Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council responded to her homelessness. She said the Council failed to address the risk to her and her children and placed her in unsuitable accommodation. Miss X also complained the Council placed her in the wrong housing band. The Council was at fault for failing to deal properly with Miss X’s homelessness. It should apologise to Miss X, make a symbolic payment to her, and provide information to its staff.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council placed her and her children in unsuitable accommodation when they were homeless and fleeing domestic abuse. She said the Council failed to respond properly to domestic abuse and provide her with adequate homelessness support.
2. Miss X also complained about housing allocations. She said she was placed in the wrong housing banding by the Council, and this stopped her from being re-housed.
3. Miss X complained about the conduct of Council staff and consistently poor communication from the Council. She said her mental health has deteriorated drastically due to living in constant fear of abuse and violence.

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. 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)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. 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

8. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in December 2024. Matters complained of date back to September 2022.
9. Miss X was informed about her right to complain, and her right to request a review about Council decision making.
10. Miss X complained twice to the Council, once in September 2023, and then again in July 2024.
11. Miss X exercised her right to request a review about Council decision making. She did so in 2023, 2024 and 2025. I will not investigate the matters Miss X requested a review about.
12. However, I will investigate the Councils actions before and after the reviews were conducted, so far as they fit into scope of this investigation. I will investigate the Councils response to Miss X’s homelessness, its assessment of risk and administrative processes for housing allocations.
13. I have decided to exercise discretion and consider matters from June 2023, when regular contact between Miss X and the Council resumed, until November 2024, when the Council made its second stage two complaint response.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
15. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and Guidance

Homelessness

16. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
17. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
18. Section 177 of the Housing Act, 1996, says 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 them, or against a person who would normally or reasonably be expected to live with them. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)
19. 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)
20. 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)
21. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

22. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:

• eligibility for assistance;
• not in priority need;
• intentionally homeless;
• suitability of accommodation;
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.

23. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
24. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
25. 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)
26. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children,
• people who are vulnerable because of violence or threats of violence,
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age, and
• victims of domestic abuse.

27. 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)
28. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)

Housing Allocations

29. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
30. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

31. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

Domestic Abuse

32. The Council should try to get an account of the applicant’s experience to assess whether the behaviour they have experienced is abusive or whether they would be at risk of domestic abuse if they continued to occupy their accommodation. The authority should support the victim to outline their experience and make an assessment based on the details of the case. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)
33. 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.
34. The Domestic Abuse Act, 2021, introduced duties for local authorities in the provision of support, and housing services, to survivors of domestic abuse. It defined the role local authorities should play in providing safe accommodation to survivors.

Council Policy and Procedure

35. As part of this investigation the Council shared with us a copy of the following policies and procedures:
• Housing Allocations Policy,
• Domestic Abuse Policy,
• Temporary Accommodation Policy, and
• Allocations Lettings Plan.

What happened here

36. Miss X lives with her three children. She and her children have been subject to domestic abuse.
37. In 2022 Miss X had a tenancy with a housing association. Matters dating back to 2022 were not investigated. For context only, Miss X was in contact with the Council briefly in Autumn 2022.
38. In June 2023, several months after its last contact with Miss X, the Council contacted her. It said it was contacting her to see if she still needed support.
39. Over the following week Miss X told the Council:
• she needed a three-bedroom property,
• she was not currently experiencing domestic abuse,
• her current accommodation was overcrowded,
• there was a local gang causing her problems,
• she was on the housing register, and
• she would prefer to be moved into another social housing tenancy, rather than access interim accommodation.
40. At the start of July, the Council completed a personalised housing plan (PHP) with Miss X. The PHP included information about post separation harassment and abuse.
41. The Council decided Miss X was not homeless. It sent her a decision letter telling her this. On the same day Miss X asked for a review of the decision.
42. About a month later the Council responded to Miss X. It acknowledged the delay in responding.
43. At the end of the month the domestic abuse escalated, and Miss X feared for her and her children’s safety. A few days later she emailed the Council to tell it and asked for its help.
44. About a week later children’s services contacted the homelessness service in the Council about the domestic abuse. On the same day the Council contacted Miss X and discussed with her the option of interim accommodation.
45. The next day the Council told Miss X it had no interim accommodation available to her. It offered to place her and her children in a hotel. She declined.
46. The Council accepted relief duty for Miss X. It sent Miss X a decision letter.
47. In mid-September the Council were told about an escalation in domestic abuse. It contacted Miss X. It offered to try to find interim accommodation for her. She declined. Miss X asked about her housing banding being increased.
48. Miss X wrote to the Council and made a complaint about its services. She explained the risk regarding domestic abuse. She complained about the lack of accommodation offered to her, her housing banding, and the conduct of Council staff.
49. At the start of October, the Council overturned the ‘not homeless’ decision it previously made. It decided it had not properly considered Miss X’s experiences of domestic abuse.
50. The Council accepted relief duty for Miss X. It sent her a decision letter to tell her.
51. The domestic abuse continued to escalate. Miss X continued to report it to the Council. The Council offered Miss X hotel accommodation because it said this was all that was available. Miss X accepted the offer.
52. Three days later, the Council placed Miss X in interim accommodation: a hotel.
53. Mid-October the Council made its stage one complaint response to Miss X. The Council summarised the contact it had with Miss X from September 2022. It summarised its actions, and what she told it. It decided it did not uphold her complaint. It said there had been regular contact with Miss X regarding her homelessness and housing allocation. It explained how she could request to escalate her complaint to stage two of the Councils complaint procedure, should she wish to.
54. Miss X left the interim accommodation provided by the Council. The following day the Council offered her another interim accommodation, which she declined.
55. At the start of November, Miss X asked the Council for an update about the main housing duty being awarded to her.
56. The Council, the next day, accepted main housing duty for Miss X. This was 57 days after it accepted relief duty.
57. Miss X asked the Council for help with her bidding, and her housing allocation banding. The homelessness team told her to speak to the housing register team.
58. During November Miss X continued to liaise with the Council. The domestic abuse continued to escalate. The Council offered to arrange temporary accommodation for her. Miss X declined. The Council explained the challenges of securing social housing through the Council, to Miss X.
59. Miss X asked the Council for updates, several times over the next six months.
60. In July 2024, Miss X complained to the Council. She complained about delay, that the Council had not found her anywhere suitable to stay, and she asked for a review of her housing allocation banding.
61. In August the Council made its response to Miss X at stage one of its complaint procedure. It said it would review the housing allocation banding by a date in September. This did not happen.
62. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Councils complaint procedure.
63. At the end of November, the Council:
• Decided about Miss X’s banding. It said it had reviewed all evidence provided to it, and that Miss X remained in Band 3. It acknowledged the delay in responding to the review request, and offered Miss X £200 to recognise the delay, and
• Made its response to Miss X at stage two of its complaint procedure. It referred to service failure and administrative faults. It upheld Miss X’s complaint.
64. Shortly after Miss X complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Homelessness

65. Miss X approached the Council in September 2022. This period was not investigated. Evidence reviewed within the scope of this investigation suggests that Miss X did not require immediate aid in 2022, instead she was waiting for a housing transfer and did not pursue her contact with the Council.
66. However, in the letter the Council sent to Miss X in July 2023 it referred to this date as the date that Miss X asked for its help.
67. From the date in 2022 listed by the Council, there was a significant delay in the Council deciding about Miss X’s homelessness. It decided she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness in July 2023. Therefore, it took the Council 293 days to make this decision. It should have been made within 56 days after Miss X approached it.
68. The Council did not delay in awarding relief and main housing duty to Miss X, following this. However, had Miss X been awarded relief duty mid November 2022, if not for fault by the Council, she likely would have been awarded main housing duty mid-January 2023. This is an overall delay in ten months for Miss X receiving the main housing duty and having access to bid on Council properties.
69. Delay in deciding about Miss X’s homelessness was fault by the Council. This fault caused Miss X uncertainty and undue frustration. It also impacted her ability to bid on Council properties.
70. Miss X asked for a review of the ‘not homeless’ decision made by the Council. It took the Council a month to acknowledge this request. Delay in acknowledgment of the review request was fault by the Council.
71. Miss X made her request for a review in July. At the start of October, the Council overturned its initial decision. It decided it had not considered all the information available to it about Miss X’s situation. It took the Council 11 weeks to make this decision. It should have taken 8. Delay in making this decision was fault by the Council. Repeated fault, by way of delay, exasperated the frustration and uncertainty experienced by Miss X.
72. The theme of delay for Miss X, in how the Council handled her homelessness was consistent, and damaged Miss X’s trust and faith in the Council as a public body that would aid her.

Housing Allocations

73. It is not our role to decide which banding Miss X should be awarded by the Council. Miss X consistently believed her banding should be higher. It is our role to consider the process undertaken by the Council to arrive at its decision.
74. The Council acknowledged the delay in making a review of Miss X’s housing allocation banding in November 2024. It took the Council 5 months. Reviews should be completed within a set timeframe. 8 weeks is seen to be a ‘reasonable timeframe’ (Allocation of accommodation: guidance for local authorities, 2012, 5.23) and is referred to in the Councils housing allocation policy.
75. Failure to respond to Miss X’s review request in a timely manner was fault by the Council. This fault exasperated the frustration and uncertainty Miss X had already experienced due to Council failings.
76. Part of Miss X’s complaint was that the Council only gave her access to bid on its properties as a ‘Homeseeker’ rather than a ‘Homeless Applicant.’ Miss X thought she would have access as a homeless applicant because the Council told her it decided she was homeless.
77. The Council referred to Miss X not being in temporary accommodation and therefore not being listed as homeless on its housing register.
78. During this investigation the Council provided a copy of its allocations lettings plan for 2025/2026 and explained the recently completed review process for its housing allocations scheme. It referred to what is within the Councils Housing Allocations Policy. The Council explains that for some applicants, restricted bidding may apply. Restricted bidding includes the Council giving higher priority to certain groups of applicants. One group of applicants for whom that applies is:

“Allocations to homeless applicants owed the main housing duty and living in temporary accommodation provided by the Council.”

79. The policy explains that a homeless applicant living in temporary accommodation may have access to properties that a homeless applicant, not living in temporary accommodation, would not.
80. The policy does not explain how applicants are categorized on its system.
81. However, this is addressed on the Councils website. The Council explains restricted bidding and how eligibility to bid on properties will be determined by a code. The code describes a group of applicants. For example, the code ‘HH’ refers to homeless homeseeker – where the Council have agreed main housing duty to a homeless applicant who is living in temporary accommodation. It explains that someone in Miss X’s circumstance would be classed as a ‘Homeseeker’.
82. I do not find fault with how the Council categorized Miss X on its bidding system.

Domestic Abuse

83. The Council missed an opportunity to acknowledge Miss X’s experiences of abuse, when making its assessment of her, and completing her PHP in July 2023. Even more importantly it overlooked an opportunity to assess her and her children’s safety through exploring with Miss X the frequency of the post separation abuse and whether a risk assessment was required.
84. The Council overturned the ‘not homeless’ decision it made in July 2023. It said this was because it did not properly consider Miss X’s experiences of domestic abuse when making the decision. The Council acknowledged this fault.
85. Miss X asked for help from the Council at the end of August 2023, when the domestic abuse escalated. The Council only contacted her when it received a notification about the domestic abuse from children’s services. This was a week later. Delay in responding to Miss X’s request for assistance, was fault by the Council. The Council acknowledged its failings, as part of this investigation, and identified it should have acted sooner.
86. At the start of October Miss X, again, told the Council she needed to move urgently due to escalation in domestic abuse. The incidents were taking place at her property. It took the Council three days to place her in interim accommodation. This was three days of unnecessary delay, and only increased the feelings of fear, and uncertainty for Miss X. The Council could have taken steps to move her and her children to safety, quicker. The delay on part of the Council resulted in Miss X and her children remaining in unsafe accommodation longer than they needed to. I find fault with the Council for failing to place Miss X in interim accommodation in a timely manner, in October. The Council acknowledged this fault, in response to my formal enquiries. It said it would carry out a review of what happened to avoid delay in future urgent cases.
87. There is evidence, available, to suggest the Council responded intermittently to Miss X’s disclosures of abuse. It offered her accommodation repeatedly, that she declined. This was her right to do so.
88. The Councils domestic abuse policy lists a host of options available to survivors. It details the actions the Council will consider taking and has a specific chapter on housing options for survivors.
89. In the policy it says the Council may offer advice about options such as specialist supported housing (refuge services) for survivors. The policy considers risk assessment, danger areas (areas a survivor cannot live in due to links to a perpetrator), safety planning and frequent reviews of the PHP, at the applicant’s pace.
90. The Councils response to my formal enquiries was contradictory to this, as it said it is protocol not to complete risk assessments with applicants, but rather to refer to specialist domestic abuse services. I have not seen evidence of this procedure, in writing, as part of this investigation.
91. While there were attempts on the part of the Council to provide accommodation to Miss X, there is no evidence a proper assessment of risk was carried out. There is no record of the Council discussing completing a DASH risk assessment with Miss X.
92. I have only seen copy of one PHP dated July 2023. The Council had multiple opportunities to discuss updating this document with Miss X, once it learned of the escalation in abuse, over the following months. It failed to do so.
93. I find fault with the Council for failing to respond properly to Miss X’s experiences of domestic abuse. This fault will have further exasperated her feelings of distress in the form of uncertainty about the options available to her and her children.

Remedy

94. The Council offered £200 to Miss X as a symbolic payment to recognise the time and trouble she experienced. The Council said this was:
• £75 to recognise the delay sending the banding review decision,
• £25 to recognise the delay responding to the stage two complaint, and
• £100 to recognise the time and trouble Miss X went to.
95. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint in November 2024.
96. When making recommendations about symbolic payments we refer to our Guidance on Remedies. The Council acknowledged some areas of delay when making this offer. However, it overlooked the delay experienced by Miss X, when it made decisions about her homelessness. The recommendations I have made are better aligned to our guidance.

Back to top

Action

97. Within four weeks of receiving a final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an Effective Apology. 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.
• Make a symbolic payment to Miss X of £350 to recognise the distress caused by:
1. the delay in making decisions about her homelessness,
2. the delay in deciding about her banding,
3. the failure to respond properly to her experiences of domestic abuse, and
4. fault in its complaint handling.
98. Within 12 weeks of receiving a final decision, the Council should:
• Share learning from this decision with the homelessness service,
• Reiterate good practice to its homelessness service, as outlined in its own policy, about housing options for survivors of domestic abuse and the Councils role in assessing risk and safety for survivors, and
• Review actions taken by the Council that caused delay for Miss X in October 2023, in being placed in accommodation in a timely manner.
99. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

100. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman