Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her request for a domestic abuse floating support officer. There is no evidence the Council offered and withdrew a domestic abuse floating support officer or that an officer dealt with her inappropriately. However, the Council misled Miss X about her eligibility, delayed telling Miss X about the eligibility criteria and delayed changing the male officer allocated to Miss X. That raised Miss X’s expectations and caused her distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, reconsider her eligibility and provide guidance for officers.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complained the Council:
• offered and then withdrew a domestic abuse floating support officer without explanation;
• delayed telling her about the eligibility criteria for the service;
• failed to consider her serious mental and physical health issues when refusing her access to a domestic abuse floating support officer;
• allowed an outreach worker allocated to her to speak to her rudely; and
• repeatedly referred her back to the same officer.
2. Miss X says the Council’s actions had a serious impact on her mental and emotional health and left her feeling abandoned.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss X’s comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s criteria for the domestic abuse floating support service

8. A customer who has been a victim of domestic abuse, forced marriage or honour based violence and is assessed as at high risk of violence qualifies for the domestic abuse floating support service.
9. Those assessed as at medium risk of domestic abuse must have three or more vulnerabilities out of the six vulnerabilities listed to qualify for support from that service. Those six vulnerabilities are:
• physical disability
• diagnosed/undiagnosed mental health
• problematic substance misuse
• history of offending behaviour
• children being removed from their care or at risk of removal by local authority or children are on a child protection plan
• language barrier or illiterate or learning difficulties/disability.

What happened

10. Miss X is a victim of domestic abuse and had been living in a refuge. The refuge contacted the Council for help to find her suitable accommodation. While in the refuge Miss X asked for a domestic abuse floating support officer to provide her with support. The Council’s officer told Miss X they would ask for a floating support officer once she left the refuge.
11. The Council allocated a male housing officer to Miss X’s case. Miss X initially accepted that but asked for a female officer on 3 October. The Council changed the officer allocated to Miss X on 26 November.
12. The Council placed Miss X in temporary accommodation.
13. When Miss X chased the Council it said the domestic abuse floating support service would contact Miss X when they picked the case up.
14. The Council completed a risk assessment based on the information Miss X had given it during her homeless interview. That resulted in the Council identifying Miss X had a medium risk of domestic abuse.
15. In March 2025 the Council offered Miss X a referral to an external organisation for support from its floating support service. The Council told Miss X she did not qualify for the Council’s domestic abuse floating support service. The Council explained the external organisation could provide guidance, support and help with building self-confidence and independence.
16. Miss X put in a complaint. When responding to that the Council explained Miss X did not qualify under the criteria for the domestic abuse floating support service. The Council apologised for misleading information Miss X had received and for not explaining the criteria for the service sooner. The Council explained the short term outreach service it had offered Miss X provided a similar service to the domestic abuse floating support service. The Council also said it could refer Miss X to the external organisation which ran a floating support service.
17. Miss X asked the Council to take the complaint to the next stage. The Council responded to that complaint in May 2025. The Council again explained Miss X did not meet the criteria for the domestic abuse floating support service. The Council noted it had offered Miss X an outreach worker who could provide similar support and again offered a referral to the external organisation.
18. In response to my enquiry on this complaint the Council offered the following remedy:
• formal written apology;
• to review how the eligibility criteria for the domestic abuse floating support service is explained to applicants, alongside a committment to reinforcing trauma informed communication expectations; and
• renewed consideration of Miss X’s circumstances to see whether she now qualified for the domestic abuse floating support service or an appropriate specialist external service.

Analysis

19. Miss X says the Council offered and then withdrew a domestic abuse floating support officer and delayed telling her about the eligibility criteria for that team. Miss X says in refusing access to a domestic abuse floating support officer the Council failed to consider her serious mental and physical health issues.
20. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Miss X consistently asked the Council for a domestic abuse floating support officer from October 2024. I have not seen any evidence in the documentary records to show the Council offered Miss X a domestic abuse floating support officer and then withdrew that offer. However, the records show officers told Miss X both that they would ask for an officer from the domestic abuse floating support team once she left the refuge and that an officer from that team would contact her once her case was allocated.
21. I am satisfied those communications likely led Miss X to believe the Council would allocate her a domestic abuse floating support officer. As it is now clear Miss X does not meet the criteria for the domestic abuse floating support service I consider the Council misled Miss X and raised her expectations. That is fault. I am also concerned the Council did not tell Miss X she did not qualify for the domestic abuse floating support service until March 2025. That is also fault.
22. I cannot criticise the Council for not offering Miss X an officer from the domestic abuse floating support service though. That is because I am satisfied Miss X does not satisfy the criteria for that service, which I outlined in paragraphs 8 and 9. I appreciate Miss X has serious mental and physical health issues and needs some support. I am satisfied the Council has taken that into account by offering Miss X a domestic abuse outreach worker.
23. The evidence I have seen satisfies me that outreach worker can provide the same type of support the domestic abuse floating support service provides, on a shorter term basis. I am also satisfied the Council offered to refer Miss X to an external organisation which has a floating support service. I therefore could not say the Council failed to offer Miss X any support or take into account her mental and physical health issues. I appreciate Miss X would prefer support from the Council’s domestic abuse floating support service. However, as it is clear Miss X does not qualify for support from that service I cannot criticise the Council for not offering that support to her.
24. Miss X says the short term outreach worker the Council allocated to her spoke to her rudely. Miss X says that officer was dismissive about her concerns and tried to force her to move areas. I cannot comment on the way the officer spoke to Miss X as I do not have a copy of any recordings of telephone conversations.
25. I have seen nothing in the documentary evidence though to suggest the officer dealt with Miss X inappropriately or that the officer dismissed her concerns. There is some evidence of the officer advising Miss X about the difficulty obtaining social housing in Barnet and about the Council placing homeless applicants in temporary accommodation outside the borough. However, I am satisfied the information the officer gave Miss X about that is factual. That is not fault.
26. Miss X also says the Council repeatedly referred her back to the same officer. I do not have any evidence to show that was the case for the short term outreach officer. However, I note Miss X asked for a change of housing officer on 3 October as she was uncomfortable dealing with a male housing officer. Given the Council knew Miss X had experienced domestic abuse I would have expected it to change the caseworker before it did so on 26 November. That delay is fault.
27. I am satisfied Miss X experienced distress at having to deal with a male housing officer for longer than she should have when she was a victim of domestic abuse. I am also satisfied Miss X experienced raised expectations and distress around the issue about whether she qualified for a domestic abuse floating support officer. As remedy for that I recommended the Council apologise to Miss X again and pay her £100. I consider that an appropriate amount taking into account the fact the Council provided Miss X with an outreach officer who provides the same type of service as a floating support officer and as she was referred to an external organisation that provides floating support. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
28. The Council has also offered a renewed consideration of Miss X’s circumstances to determine whether she now qualifies for the domestic abuse floating support or an appropriate specialist external service. I welcome the Council’s offer as it is possible Miss X circumstances have changed since the Council completed the original risk assessment.
29. I further recommended the Council provide guidance to frontline officers dealing with those who have experienced domestic abuse about the criteria for qualifying for support from the domestic abuse floating support service. The Council has agreed to my recommendation. The Council will also review its procedures on allocating male officers to female victims of domestic abuse, and vice versa.

Back to top

Action

30. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Miss X for the distress she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Miss X £100;
• contact Miss X to carry out a further risk assessment to establish whether she now qualifies for the domestic abuse floating support service; and
• provide guidance to frontline officers about the qualifying criteria for the domestic abuse floating support service.
31. Within three months of my decision the Council should review its procedures for allocating male officers to female victims of domestic abuse and vice versa.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman