestic violence from their ex-partner in Council C’s area and were homeless. They reported they had a non-molestation order in place and felt unsafe.
17. Mx Z complained to the Council in early March as they said they were promised a call back within 48 hours and nothing happened. They said they wanted support with being rehoused and to be kept safe from domestic violence.
18. The Council appointed a case officer, Officer Q, to Mx Z’s case in early March. Officer Q carried out a homelessness assessment later that month. They noted Mx Z approached the Council after fleeing domestic abuse from their partner in Council C’s area. Mx Z said they were being evicted from their Council C property. Mx Z was staying with their current partner in this Council’s area but said they were not supposed to stay there as it was temporary accommodation for their partner only. In early April, Officer Q requested information from Mx Z including bank statements, medical information and proof of income. They followed this up with a request for additional information asking why Mx Z was evicted from the Council C property, for a copy of the non-molestation order against their ex-partner and further information about why Mx Z could not stay at their current partner’s.
19. Officer Q wrote to Mx Z in early April 2024 to advise the Council owed them the relief duty. The letter set out there was reason to believe Mx Z was in priority need due to being a victim of domestic abuse and that the Council had a duty to offer interim accommodation. I have seen no evidence the Council offered Mx Z interim accommodation at this point. The notes do not record any discussion about where Mx Z was currently able to stay.
20. The Council responded to Mx Z’s complaint in early June 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It said the Prevention and Assessment Team contacted Mx Z shortly after they complained and had allocated Officer Q to the case. It said the file notes showed Officer Q contacted Mx Z in early April requesting information required to support the case but Mx Z had not responded. It upheld the complaint.
21. Mx Z asked to go to the next stage of the complaints’ procedure in mid June. They said they were still threatened with domestic violence and did not feel safe. They wanted emergency housing due to fleeing domestic violence.
22. Officer Q contacted Mx Z in mid July 2024. Mx Z said they could not stay with their current partner. Mx Z reported they were staying in their previous accommodation in Council B’s area. Mx Z told Officer Q they still had a tenancy with the housing association but did not feel safe there. Officer Q suggested Mx Z speak to the housing association to see if Mx Z could be transferred elsewhere. Officer Q said they had referred Mx Z for interim accommodation.
23. Officer Q spoke to Mx Z again in late July who provided further information about their circumstances. Mx Z said the housing association did not have another property it could transfer them to and they had suffered domestic abuse from their ex-partner. Officer Q noted Mx Z then moved to its area to stay with a new partner in January 2024. Mx Z said Council C had unlawfully evicted them and they had also received a notice to quit the property in Council B’s area for which they still had a tenancy. The Council wrote to Mx Z offering interim accommodation which would be available from early August. Mx Z moved into the property.
24. Officer Q emailed Mx Z to request information including copies of the last three months bank statements, proof of income and medical information.
25. The Council responded at the next stage of its complaints procedure in mid August 2024. It said it had provided interim accommodation and it was still carrying out enquiries into its ongoing duties. It acknowledged there was a significant delay in progressing the case and a six day delay in providing the interim accommodation from when it was agreed due to an administrative error. It apologised for the delays. It asked Mx Z to contact Officer Q with the information requested. It said it did not uphold the complaint.
26. In early October 2024 Mx Z emailed the Council. Mx Z said the housing association at Council B sought to evict them for having two tenancies. Mx Z said they got another tenancy with Council C due to domestic violence. They said they were told in late 2023 to decide which of the two properties should be their main home and so returned to the property in Council B’s area. Council C then changed the locks on the premises they provided. So the only tenancy Mx Z had was the one in Council B’s area. Mx Z said Council B went ahead to recover their property and Mx Z wanted the Council to investigate. The Council advised it could not get involved with legal proceedings. It said the court had awarded a possession order and if Mx Z wished to appeal that they needed to follow the court appeal procedure.
27. Mx Z contacted the Council in late November 2024. Mx Z said they made their homelessness application in February 2024 after fleeing domestic abuse and still had not had a decision on whether they were owed the main housing duty.
28. The Council wrote to Mx Z in December 2024 to advise that it found Mx Z intentionally homeless. It also wrote to end the relief duty. Mx Z requested a review of the decision that they were intentionally homeless. The Council later retracted the decision. Mx Z says it was reissued shortly after and they had requested a review of the Council’s decision. They are still awaiting the outcome of the review and at present remain in their interim accommodation.

Findings

29. Mx Z first approached the Council in late February 2024. The Council carried out an initial assessment and decided it owed Mx Z the relief duty. It also decided it had reason to believe Mx Z was in priority need. However, it failed to offer Mx Z interim accommodation until August 2024 and there are no notes of any discussion regarding where Mx Z was able to live. The delay in providing interim accommodation was fault and meant Mx Z was without suitable accommodation for five months. Mx Z spent some of that time living in a property they had fled due to risk of harm which caused additional distress.
30. The Council should have ended the relief duty by early June. However, it did not end this until mid-December 2024. This delay was fault. Although the Council had provided interim accommodation by August 2024, and has continued to do so, this delay caused Mx Z uncertainty and frustration and delayed their appeal rights.
31. The Council delayed reaching a decision on Mx Z’s homelessness. It reached a decision in December which it retracted then reissued. I have not investigated the Council’s decision that Mx Z is intentionally homeless. Mx Z has a right of review of the Council’s decision and has used that right. If Mx Z remains unhappy when the Council completes the review, they have a right to challenge the decision in court on a point of law.
32. The Council took three months to respond to Mx Z at stage one of its complaints’ procedure. This delay was fault. At stage two it accepted it had delayed dealing with Mx Z’s case and apologised, but the letter also said it did not uphold the complaint. The delay and confused decision making was fault which added to Mx Z’s frustration.
33. Following a previous case we investigated in 2024 we issued a public report on this Council. As a result of our recommendations the Council:
• provided staff training regarding when to provide interim accommodation;
• provided an action plan of the efforts it is making to increase its provision of temporary accommodation;
• Increased staffing to reduce delays in making homelessness decisions; and
• reviewed its complaints process.
34. Further service improvements are therefore not required at this time. We will continue to monitor the Council’s performance through our case work.

Back to top

Agreed Action

35. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to apologise to Mx Z and make a symbolic payment of £750 to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the faults identified.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I have completed my investigation. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman