Summary: Miss X complained the Council conducted a homelessness interview insensitively and she had to discuss the domestic abuse she experienced. She also complained it failed to properly consider her application to join its housing register. We have found fault by the Council on both matters. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and make her a symbolic payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her request for help with her housing situation. She complained the Council:
1. conducted a homelessness interview insensitively and she had to discuss the domestic abuse she experienced despite having a panic attack; and
2. wrongly refused to accept her housing register application and failed to consider her second stage appeal about this matter.
2. Miss X stated the Council’s actions meant her and her daughter remained in an area where they were at risk for longer than necessary. Miss X also stated the Council’s actions negatively impacted her mental health and caused her distress, stress, uncertainty and frustration.

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. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the relevant available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. An organisation should not adopt a blanket or uniform approach or policy that prevents it from considering the circumstances of a particular case. We may find fault in the actions of organisations that ‘fetter their discretion’ in this way.
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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

Homelessness

9. 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.
10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, the council must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps to take, councils must assess the applicants’ case and have regard to their needs. This is called the prevention duty and applies for a period of 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 195).
11. If a housing authority has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, then it must provide interim accommodation for them. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Interim accommodation and domestic abuse

12. The Domestic Abuse Act received Royal Assent on 29 April 2021, at which point most of its provisions became law. A key provision for councils is that it changed the definition of “priority need” to include those seeking assistance with homelessness after fleeing domestic abuse. This part of the Act became law on 5 July 2021.
13. If a housing authority has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, then it must provide interim accommodation for them. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Evidence in domestic abuse homelessness cases

14. The Homelessness Code of Guidance (the Code) says councils should obtain an account of the domestic abuse and support the victim to outline their experience. However it says if the applicant’s experience has been documented already by a domestic abuse service – where possible – councils should utilise existing statements to avoid asking the victim to re-live their experience unnecessarily.
15. The Code says councils should not have a blanket approach toward domestic abuse which requires corroborative or police evidence to be provided, as in some cases this kind of evidence is not available due to lack of adult witnesses or victims being too afraid to report incidents to the police.

Allocations

16. 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))
17. 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))

Review rights for allocations decisions

18. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
19. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Epping Forest District Council’s Allocations Policy

20. This council’s allocations policy says applicants must have lived in the District for seven continuous years or more immediately prior to the date of their application.
21. However there are some exceptions to its residency criteria. These include:

• 3.11.4 Victims of domestic abuse: Applicants who are living in a refuge or other form of safe temporary accommodation in the District having escaped domestic abuse form within the District or from another local authority area.
• 3.11.8 Other exceptional circumstances: Applicants who in the opinion of the designated manager are entitled to a reasonable preference under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended and can demonstrate exceptional need to either leave their current local authority’s areas or move to the Epping Forest District to escape violence or harm.

What happened

22. On 15 March 2024 Miss X made a homelessness application to the Council. She explained she and her baby were fleeing domestic abuse from her former partner and she had left the home they shared in another local authority area.
23. On 18 March the Council contacted Miss X and asked her to provide paperwork before it would consider her application.
24. Miss X provided the necessary paperwork on 22 and 28 March, following which she was allocated a homelessness caseworker. Miss X also told the Council she was receiving support from services which help people experiencing domestic abuse.
25. On 11 April Miss X’s caseworker carried out a homelessness interview with her. During the interview Miss X was asked to discuss details of the domestic abuse she experienced. She states she told her casework she was having a panic attack and the discussion was triggering her Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) but her caseworker insisted she continue with the assessment.
26. The Council’s record of the homelessness interview does not refer to Miss X having a panic attack. The record says Miss X explained she was receiving support from her health visitor and agencies which assist people who have experienced domestic abuse.
27. Following the assessment Miss X stated she was left extremely distressed, her PTSD became worse, and her anxiety increased.
28. On 23 April the Council contacted Miss X because she had not been in touch since her assessment interview. It asked Miss X to get in touch.
29. The Council contacted Miss X again on 30 April and 2 May saying if no contact was made it would close her homelessness application.
30. Miss X did not reply. The Council closed her homelessness application on 7 May.
31. Meanwhile Miss X also applied to join the Council’s housing register. The Council did not accept her application because she did not meet its residency criteria.
32. On 22 May Miss X asked the Council to review its decision to refuse her application to join its housing register. She said that while she does not meet the residency criteria, section 3.11.8 of its allocations policy applies to her circumstances. She explained she needed to move to the Council’s area because of domestic abuse and needed to move to an area away from where her former partner lives. She also explained that had a diagnosis of PTSD and other mental health issues and needed to live in the Council’s area so she could receive help from her support network.
33. On 7 August the Council replied. It said Miss X had cited the incorrect part of its allocations policy in her review request. It said section 3.11.4 of the policy applied to applicants who had experienced domestic abuse. However it said this section did not apply to her because she was not living in a refuge or other form of safe temporary accommodation. It upheld her its decision not to allow her to join its housing register. Its reply said Miss X could request a further review of its decision.
34. On 1 September Miss X requested a further review of the Council’s decision on her housing register application.
35. On 14 October Miss X complained to the Council. She complained:
• her homelessness housing officer was insensitive during the interview held in April. She said the officer continued to ask her questions about the domestic abuse she experienced even though she told her she was having a panic attack. Following the interview her PTSD and mental health deteriorated.
• her request to join its housing register, and subsequent review request, were not properly considered because it failed to consider all the relevant parts of its allocations policy.
• the Council did not consider her second stage review request.
• the review officer used an incorrect name which was upsetting.
36. On 21 November the Council replied to Miss X’s complaint. It said it handled her homelessness application correctly, but it apologised if Miss X felt its service fell short of what she expected. The reply did not address her concerns about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. Miss X did not receive the Council’s reply.
37. In January 2025 Miss X chased up a reply to her complaint. It provided Miss X with a copy of its November response.
38. Miss X replied to the Council asking it why her second stage review request was still outstanding. She also questioned its view that it handled her homeless application correctly.
39. The Council replied. It said:
• it provides a trauma informed service to homeless applicants who have experienced domestic abuse.
• it reiterated that Miss X does not meet the residency requirements of its allocations policy. It also repeated that she did not meet the criteria of section 3.11.4 of its allocations policy. If her appeal had been considered it would have upheld the Council’s decision.
• Miss X could reapply apply to the Council’s homelessness service if she still needed help with her housing.
40. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman. Her grounds of complaint remained the same.
41. In reply to our enquires the Council said:
• it would normally offer interim accommodation for homeless applicants who are fleeing domestic abuse. It does not know why Miss X was not offered interim accommodation.
• it normally offers an initial assessment within 3 days when a homeless applicant is fleeing domestic abuse. It does not know why this did not happen in Miss X’s case but noted it took her until 28 March to provide the documents it requested.
• it offers a trauma informed service to applicants fleeing domestic abuse. It has a full-time specialist domestic abuse support officer and applicants fleeing domestic abuse are referred to the officer. It has received compliments on its service to applicants fleeing domestic abuse.
• Miss X does not meet the residency criteria to join its housing register. It said section 3.11.4 of its allocations policy explained the residency criteria exemption that may apply to applicants who have experienced domestic abuse.
42. During our investigation Miss X sought assistance with her housing from another local authority and is now in permanent accommodation, albeit away from her support network.

Finding

Homelessness application

43. When Miss X approached the Council in March 2024 it had reason to believe she may be homeless, eligible and that she was in priority need due to having a dependent child and being at risk of domestic abuse. The low threshold to offer interim accommodation was met and so, the Council should have offered Miss X interim accommodation as soon as she it approached it. Its failure to do so is fault.
44. Miss X made a homelessness application to the Council because she was seeking safe accommodation away from the perpetrator of the domestic abuse she experienced. For this reason I consider that, on the balance of probabilities she would have accepted an offer of interim accommodation from the Council had it been offered to her.
45. I note Miss X did not pursue her homelessness application beyond the initial stages and so any interim accommodation offered by the Council may have been for a short period.

Homelessness assessment interview

46. The Council did not offer Miss X a homelessness assessment interview until she provided various documents. I am concerned the Council delayed offering Miss X an assessment given it was aware she may be homeless, eligible and in priority need due to being at risk of domestic abuse.
47. The Code is clear that when assessing applications from applicants that have experienced domestic abuse, efforts should be made to prevent them from being made to relive their experiences unnecessarily. I have seen no evidence the Council asked Miss X to provide evidence or other information about the domestic abuse she experienced prior to its homelessness interview.
48. During Miss X’s homelessness interview she was made to relive her experiences, and she suffered a panic attack. Miss X asked to stop the interview but was required to continue. I do not consider Miss X’s experience is in keeping with the trauma informed approach the Council says it applies to applicants who have experienced domestic abuse.
49. Furthermore the Council was aware that Miss X was being supported by domestic abuse services and her health visitor. It should have sought information from these sources rather than making Miss X relieve her experiences. I do not consider the Council’s action were in keeping with the Code, as set out in paragraph 14.
50. Miss X found reliving her experiences during the interview retraumatising and she was caused significant distress. This is injustice.

Housing register application

51. The Council rejected Miss X’s application to join its housing register because she did not meet the residency criteria. The Council correctly applied this part of its policy to Miss X’s application.
52. However it failed to consider if any of the exemptions from its residency criteria applied to her application. This is fault as it should have considered if these applied when it first considered her application.
53. Miss X asked for the Council to review is decision. She said section 3.11.8 of its allocations policy provided grounds for it to exempt her from the residency criteria. I consider the wording of section 3.11.8 gives no reason why it could not apply to applicants who have experienced domestic abuse.
54. The Council’s reply to Miss X’s review did not address whether section 3.11.8 applied to her case. It should have done so. This is fault.
55. Its failure to do so means it did not properly consider Miss X’s review and its decision to uphold its original decision is flawed. Its failure to consider all parts of the allocations policy that could apply to Miss X circumstances means it has fettered its discretion when deciding whether to allow her to join its housing register. This is fault. As a result Miss X has been caused uncertainty about whether the Council’s decision on her application was correct. This is injustice.
56. Furthermore I am concerned that in its reply to our enquiries the Council failed to acknowledge section 3.11.8 could apply to applicants who have experienced domestic abuse.
57. Miss X asked for the Council to consider her review request at the second stage of its review procedure. The Council did not do so. This is fault which has caused Miss X additional uncertainty and caused her avoidable frustration. This is injustice.

Agreed action

58. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the faults in this case. 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; and
• Pay Miss X £850 to reflect the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to her by the Council’s faults.
59. Within three months of my final decision the Council will:
• remind all homelessness officers of the low threshold for offering interim accommodation, including in cases where the applicant has experienced domestic abuse.
• remind homelessness officers that applicants who have experienced domestic abuse should utilise existing statements to avoid asking the victim to re-live their experience unnecessarily.
• remind housing officers that they should consider all parts of its housing allocations policy when deciding if there are grounds to exempt an applicant from the residency criteria.
• remind officers considering review requests that reviews should be completed within eight weeks and should address all the grounds put forward by the applicant as part of their review.
60. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

61. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman