The Investigation

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council refused to support her and her child when they fled domestic abuse in 2023. Specifically, she says the Council:

2. Ms X says these decisions have severely affected her mental health and wellbeing and placed her and her child at risk of further harm.

Legal and administrative background

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We 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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Relevant law and guidance DASH assessment

5. 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.

Assessing homelessness and domestic abuse

6. 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)

Seeking evidence about domestic abuse

7. 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. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)

8. The Code says councils should not have a blanket approach toward domestic abuse which requires corroborative or police evidence to be provided. In some cases, this kind of evidence is not available due to lack of adult witnesses or victims being too afraid or ashamed to report incidents to family, friends or the police. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)

Safety planning and risk assessment

9. The Code says applicants at risk of domestic abuse should not be expected to return home on the strength of an injunction, such as an occupation or non-molestation order, as these are not always effective. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)

Local connection/out of area

10. The Code says, “Households 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)

11. The Code says, “A housing authority cannot refer an applicant to another housing authority where they have a local connection if that person or any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with them would be at risk of domestic abuse in that other district.” (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)

Use of refuges

12. Refuges provide short-term, intensive support for people fleeing abuse. The Code makes clear that due to the intensity of the support while in a refuge, they are not simply a substitute for other forms of temporary accommodation. Councils should work with the refuge provider to consider how long the person needs to stay before other accommodation is provided. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)

Homeless definition

13. 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)

14. 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)

The relief duty

15. 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)

Review rights

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

1. decided they did not qualify for homelessness assistance because they did not have a local connection to the area; and

2. referred them back to their previous council area, where the domestic abuse had occurred, on the basis that they had a local connection there.

   • their eligibility for assistance;

   • what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;

   • to notify their case to another authority when the Council considers the conditions for referral are met;

   • whether the conditions are met for the referral of their case to another housing authority.

Referral to another authority and associated duties

17. Where a housing authority considers the conditions are met to refer a homelessness application to another authority on local connection grounds, section 199A of the Housing Act 1996 applies. The authority owes the relief duty unless and until it notifies the applicant that it intends to refer, or has referred, the case to another authority. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 10)

18. However, where the authority has reason to believe the applicant may be in priority need, it continues to owe a duty to secure interim accommodation under section 199A(2) while the question of whether the conditions for referral are met is determined. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 10)

19. The notified authority should normally respond to a referral within 10 working days. The question of whether the conditions for referral are met must be decided by agreement between the authorities. Where agreement cannot be reached, or a response is not provided, there is a statutory dispute resolution procedure involving the appointment of an independent person to determine the issue. During this period, the notifying authority continues to owe accommodation duties. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 10)

20. An applicant has the right to request a review of a decision that the conditions for referral are met. That right arises once the authority has notified the applicant of that decision. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 10)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

21. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Priority need

22. Examples of homeless applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children; and

• victims of domestic abuse.

Decision letters

23. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)

What we have and have not investigated

24. Ms X’s complaint relates to events that occurred in 2023. She did not bring her complaint to us until 2025, two years later. Ms X explained that the Council’s actions had a significant impact on her mental health and wellbeing, and that following her fleeing from domestic abuse she was focused on keeping herself and her child safe and trying to establish a new life. We consider these to be good reasons for the delay in bringing the complaint. Although the events took place two years ago, we are satisfied the Council would still hold relevant records sufficient to allow a fair investigation. We have therefore exercised discretion to investigate this complaint.

How we considered this complaint

25. We have produced this report following the examination of relevant files and documents. We also discussed the complaint with Ms X.

26. We gave the complainant and the Council a confidential draft of this report and invited their comments. The comments received were taken into account before the report was finalised.

What we found

What happened

27. In early 2023, Ms X fled domestic abuse by her former partner in council area 1. She and her young child moved to a refuge in council area 2. After some time at the refuge, Ms X was told she would need to leave in mid-May 2023. A support worker at the refuge sent a referral form to council area 2 - South Gloucestershire Council (the Council), providing information about Ms X’s circumstances including a DASH risk assessment which detailed severe and escalating abuse.

Homelessness application

28. In March, the Council completed a homelessness application. Its records note that Ms X was living in a refuge but would need to leave shortly, had applied for a non-molestation order, and that her former partner had travelled to council area 3, where Ms X’s family live, in an attempt to locate her, and had harassed her and accessed her emails since being in the refuge leading her to change her number.

29. In April, the Council contacted Ms X’s support worker. It said that because Ms X did not have a local connection to its area, it would need evidence that the whole of council area 3 was unsafe before it could accept a homelessness duty towards her. The Council said council area 3 covered a wide geographical area, that Ms X had not raised concerns about gang affiliation, and that if no further evidence was provided by the end of the week, it was likely to refer her case to council area 3.

30. Ms X’s support worker responded, explaining that Ms X’s former partner was aware of her family and friends in council area 3 and knew their addresses, meaning it would not be a safe area for Ms X and her child. The support worker also explained that Ms X was involved in court proceedings and applying for a prohibited steps order and a child arrangements order.

Local connection and referral to council area 1

31. The following week, the Council wrote to Ms X confirming that it was satisfied she was homeless and eligible for assistance. However, it said it would not accept the relief duty and would instead refer her case to council area 1, from where she had fled domestic abuse. A further letter explained that the Council had found Ms X did not have a local connection to South Gloucestershire.

32. Ms X’s support worker contacted the Council to challenge its decision, querying why it had concluded that Ms X was not in priority need.

33. The Council responded, explaining that it did accept Ms X was in priority need due to fleeing domestic abuse. However, it said that because she did not have a local connection to South Gloucestershire, it did not owe her a housing duty. The Council said it could either refer her to council area 1, or to council area 3 if Ms X could provide evidence that her family had lived there for more than five years.

34. Later that day, the Council wrote to council area 1. It stated that Ms X was homeless and eligible for support but did not have a local connection to its area. However, she had a local connection to council area 1 and that she would not be at risk of domestic abuse or other violence if referred there. The letter also said Ms X could not return to her previous address due to the risk of domestic abuse. No further supporting documents were included with the referral.

Challenges from support worker and further correspondence

35. In May, Ms X’s support worker wrote to the Council expressing serious concern about its decision to refer Ms X back to council area 1. The support worker highlighted Ms X’s high DASH risk assessment score and said it was unsafe and harmful to return her to the area she had fled. The support worker asked the Council to reconsider and to accept the relief duty. They also provided extracts from relevant legislation and guidance and explained that Ms X would present to the Council’s offices once she became homeless.

36. The Council responded stating the guidance cited by the support worker was not applicable. It said it considered there was insufficient evidence that safety measures had failed, or that Ms X would be at further risk if she were housed a safe distance from her previous address. The Council again requested the full addresses of Ms X’s family members in council area 3 so it could assess potential housing options there. It also stated that it believed referral to council area 3 would be more beneficial because it was a larger authority.

37. The following week, the Council spoke with Ms X by telephone. During this call, it told Ms X that her support worker was misinterpreting the law. The Council stated that a manager had oversight of the case and was aware of the decisions being made. It advised Ms X not to attend the Council’s offices, explaining that a decision had already been made and that it would not be able to accommodate her if she presented in person. After the date Ms X was due to leave the refuge, her support worker contacted the Council again. The support worker quoted relevant sections of the Homelessness Code of Guidance and asked why Ms X was required to demonstrate a local connection, given the guidance on domestic abuse. The support worker also queried the Council’s earlier statement that there was insufficient evidence that safety measures had failed and asked how this aligned with Ms X’s own assessment of risk.

Final decision and case closure

38. The Council subsequently contacted Ms X again. Its records describe this as a final attempt to reach a resolution. Ms X told the Council that she continued to experience harassment from her former partner while living in the refuge. She explained that a family member had been appointed as a contact in relation to her child, but that this person had also been harassed and the matter reported to the police. Ms X said she was applying for a non-molestation order, that her former partner had driven to council area 3 in an attempt to locate her, and that they expected her to remain near her family. The Council told Ms X it could not refer her to another authority without the addresses of any local connections. It said it could not accept a homelessness duty because she did not have a local connection to South Gloucestershire and that it had not seen any evidence she would be at further risk if housed a safe distance from unsafe addresses. The Council stated that three miles was generally considered a safe distance. When challenged, the Council repeated that three miles was a figure commonly regarded as safe by professionals and again declined to accept a homelessness duty.

39. Ms X’s support worker asked the Council to confirm its position in writing. The Council confirmed by email that it would not accept a homelessness duty, including the provision of interim accommodation, because Ms X did not have a local connection and there was insufficient evidence that safety measures had failed. It advised that it would be detrimental for Ms X to take further action or to present in person. The Council again stated that a manager was aware of the case and the decisions being made.

40. The Council also wrote to Ms X confirming that she was eligible for assistance and homeless but did not have a local connection to South Gloucestershire. It said she did have a local connection to council area 1 and that it had used its discretion to refer her there. The Council said it had considered her reasons for wishing to remain in the area but found no special circumstances. It said Ms X had not provided sufficient evidence that she would be at risk in council area 1 if housed a safe distance from unsafe addresses. The Council said it had notified council area 1 and would update her once it received a response.

41. Later that same day, the Council emailed Ms X again advising that it could not offer any further guidance or information and that it would be closing her case.

Formal complaint

42. In May 2025, Ms X complained to the Council about how it handled her homelessness approach in 2023. She said the Council refused to help her despite her being homeless and in priority need, and that it referred her back to the area she had fled. Ms X said the Council minimised the risk to her and her child and asked for an apology and compensation. She explained that the Council’s actions had severely affected her mental health and that this had delayed her ability to complain.

43. The Council responded, stating that due to the time elapsed since the events, it would not investigate the complaint.

Council’s response to our enquiries

44. The Council said it does not have a specific procedure for handling homelessness cases involving domestic abuse, but that it deals with such cases in accordance with Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) and relevant sections of the Homelessness Code of Guidance.

45. The Council said that in deciding to refer Ms X to council area 1, it considered her DASH risk assessment, interviews with Ms X, and information from her support worker. It said it concluded there was insufficient evidence to show it would be unsafe for Ms X to live in council area 1. The Council said it considered factors including safety measures in place or being pursued, any offending history or gang affiliation, risk to the child, involvement of other professionals, and risks from third parties.

46. The Council explained that its reference to three miles being a safe distance was intended as a general example reflecting the housing officer’s opinion. It confirmed that a three mile distance is not set out in any policy, procedure, or guidance for homelessness officers.

47. The Council said it did not provide Ms X with review rights in relation to its decisions on the relief duty or referral because it had not received a response from council area 1. It said that had council area 1 accepted the referral, it would then have issued a letter including review rights.

48. The Council confirmed it did not receive a response from council area 1 and did not hear further from Ms X. It therefore closed her case on the basis that it had lost contact with her.

49. The Council provided its complaints policy, which states complaints should normally be made within 12 months of the issue occurring or becoming known, but that later complaints may be accepted where there are good reasons. The Council said it did not investigate Ms X’s complaint because her homelessness case had been closed two years earlier.

Conclusions

50. There is no dispute that Ms X was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. The Council accepted that Ms X had fled domestic abuse and that she had a dependent child. The key issues in this case are whether the Council acted in accordance with the law and statutory guidance when deciding risk, local connection, referral, its relief duty, and its duties to secure interim accommodation.

Assessment of domestic abuse and risk

51. The Homelessness Code of Guidance (the Code) requires councils to take a person-centred approach when assessing homelessness applications involving domestic abuse. Authorities should support applicants to explain their experiences and must not require corroborative evidence as a blanket approach. They must also avoid assumptions about safety based on distance or protective measures alone.

52. The evidence shows the Council accepted that Ms X had experienced domestic abuse and that she was in priority need. However, despite this, the Council repeatedly stated there was “insufficient evidence” that Ms X would be at further risk if housed a safe distance from unsafe addresses, including in the area she had fled.

53. In reaching this view, the Council relied heavily on its own assessment that Ms X could be safely housed if located a sufficient distance away, including reference to a three mile distance being “generally considered safe”.

54. This approach was fault. The Code is clear that victims of domestic abuse should not be expected to return to an area where abuse occurred, even where protective measures such as non-molestation orders are in place, as these are not always effective. The Council’s reasoning failed to properly account for Ms X’s lived experience, her high DASH risk score, and evidence that her former partner was actively attempting to locate her, including travelling to areas where they believed she had family connections, as well as information from other professionals indicating risks to both Ms X and her child.

55. The Council also placed inappropriate weight on the absence of factors such as gang affiliation or a known offending history. These are not prerequisites for domestic abuse risk. Their use indicates an overly narrow and inappropriate interpretation of risk which is not supported by the guidance.

56. As a result, the Council minimised the risk Ms X faced. This caused her significant distress and uncertainty and exposed her and her child to the risk of further harm.

Local connection and referral decision

57. When considering whether a council owes a housing duty in cases involving domestic abuse, a local connection must not be taken into account. A council must not refer an applicant to another authority if the applicant, or any member of their household, would be at risk of domestic abuse in that authority’s area.

58. Despite this, the Council refused to accept the relief duty on the basis that Ms X did not have a local connection to South Gloucestershire. This was fault.

59. The Council decided to refer Ms X to council area 1, where she had fled domestic abuse. In doing so, it stated that she would not be at risk of domestic abuse if referred there, while also acknowledging that she could not return to her previous address due to the risk of abuse.

60. This position is internally inconsistent. The Council did not explain how Ms X could safely return to the district she fled while accepting that she could not safely return to her home there. There is no evidence the Council carried out a holistic or meaningful risk assessment to support this conclusion. The referral was also made without sharing key information, including the DASH risk assessment. This was contrary to the Code and was fault.

61. The Council’s insistence that Ms X provide full addresses of family members in council area 3 before it would consider a referral there is of concern. Given the context of domestic abuse and Ms X’s stated fears about her former partner knowing these locations, this placed her in an unreasonable position and was not consistent with the spirit or intent of the guidance.

Relief duty and interim accommodation

62. The Council accepted Ms X was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. It therefore owed her the relief duty under section 189B of the Housing Act 1996 unless and until it properly notified her of an intention to refer her case to another authority.

63. The Council decided to refer Ms X to council area 1. However, the evidence does not show it accepted and meaningfully exercised the relief duty before doing so.

64. The Council’s records confirm Ms X was living in a refuge at the time of her application. While she remained in refuge accommodation, there was no immediate requirement for the Council to secure separate interim accommodation under section 188. However, Ms X informed the Council she was required to leave the refuge in mid-May 2023. At that stage and given it had reason to believe she was homeless, eligible and in priority need, the Council was under a duty to secure interim accommodation.

65. Council area 1 did not confirm whether it accepted the referral. The Code recommends that notified authorities respond within 10 working days. Where agreement cannot be reached, there is a formal dispute resolution procedure. The Council did not demonstrate that it chased a response, invoked the dispute process, or otherwise progressed the matter.

66. In these circumstances, the Council’s duty to secure accommodation continued. Instead, it advised Ms X not to present as homeless in person and confirmed it would not accommodate her. This was a significant failure to comply with its statutory duties and was fault. This failure was compounded by the Council’s decision to close the case at that stage, despite its duties continuing.

67. As a result, Ms X was left without accommodation or effective assistance at a point when she was required to leave the refuge and was caring for a young child. This caused significant and avoidable distress and uncertainty.

Referral to council area 1

68. In referral cases, the right to request a review of whether the conditions for referral are met arises once the authority notifies the applicant of its decision. In this case, council area 1 did not confirm that the conditions for referral were met, and the statutory referral process was not concluded.

69. Ms X’s right to request a review of the referral decision had not arisen at the stage the Council ceased to act, because council area 1 had not accepted the referral. However, the Council failed to follow the statutory process for resolving referral disputes and closed the case before the referral process had concluded. Had it done so, the process would have concluded, and Ms X would have had a right to request a review of the final decision on referral and any duty owed.

70. By failing to progress the referral process and by closing the case prematurely, the Council denied Ms X the opportunity to obtain a determination of which authority owed her duties and, ultimately, the opportunity to exercise her statutory review rights. Its accommodation duties also continued while the referral question remained unresolved. This was fault.

Complaint handling

71. The Council’s complaints policy states that complaints should normally be made within 12 months, but that later complaints may be accepted where there are good reasons. Ms X explained the reasons for the delay when she complained to the Council. The Council has failed to demonstrate how it considered those reasons or why it concluded they were insufficient. Instead, it confirmed its refusal to investigate was based solely on the passage of time. This was contrary to its own policy and was fault.

Failure to reconsider/lack of knowledge of statutory duty

72. We are also concerned that, despite repeated and detailed challenges from Ms X’s support worker at the refuge, including references to relevant legislation and the Homelessness Code of Guidance, the Council did not reflect on or reconsider its position. Instead, it maintained its original approach and asserted that the guidance relied upon was not applicable. As set out in this report, the support worker’s interpretation of the law and guidance was correct. The Council’s failure to meaningfully engage with that challenge represents a further fault in its decision-making.

73. It is of particular concern the Council stated these decisions were made with managerial oversight. Taken together with the Council’s failure to respond appropriately to challenge, this suggests a wider misunderstanding of the law, statutory guidance, and the Council’s responsibilities in cases involving domestic abuse. The Council’s approach raises concerns about the potential for similar injustice to other applicants if these issues are not addressed.

Injustice

74. These faults caused Ms X significant injustice. After fleeing domestic abuse, she was left without accommodation or effective support at a time when she and her child were required to leave refuge accommodation. She experienced avoidable distress and uncertainty and was exposed to the risk of further harm. This injustice was exacerbated when the Council closed her case despite its duties remaining ongoing, leaving her without any clear route to assistance. The Council’s failure to follow the statutory referral process also denied her the opportunity to obtain a determination of which authority owed her housing duties and, ultimately, to exercise her statutory review rights.

Recommendations

75. The Council must consider the report and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. The Council should consider the report at its full Council, Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and we will require evidence of this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2), as amended)

76. In addition to the requirements set out above the Council has agreed, within four weeks of the date of this report to take the following action to remedy the injustice identified.

• To apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology.

• To pay Ms X £1,000, to recognise the significant distress, uncertainty, and loss of opportunity to pursue statutory review rights.

77. Within three months of the date of this report, the Council has agreed to provide training and/or guidance on domestic abuse to all housing staff to ensure they understand the requirements of chapters 10 and 21 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance and how to appropriately deal with homelessness and housing register applicants at risk of domestic abuse. In light of the concerns set out in paragraph 73, the Council should also consider commissioning an external provider to deliver this training.

78. We have not recommended any further action in relation to the Council’s referral processes or the issuing of housing duty decision letters, as the Council has already accepted and implemented service improvements we recommended in other cases since the events considered in this investigation.

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

Decision

80. We find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice and improve its service.

Print this page