Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions after she told it she was a victim of domestic abuse. We find the Council at fault in its handling of her initial approach, including its treatment of her at its offices, its failure to complete a Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based Violence risk assessment, and its failure to provide interim accommodation without delay. We also find fault in the Council’s delay in accepting the relief and main housing duties, its failure to properly consider the suitability of the interim accommodation and unsafe areas, its failure to inform Ms X of her right to request a suitability review, and its poor complaint handling. These faults caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty, placed her at risk of harm by requiring her to return to the property where the alleged abuse occurred, led to a loss of statutory review rights, and caused her unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X, and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s actions after she told it she was a victim of domestic abuse. Specifically, she said the Council:
1. kept her at its offices for hours while staff discussed her situation;
2. decided she was not a victim of domestic abuse without carrying out a proper assessment; and
3. failed to treat her circumstances as an emergency, instead arranging a homelessness assessment appointment five weeks later.
2. Ms X also complained about the Council’s handling of her complaint.
3. She said the Council’s actions caused her significant distress and uncertainty and meant she had to return to the property where the alleged abuse occurred, putting her safety at risk.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms 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

Relevant law and legislation

Homelessness

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)
11. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

Assessments and Personalised Housing Plans

12. 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)

The relief duty

13. 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)

Interim and temporary accommodation

14. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
15. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
16. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

17. 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)
18. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
19. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

Domestic abuse

20. 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)
21. 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 Council’s domestic abuse checklist

22. The Council uses internal checklists to provide guidance to housing staff when dealing with people who report experiencing domestic abuse.
23. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council have:
• completed a Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based Violence (DASH) risk assessment to assess the level of risk;
• offered signposting to the National Domestic Abuse Helpline;
• provided information on housing-related support available to domestic abuse victims;
• asked Ms X what outcome she wanted;
• explored whether she needed help to move to a safe address, including identifying unsafe and preferred areas.

What happened

24. In late 2024, Ms X went to the Council’s offices to seek help, reporting that she was experiencing domestic abuse from a family member she lived with.
25. Ms X was initially directed to the Council’s Domestic Abuse Intervention Service (DAIS), who then told her to speak with the housing team. Customer service staff asked her a series of questions in an open area and relayed her answers to a housing manager by email. Ms X explained she had previously fled an abusive relationship, was now experiencing escalating verbal and emotional abuse from a family member during her pregnancy, and that an argument the day before had become physical. She told the Council she had contacted Refuge, which advised her to seek help from the Council.
26. After reviewing the information, the housing manager decided the situation did not appear to be domestic abuse and instructed staff to book Ms X a homelessness assessment appointment. The next available appointment was in five weeks. Ms X questioned this decision, explaining she felt unsafe returning home, but was told to contact the Council again if matters escalated. The entire process took several hours, during which Ms X was questioned in an open public space.
27. The following week, Ms X submitted a formal complaint about how the Council had handled her approach. She said staff had dismissed her as a domestic abuse victim, kept her waiting for hours, failed to recognise the risks to her safety or provide information about safe accommodation, and told her the situation was a “family conflict” rather than domestic abuse.
28. Five days after her initial approach, the Council’s DAIS completed a DASH. Two weeks later, DAIS liaised with the housing team to request Ms X was provided with emergency interim accommodation pending an outcome of a homeless assessment.
29. In November, the Council issued its stage one complaint response. It said customer services had discussed Ms X’s case with a housing manager, who decided she was not homeless and did not require emergency assistance. The Council said it had not concluded that Ms X was not experiencing domestic abuse, which is why a DAIS referral was made. It confirmed an assessment appointment had been arranged for later in November and apologised for the time Ms X spent at its offices but did not uphold her complaint.
30. On the same day, the Council completed Ms X’s homelessness assessment and found she was homeless, eligible, and in priority need. During the assessment it explored possible unsafe areas. It offered interim accommodation that day, which she moved into later that month. Before moving in, Ms X raised concerns that the accommodation was close to her ex-partner, whom she had previously fled due to domestic abuse, and was unsuitable given her health conditions.
31. Ms X escalated her complaint, saying the Council had not addressed her concerns about staff comments and that personal views appeared to have influenced the way she was treated and made to wait for most of the day.
32. Ms X contacted the Council several times to chase progress on the escalation. The Council did not acknowledge her request until December, when it advised she would receive a response in January.
33. In December 2024, the Council accepted the relief duty, confirming Ms X was homeless, eligible, and in priority need. It stated it had reason to believe she was in priority need and that it therefore had a duty to provide interim accommodation.
34. In late January 2025, following further contact from Ms X, the Council issued its stage two complaint response. It confirmed that customer services staff had sought advice from a housing manager, who considered the situation to be an argument rather than domestic abuse but recommended arranging a full homelessness assessment. The Council apologised again for the time Ms X spent in its offices and accepted it was unclear why the matter had taken so long to resolve.
35. In May, Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
36. In June, the Council accepted the main housing duty.
37. In response to my enquiries the Council said:
• DAIS appears to have received further information which clarified the nature of the domestic issues Ms X was experiencing;
• the interim accommodation offered was close to the area where Ms X’s ex-partner lived;
• it accepts there was an unexplained delay in issuing the relief duty letter;
• the main housing duty letter did not inform Ms X of her right to request a suitability review;
• there was a delay in accepting the main housing duty, attributed to workload pressures, a high caseload, and a change of homelessness officer.

My findings

Ms X’s treatment at the Council’s offices in 2024

38. The Council has already apologised for the length of time Ms X spent at its offices when she approached for help. Having reviewed the internal correspondence, I find it is unclear why Ms X was required to remain at the office for several hours after a housing manager had reached a decision. The delay between the decision being made and it being communicated to Ms X was unnecessary and caused her avoidable distress.
39. I also note the housing team did not speak directly to Ms X, despite her being present and available. Instead, information was relayed via customer services staff by email. This indirect approach unnecessarily prolonged the process and contributed to Ms X’s prolonged waiting time. This was poor administrative practice and amounts to fault.
40. Ms X was asked to disclose sensitive information about her past and current experiences of domestic abuse in an open public area where others could overhear. While I cannot say this alone amounts to fault, it did not afford Ms X appropriate privacy or dignity, particularly given the nature of the information she was being asked to share.

The Council’s decision-making on the day Ms X approached

41. When Ms X approached the Council, she reported escalating verbal and emotional abuse from a family member, a recent physical altercation, and that she felt unsafe returning home. She was also pregnant. This information met the low threshold of giving the Council reason to believe Ms X may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and in priority need.
42. The housing manager did not complete a DASH risk assessment at that point and instead concluded the situation did not amount to domestic abuse. This is against the Council’s own policy on dealing with service users experiencing domestic abuse and was therefore fault. A DASH assessment would have supported a proper professional judgement and ensured relevant risks were appropriately considered.
43. On the balance of probabilities, based on the information Ms X provided at the time, and the information she later provided when the DASH was completed, the Council should have treated her approach as an emergency, provided interim accommodation immediately, and then undertaken any further enquiries required. The Council’s failure to do so meant Ms X returned to the property where the alleged abuse occurred.
44. Ms X remained in that property for around three further weeks. Given her pregnancy and the circumstances she had described, the Council’s failure to provide interim accommodation placed her at risk of harm and caused her significant distress and anxiety.

Homelessness assessment and acceptance of duties

45. When Ms X’s homelessness assessment was completed in November 2024, the Council found she was homeless, eligible for assistance, and in priority need, and it provided interim accommodation. There is no fault in the outcome of that assessment.
46. However, the Council did not accept the relief duty until December 2024. The Council has since accepted it should have accepted the relief duty in November 2024, when Ms X was placed in interim accommodation. I agree. This delay was fault.
47. This delay had knock-on consequences. Had the relief duty been accepted when it should have been, the main housing duty should have been accepted by early January 2025. Instead, the Council did not accept the main housing duty until June 2025, a delay of approximately 24 weeks. The Council attributes this to workload pressures and staffing changes. These factors do not excuse the delay. This was fault.
48. When the Council accepted the main housing duty, it failed to inform Ms X of her right to request a review of the suitability of her accommodation. This was fault. I cannot say whether such a review would have found the accommodation unsuitable, but Ms X had previously raised concerns about its suitability due to her health needs and its proximity to her ex-partner. The failure to notify her of her review rights caused uncertainty and ongoing distress.

Consideration of unsafe areas

49. During the homelessness assessment, Ms X provided the Council with a list of areas she considered unsafe. Given her history of domestic abuse, the Council should have taken these areas into account when arranging interim accommodation. The accommodation provided was close to the area where Ms X’s ex-partner lived, and I have seen no evidence to show how the Council considered the proximity of the placement or satisfied itself that it did not pose a risk to Ms X. This was fault. While I cannot say that proper consideration would necessarily have led to a different outcome, this failing caused Ms X uncertainty.

Complaint handling

50. The Council’s published complaints procedure sets target response times of 15 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two. The Council responded to Ms X’s stage one complaint within its published timescales. However, it took around five weeks longer than its target timescale to respond at stage two. Although the Council cited an extension over the festive period, had the complaint been handled appropriately at the point of escalation, a response should have been issued before that period. This delay was fault and caused Ms X additional frustration, uncertainty, and unnecessary time and trouble in repeatedly chasing a response.

Back to top

Action

51. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to: 
• apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• pay Ms X £200 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by its actions when she first approached it, and the delay accepting relief and main housing duty;
• pay Ms X £300 to recognise the three weeks she remained in a property where she was at risk of harm;
• pay Ms X £100 to recognise the time and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling;
• provide Ms X with her right to request a review of the suitability of her current accommodation; and
• if Ms X requests a review and the accommodation is found unsuitable:
1. move her to suitable accommodation as soon as possible; and
2. pay her a further remedy for the period she was in unsuitable accommodation, calculated in line with our Guidance on remedies.

• Remind housing staff of:
• The low threshold for providing interim accommodation;
• The requirement to complete Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based Violence risk assessments where domestic abuse is disclosed; and
• The need to advise applicants of review rights when accepting the main housing duty.

52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman