Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to deal with his homeless application properly. We found the Council delayed in accepting the relief duty, which caused Mr B some uncertainty. The Council has apologised to Mr B and offered him £75. We consider this is an adequate remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (the Council) failed to deal properly or promptly with his homeless application in September 2024. Specifically, it failed to properly consider the domestic abuse he said had caused him to leave his previous property and delayed in accepting the relief duty and making a decision on his case. He says this caused him significant distress and inconvenience.

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. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr B 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 and housing – domestic abuse

DASH assessment

7. 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. This is a standardised assessment, which produces a score out of 24. A score above 14 should result in a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) referral, although the person carrying out the assessment may make a referral where the score is lower if they have serious concerns about the victim’s safety.

Interim accommodation

8. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless as a result of domestic abuse, it should make interim accommodation available to the applicant immediately whilst it undertakes its investigations. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 21.25)

Homeless definition

9. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
10. It is not reasonable for a person to continue to live in accommodation if it is probable this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against them. (Housing Act 1996, Section 177)

Assessing homelessness

11. 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)

The relief duty

12. 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)

The main housing duty

13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). People in priority need include those who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age and victims of domestic abuse.

Review rights

14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of decisions, including the following:

• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.

15. Councils must complete reviews of decisions about priority need within eight weeks of the date of the review request.

Accommodation pending review

16. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

What happened

17. Mr B approached the Council as homeless due to domestic abuse on 20 September 2024 and arranged an assessment appointment for 23 September where his case was discussed. The Council provided Mr B with interim accommodation on that day.
18. On 17 November Mr B complained to the Council about the delay in reaching a decision on his homeless application. On 3 December a housing adviser contacted Mr B to discuss the alleged domestic abuse. Mr B provided details of his experience including that his finances had been taken over. The housing adviser requested his medical records from 2022 and referred the case to the Council’s medical adviser for a view on whether he was vulnerable in terms of medical needs.
19. On 9 December the Council accepted the relief duty and notified Mr B that it accepted he was homeless and eligible for assistance. It also completed a personal housing plan (PHP) advising him to look for properties in the private sector.
20. On 20 December the medical adviser stating that Mr B did not appear to have any chronic medical or mental health problems and the specific medical issues in the case were not of particular significance compared to an ordinary person.
21. On 7 February 2025 the Council responded to Mr B’s complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure. It explained that the delay in dealing with this case was due to the previous caseworker leaving without progressing the case. It said this was service failure and apologised for the delay. It had allocated the case to a new worker on 3 December 2024 who had met with Mr B to discuss the case and made enquiries to reach a decision on whether the Council owed him the main housing duty. It offered Mr B £75 for the impact on him.
22. On 11 February the Council notified Mr B of its decision that he was not in priority need as it did not consider he was at risk of violence, and he had no medical needs which made him vulnerable. His medical reports contained no reports of weight loss or any other significant medical problems. It had considered his bank statements which did not show evidence of financial abuse but did show he had been to the area where he said he was at risk. He had not sought advice or reported financial or domestic abuse with any other agencies. He was still using previous addresses for his business. The Council concluded the level of abuse he described was more related to a relationship breakdown and did not put Mr B at a serious risk of harm. The letter provided him with a right of review.
23. Mr B requested a review of the decision on 12 February saying that the Council had ignored his vulnerability due to domestic abuse. He also requested an extension of his interim accommodation pending the outcome of the review. The Council sent a cancellation letter to the interim accommodation provider ending the accommodation on 18 February. Mr B also complained to us, and we sent the complaint back as premature, asking the Council to complete its own complaints procedure.
24. The Council requested Mr B’s medical records from December 2024. It refused Mr B’s request to extend his interim accommodation as it was not satisfied he was homeless due to domestic abuse. There was no financial or medical evidence to support his claims.
25. On 6 March 2025 the Council received a letter from Mr B’s solicitor saying it was acting for him in respect of the review.
26. On 13 March the Council responded to Mr B’s complaint at stage two of its procedure. It said there was no evidence of financial or domestic abuse so there were no grounds to carry out a DASH assessment or refer him to MARAC. It said the Council was considering his review and he should provide any evidence he has to the reviewing officer.
27. The Council requested further evidence from Mr B’s GP and referred the case for a second time to the medical adviser, who repeated the previous view that there were no significant medical issues indicating vulnerability.
28. Mr B’s solicitor made representations in support of Mr B’s review on 6 May. The Council carried out a third medical assessment which reached the same conclusion that Mr B had no significant medical issues affecting his housing. On 14 May the Council sent a letter saying it was minded to uphold its decision to end the relief duty as there was no evidence to support medical needs arising from domestic abuse. It asked for further representations by 30 May.
29. On 18 June it confirmed the review decision, upholding its original decision to end the relief duty as Mr B was not in priority need. It was satisfied that Mr B became homeless due to a relationship breakdown but there was no evidence that remaining at the property would have led to domestic abuse rendering the property unreasonable to occupy. It said there was no evidence of financial abuse, referral to MARAC was not necessary as there was no evidence it was a high-risk domestic abuse case requiring multi-agency collaboration. It said it would have been desirable to have used the DASH framework but it was not a mandatory tool and Mr B was able to articulate his situation clearly. The Council acknowledged that the relief duty went on longer than it should have done but Mr B had interim accommodation throughout this period and there was no record from the rough sleepers team that Mr B had been rough sleeping since the accommodation was cancelled. It gave him a right of appeal to the county court against the decision.
30. Mr B complained again to us.

Findings

31. The Council delayed in progressing Mr B’s homeless application made in September 2024. It should have decided the case within 56 days but took over four months to do so. This was fault but the Council apologised to him and offered a £75 payment in recognition of the impact of the delay on him. I also note Mr B had interim accommodation throughout this period, so the injustice was limited to uncertainty. This payment is in line with our guidance on remedies and I do not consider any further action is warranted.
32. Once a new caseworker took over in early December 2024 there was no delay with the Council reaching a decision within two months, having made enquiries to obtain further information on Mr B’s case. It provided detailed reasoning for its decision including why it did not consider Mr B was in priority need.
33. It gave Mr B a right of review against the decision which he exercised. It extended the period to consider the review following the intervention by Mr B’s solicitor. It gave a provisional decision with the opportunity for Mr B to provide more information and confirmed its decision on 18 June 2025, with a right of appeal to the county court. I find no fault in its actions after December 2024. If Mr B wished to dispute the Council's decision he had a right of appeal to the county court.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault causing injustice but the Council has already taken action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman