Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application and said it put her at risk when the safety of her accommodation was compromised. The Council was at fault for failing to properly record its decision-making when considering accommodation options for Ms X. It failed to formally assess and document the suitability of the accommodation it offered and failed to notify Ms X of its suitability decision or her right to request a review. It is also at fault for failing to complete an appropriate risk assessment, and for poor communication. This put Ms X at risk unnecessarily and caused her distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X a symbolic remedy, and implement service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. She says the Council failed to provide safe accommodation after she reported a safeguarding concern and did not contact her for several weeks following that report. She also says the Council conducted the homelessness interview insensitively. Ms X further states that the Council later placed her in temporary accommodation in an area where she had no support network. In addition, she says the Council handled her complaints poorly and responded outside its published timescales.
2. Ms X says the Council’s actions meant she and her child remained in accommodation where they were at risk for longer than necessary. She also said the Council’s actions caused her significant distress, frustration and uncertainty.

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 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)
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 Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The main housing duty

7. 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). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitability of accommodation

8. 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)

Review rights

9. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the suitability of accommodation offered to them after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Homeless definition and domestic abuse

10. 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)
11. 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)

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 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)

What happened

13. Ms X fled to a domestic abuse refuge with her child at the end of 2023. When someone is in a refuge, they are legally considered homeless.
14. The Council accepted its main housing duty to Ms X in April 2024, and its duty to ensure suitable accommodation was available to Ms X was therefore engaged.
15. In September 2024 a safeguarding incident compromised Ms X’s safety at the refuge. The refuge staff notified the Council of the incident and requested urgent temporary accommodation (TA) for Ms X.
16. While Ms X was at the Council offices, the refuge confirmed it had ended Ms X’s stay there, with immediate effect, for her safety. The Council discussed various TA options with her. Two of the options were unsuitable due to safety risk, and another did not accept children. Ms X declined the remaining options as they were either too far from her support network or required sharing facilities with males, which she explained made her feel unsafe.
17. Ms X said this interview was held in a public area of the Council offices and she was asked sensitive questions about the nature of her domestic abuse in front of other people waiting in the same area.
18. As none of the options the Council had offered were suitable, the refuge agreed to take Ms X back. It told the Council it would serve her a notice and refer her back to the Council within five weeks, in line with its policy, as the license for her stay was ending. The Council checked the refuge had put a safety plan in place that afternoon.
19. The Council said it completed a risk assessment as part of a TA request form. Ms X returned to the refuge that night.
20. The Council says it called Ms X twice the following week to complete a welfare check but did not get through to her or receive a response.
21. Ms X says she and the refuge sent several emails to her housing case officer between the end of September, and throughout October. She requested updates on the Council’s progress finding her suitable TA and explained she was becoming increasingly anxious about remaining in the refuge due to the upcoming court case against her perpetrator.
22. Ms X submitted a complaint to the Council at stage one of its complaints process at the end of October. She said no one from the Council had contacted her or replied to her emails.
23. The Council phoned Ms X a few days later, at the beginning of November. An officer explained that her former housing case officer had left their post at the Council in mid-September and apologised for not informing her. The Council explained the difficulty in finding suitable TA for her given that it was unable to look at immediate neighbouring areas due to safety risks. It confirmed it continued to check for suitable TA.
24. The following week, the Council made Ms X an offer of temporary accommodation, which she accepted.
25. The Council issued its stage one complaint response at the end of November. It explained the reason for lack of contact with her had been due to her housing case worker leaving their role in mid-September, and then a technical issue with the email inbox. It also said it was agreed that Ms X would return to the refuge and remain there until it had served its notice, as she had been there for a significant period. It said this was so it could look at different areas for temporary accommodation.
26. Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process in November. The Council issued its response in January 2025. It explained that the technical email error had led it to implement a new procedure for managing processes when staff left their roles. It also apologised for not picking her case up sooner when it identified what had happened.
27. Ms X approached the Ombudsman in July 2025.

Back to top

Analysis

Safe accommodation

28. The Council accepted its main housing duty to Ms X in April 2024. The Council therefore had a continuing duty to ensure her accommodation was suitable and respond to any change in circumstances which might affect this suitability. The safeguarding incident caused this change in circumstances, and the refuge became unsuitable in September 2024. The Council’s duty to act and provide Ms X with safe accommodation was immediately engaged.
29. The Homelessness Code of Guidance requires councils to consider accommodation options on a case-by-case basis, remaining respectful of the wishes of a victim of domestic abuse. The Council said it considered options including a refuge that did not accommodate children, and accommodation out of the area which Ms X declined as this was too far from her support network.
30. The Council said it also offered Ms X self-contained accommodation, which had its own kitchenette, though there was a larger kitchen in the building that was used by both men and women. It said Ms X would have had no cause to use the mixed sex facilities given she would have her own kitchenette, and it considered this suitable accommodation. Ms X, however, did not wish to accept this offer, as she felt distressed by the idea of sharing facilities with men.
31. Suitability of accommodation is, ultimately, a matter of professional judgement, providing the Council has sufficiently documented its decision, and explained how it came to its decision. However, the Council’s contemporaneous notes do not reflect that it explained the circumstances of the accommodation to Ms X at the time. When I spoke to Ms X, she said the Council had offered her accommodation with mixed-sex facilities. She did not suggest there was a private kitchenette. The Council’s case notes support Ms X’s account. There is no mention of a private kitchenette within the notes; the notes only state there were mixed sex facilities.
32. Had the Council properly explained that the accommodation had a kitchenette at the time, Ms X may have considered the accommodation suitable and not felt there were no safe and viable options available to her. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, Ms X would have accepted the offer of accommodation had the circumstances been fully explained to her.
33. However, failing to communicate properly that the accommodation had its own kitchen facilities had a direct consequence; Ms X declined the offer of accommodation and felt there were no other options, and returned to the refuge. Had she been given clear and accurate information she would have been able to make an informed decision, with all facts available to her. The Council’s failure denied her the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to accept the accommodation. This is her injustice. Ms X therefore returned to the refuge, where her safety was compromised. She remained there for another seven weeks.
34. Further, there is no case note showing why the Council considered this accommodation suitable. The Council should have documented this. That it did not demonstrates poor record-keeping. It should have also formally notified Ms X that it considered the accommodation suitable, and why, and explained the consequence of her not accepting the offer. By doing so, it would have given Ms X the opportunity to properly consider the offer, and the Council’s rationale for this offer. It would have also given her suitability review rights to challenge the Council’s decision if she disagreed.

Risk assessment

35. The Council became aware of the safeguarding incident and that Ms X’s safety at the refuge had been compromised but said it did not consider a fresh risk assessment was required. It said this was because it had completed a general risk assessment as part of the TA request form sent to its TA team. It also said that it had not instructed Ms X to return, and that she had chosen to return with the refuge’s agreement, so it did not need to complete one. Further, it told the Ombudsman it has an information sharing agreement with the refuge, which had carried out its own risk assessment and implemented a safety plan.
36. I have reviewed the risk assessment the Council completed as part of the TA referral. This did not assess the specific and heightened risks linked to Ms X’s return to the refuge, nor did it mention the suitability of either the refuge or the self-contained accommodation it had offered. The suitability section outlines the areas it was not safe for Ms X to move to but does not state anything further. This was not sufficient.
37. However, the Council’s position that it has an information sharing agreement with the refuge is legitimate. It says it was satisfied that the refuge had carried out a risk assessment prior to Ms X’s return there. But relying on a third party’s assessment can only substitute for the Council’s own risk assessment if the Council actually engaged with that assessment. Had the Council engaged with the refuge’s risk assessment and recorded that it was satisfied with it, an assessment of its own may not have been necessary.
38. Yet, there is no evidence the Council engaged with the refuge’s assessment in any meaningful way, and so there is no way of knowing it was satisfied that Ms X’s return was safe. A council’s records should be capable of demonstrating, after the event, that it took such matters into account, particularly where the applicant is at real risk. The Ombudsman’s principles of good administrative practice, and the Practitioner’s guide for local councils, reflects this and requires case records to demonstrate that relevant considerations were noted at the time. As its records do not reflect its views, I am not persuaded that it made any proper assessment of the refuge’s assessment at the time.
39. Similarly, the Council’s case notes do not suggest it had sight of the refuge’s associated safety plan. There is no mention of what the plan contained, or whether the Council agreed with its content. Had it done so, I would have been satisfied that it had considered the risks, the quality of refuge’s risk planning, and considered Ms X’s return to the refuge safe. Its failure to record its assessment of both the risk assessment and the safety plan is poor record keeping and is fault. Consequently, Ms X had no way of knowing if the Council genuinely considered it safe for her to return to the refuge. This left her in a position of uncertainty about her own safety and that of her child, in circumstances where she was already vulnerable. The Council disputes this, but without proper record keeping, I cannot be sure it considered her return safe.

Communication and complaint handling

40. The Council was at fault for the way it communicated with Ms X and discussed the sensitive details of her case in an open area. I appreciate the Council may not have dedicated space to have these conversations, however this still caused Ms X distress at an already very distressing time. I have made recommendations to address this injustice below.
41. The Council explained the reason it had not responded to Ms X’s emails was due initially to her emails being delivered to an unmonitored inbox after her housing case worker left their role within the Council, and then a technical error. The Council has accepted this fault and has apologised to Ms X. It says it has since put in measures to ensure this does not happen again when a staff member leaves their role. This is suitable and I have not recommended further service improvements in relation to this.
42. The Council’s chronology of events suggests it tried to contact Ms X twice in the week following the safeguarding incident to complete a welfare check. Ms X says she did not receive any missed calls or voicemails. In the absence of any evidence, I cannot say whether the Council did make this contact or not.
43. However, it is also concerning that there was then a gap of six weeks until the Council next attempted to contact Ms X. It says this was because her case officer had left the Council. This demonstrates that the Council’s case handling mechanisms are poor, as the Council did not pick up her case quickly once the original housing case officer had left, nor did it identify the urgency of her situation. This is fault, which led to Ms X and her child remaining at the refuge, at risk, for several weeks.
44. The Council’s complaints policy states it will respond to complaints within 20 working days. The Council issued its stage two complaint response in approximately 28 working days. This is fault, which further compounded the distress caused to Ms X.
45. I have made recommendations to address the injustice caused to Ms X by the identified fault below.

Back to top

Action

46. Within one month of the final decision the Council should:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the distress and uncertainty caused by the identified fault.
2. Pay Ms X a symbolic remedy of £800 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by the identified fault and placing her at risk.
47. Within three months of the final decision the Council should:
1. Review and update its procedures for managing cases where temporary (including refuge) accommodation becomes unsuitable for a victim of domestic abuse. The updated procedure should include a formal assessment and document the suitability of any accommodation offered against DA specific considerations. It should also formally notify the applicant of its suitability decision and the reasons for it and make clear to the applicant their right to request a review of that decision.
2. Introduce a trigger-based process for completing a fresh risk assessment whenever a significant change in circumstances is reported by a domestic abuse applicant, including a safeguarding incident or identification of the applicant’s accommodation.
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, for which I have recommended a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman