Summary: Ms B complained about how the Council dealt with her family’s situation after she approached it as homeless when family members were at risk of domestic abuse. The Council offered unsuitable interim accommodation, delayed making a decision on its relief duties and discharged its duties by placing them in unsuitable private rented accommodation. We uphold the complaint due to multiple faults by the Council. This meant Ms B and her family were in unsuitable accommodation, that could likely have been avoided, but for the fault. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Ms B) and her representative (Ms D) complain about how the London Borough of Southwark (‘the Council’) dealt with Ms B and her family’s situation after she approached it as homeless because her daughter (Ms C) and grandchild were at risk of domestic abuse. They complain the Council:
• initially made them an offer of interim accommodation (Property 1) in a place which was an area of risk for the family;
• then offered Ms B a private rented sector property (Property 2). The Council’s officer said she had to accept it, or the Council would discharge its duty to the family;
• delayed notifying Ms B that it accepted a relief duty towards her. This resulted in the Council not offering her Property 2 under the provisions set out in Section 189B of the Housing Act. Most notably around not notifying Ms B of her right of review of its decision to offer her Property 2;
• did not contact the housing association that was the landlord of the flat the family had to leave. The Council could have placed the family in interim accommodation while making enquiries about the possibility of them keeping their social housing status;
• did not carry out proper checks to establish that Property 2 was suitable to be let. For example it did not inspect the property, check the suitability of the landlord or check gas safety certificates;
• through its Housing Officer, advised Ms B she needed to contact another council for assistance with problems at Property 2.

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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms B and Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms B and Ms D 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

Legal and administrative background

Legislation and statutory guidance

6. 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.
7. 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)

Assessments and personalised housing plans

8. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with 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 must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
9. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Local connection / out of area

10. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says: “[h]ouseholds at risk of domestic abuse often have to leave their homes and the area where they have lived. There is a clear need for victims of abuse and their children to be able to travel to different areas in order for them to be safe from the perpetrator, and housing authorities should extend the same level of support to those from other areas as they do to their own residents.” (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)

Interim accommodation – domestic abuse

11. 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)

Suitability of accommodation

12. 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)

Domestic Abuse Act 2021

13. The Domestic Abuse Act amended the Housing Act to make clear 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 77)
14. The statutory guidance for the Domestic Abuse Act notes there are a number of potential accommodation options for victims of domestic abuse. Housing authorities need to consider which are most appropriate for each person on a case-by-case basis, taking into account their circumstances and needs.
15. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says councils should support a victim of domestic abuse to outline their experience based on the details of the case. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)

Statutory Guidance: Improving access to social housing for victims of domestic abuse

16. In 2025 the Government published further statutory guidance for local housing authorities to assist them in understanding how they should allocate social housing to victims of domestic abuse.
17. The Guidance notes:
• people who had previously been in private rented accommodation did not have additional rights due to being domestic abuse survivors. So housing authorities did not have to offer all victims of domestic abuse a Secure Tenancy (see below). They could offer housing association or private rented accommodation as an alternative; but
• the Domestic Abuse Act did ensure that previous Secure Tenants would retain the same security if they needed to move to a new tenancy, for reasons connected to the abuse;
• housing authorities should be aware those recovering from the impact of domestic abuse were likely to have medical and welfare needs, including physical and mental health issues, which could be complex and long lasting;
• housing authorities “…will want to ensure that the accommodation that is provided meets the needs and circumstances – and wherever possible the preferences – of the survivor and their household and that appropriate support is put in place following an assessment of the household’s particular needs”.

Types of tenancy at the time of the complaint

18. At the time of the complaint there were different types of tenancy which were relevant to Ms B’s situation.
• Assured Shorthold Tenancies were the usual private rental tenancy until 2026. They allowed landlords to repossess properties at relatively short notice, without needing a specific reason. These tenancies could be for either a fixed period or ongoing, rolling, tenancies.
• Assured Tenancies are tenancies mostly used by housing associations. Landlords can usually only evict tenants for specific reasons, so offered higher security than Assured Shorthold Tenancies.
• Secure Tenancies. These are for tenants of council owned properties. They offer lifetime tenancies for most tenants.
19. Councils could discharge their homelessness duties by finding suitable properties in either of these categories (although for Assured Shorthold Tenancies there needed to be an, at least, two year initial fixed period).

What happened

20. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not meant to be a detailed chronology.
21. Ms B lived with her children in a housing association property in the Borough. Ms C fell pregnant and started to receive threats from the father of her child.
22. In the early part of 2024, Ms B applied to the Council for a place on its housing allocation list. A medical assessment for that application notes the family needed allocating a property at the maximum level of the first floor. There is no explanation on the form of the reasons for this recommendation.
23. In the summer of 2024 Ms B approached a charity supporting victims of domestic abuse. It completed a domestic violence questionnaire which the Council has in its records. It noted the danger areas for the family were the area where they lived and the areas around.
24. Ms C’s child was born in early August. Ms B approached the Council as homeless, as it was not safe for them to stay in their home. The Council had an initial look at their situation. The form it completed notes:
• Ms C was at risk due to threats;
• Ms B had approached her housing association landlord who was discussing options, but had not given her an outcome;
• Ms C suffered from depression.
25. The Council took a homeless application a few days later. Its initial assessment document notes:
• the family had a history of mental health problems; but
• elsewhere notes the family had no vulnerabilities, disabilities or need for medical support;
• Ms B had approached her housing association landlord but had yet to receive a response;
• it had discussed private rented sector options.
26. The following day the Council offered Ms B Property 1 as interim accommodation. Ms B refused the offer. The Council’s records say the estate manager told the Council this was because there was no room for her fridge. Ms D later said Ms B had refused the property as it was in an area near to the one the family had lived in, so was not safe for them.
27. The next day Ms D says the Council’s officer contacted Ms B and offered her a viewing of Property 2 (which is in a neighbouring borough). Ms B says she was told if she did not accept the offer the Council would discharge its duty. So she took the property under duress and signed an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement.
28. At the beginning of September the Council wrote to Ms B with its PHP (see paragraph 8). The PHP noted Ms B’s family had fled domestic violence, but there were no medical issues or support needs. The Council’s case note says it delayed issuing the PHP as it was awaiting information about whether Ms B’s landlord would assist.
29. Later in September the Council wrote to Ms B to advise its duty to help her resolve her homelessness had ended, as she had found suitable accommodation.
30. Ms D says, soon after moving, Ms B contacted her housing officer at the Council raising concerns about the condition of the flat they had moved to. Later in the year, Ms B was in contact with the environmental health team at the council in the borough where the flat was, because of disrepair at the flat.
31. A social worker working with Ms C was in contact with the Council’s housing team. The Council’s housing officer advised she needed to contact the council where she was living, as the Council had no further duty towards her.
32. By this time Ms D was assisting Ms B. Ms D made a complaint on Ms B’s behalf and also asked the Council to accept a late Housing Act review about the decisions in its September letter (see paragraph 29), or to take a new homeless application.
33. In December 2024 the Council agreed to take a new homeless application from Ms B.
34. Ms D continued to act for Ms B about the new application. In February 2025 the Council agreed it had a relief duty towards the family. The PHP states:

“… in light of the recommendation of the initial medical assessment of February 2024, which indicated that your current home should be regarded to be unsuitable for your household on medical grounds, you are regarded to be homeless.”

35. Ms B and her family moved to new temporary accommodation at the end of February.
36. The Council’s final response to Ms B’s complaint said its view was it had correctly issued the September 2024 letter (see paragraph 29) to end its relief duty. It had offered Ms B Property 2 during the relief duty period. The response did offer Ms B a payment of £50, due to a delay in dealing with her complaint. It signposted her to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
37. Ms B complained to this Ombudsman. In response to my enquiries, the Council advised:
• it did not have any records of any inspections of Property 2 prior to Ms B moving there;
• officers from various housing teams, including homelessness assessment teams, took part last year in domestic abuse awareness training. The Council was exploring further training.

Was there fault by the Council?

38. The Domestic Abuse Act and related statutory guidance has advice which includes:
• councils need to consider, on a case-by-case basis, the most appropriate accommodation option for victims of domestic abuse;
• councils would want to ensure accommodation met a household’s needs and circumstances, and where possible, their preferences;
• those recovering from the impact of domestic abuse were likely to have medical and welfare needs, including physical and mental health issues.
39. Not all of this guidance is directly applicable to Ms B, as she had been in an Assured (not Secure) Tenancy. But some of the general principles are useful in guiding an assessment of how councils should deal with applicants homeless due to domestic abuse. Given this, in Ms B’s case. I would have expected to see in the Council’s written records evidence of it taking the following actions with Ms B and her family.
• Attempts to contact Ms B’s social housing landlord to liaise with it about what it was doing. The Council notes what Ms B told it about what she understood her landlord was doing, but made no attempts itself to contact it. It could have considered further interim accommodation while it sought to do this. That was fault.
• Explaining the implications for the security of their tenure of moving from their Assured Tenancy to the private rented sector (Assured Shorthold Tenancy) option the Council offered – perhaps by earlier issuing a PHP. By not doing this, Ms B was not fully informed that she would have less security of tenure if she accepted that offer. That was fault.
• Records of the Council’s exploration into whether Ms C had medical or welfare needs, given statutory guidance notes those recovering from the impact of domestic abuse were likely to have medical and welfare needs. The Council’s assessment document ticks the family had no needs. But elsewhere in the same document, there is a note of a history of mental health problems in the family. And elsewhere that Ms C suffered from depression. There is no record elsewhere of a conversation with the family about this issue. That was fault.
40. Other faults I have found include:
• the Council has not been able to give me any records of its inspection of the property before Ms B moved in, that it carried out a landlord check or checked gas safety certificates. So it is unclear how it decided the property was suitable. That was fault;
• incorrect advice by the Council’s housing officer that it did not have any ongoing duty towards Ms B. That was not correct, due to the advice in the Homelessness Code of Guidance (see paragraph 10);
• signposting Ms B to the Housing Ombudsman. This Ombudsman is the correct one for complaints about a council’s homelessness duties.
41. There are conflicting accounts about the reasons Ms B refused the interim accommodation the Council at first offered (Property 1). So I cannot say there is evidence of fault with that offer. But I would have expected to see a record of why, after this, instead of making a further offer of interim accommodation, the Council decided to offer private rented accommodation. To not have a record was fault.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

42. We do not know what would have happened if the Council had contacted Ms B’s landlord, issued an earlier PHP or carried out checks on Property 2. So the injustice from those faults is uncertainty.
43. But, both before and after the homeless application, Ms B had noted Ms C’s health problems – most notably that she was at risk if she was living above the first floor. I find, on the balance of probabilities, that if the Council had explored support needs more fully with Ms C and Ms B, they would have likely disclosed Ms C’s particular needs.
44. That means the injustice to the family, on the balance of probabilities, is they lived for around six months in accommodation that was unsuitable.
45. In reaching a conclusion the accommodation was unsuitable I note the Council’s reason for accepting Ms B’s family as homeless in 2025 was because of the floor it was on. Given this was based on an earlier assessment, it is likely, but for the fault, the Council would not have placed the family there.

Back to top

Action

46. I recommend that, within a month of my final decision, the Council take the following action:
• Apologise. 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 Ms B a symbolic payment of £1500 for the distress to the family of the Council placing it in unsuitable accommodation for six months;
• Remind officers working on housing complaints of the split in jurisdiction between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Housing Ombudsman Service.
47. I also recommend that within three months of my final decision, the Council creates a procedure or guidance for considering homelessness applications where domestic abuse is a factor. This is to ensure officers appropriately consider the issues highlighted in statutory guidance and this decision.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman