Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing situation when she approached it as a victim of domestic abuse. We found fault with the Council’s approach which caused Ms B and her family uncertainty. The Council has agreed to offer her the opportunity to make a homeless application now, apologise to her, make a symbolic payment and provide refresher training to staff.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that Spelthorne Borough Council (the Council) in respect of her housing situation:
• failed to consider whether she was homeless or threatened with homelessness due to the high risk of domestic abuse or make any enquiries into her situation to determine this question;
• failed to consider whether she was eligible for interim accommodation while her case was considered or whether the Council could refer her to another local authority;
• failed to discuss the homelessness route with Ms B and explain what this process would mean for her;
• failed to review its decision on banding under the housing allocations process; and
• failed to respond to her complaint at stage 2 of the Council’s procedure.
2. Ms B says she and her family have been caused significant distress over a prolonged period due to the failure to properly consider her housing situation.

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 B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms B 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

Homelessness

7. Section 177 of the Housing Act, 1996, says it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against them, or against a person who would normally or reasonably be expected to live with them. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)

Applications

8. 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)

Gatekeeping/homelessness prevention

9. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant. However councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity.

Interim accommodation - domestic abuse

10. 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)

Safety planning and risk assessment

11. 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)

Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)

12. A MARAC is a meeting where agencies share information on high-risk domestic abuse cases. The meetings can include representatives from the police, health, child protection, housing, probation and other relevant specialists. The MARAC provides a plan to safeguard the adult victim.

DASH assessment

13. 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 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.

What happened

14. Ms B is a housing association tenant. She contacted the Council by email on 17 September 2024 about her housing situation. She said she had been a victim of domestic abuse, and her case had been discussed at MARAC in April, where it was agreed she was in urgent need of a move due to the ongoing risk to her and her children. She said the housing association said she had a priority need to move but it had no properties available and was unlikely to have any in the near future, so it had advised her to contact the Council for further advice and help.
15. The Council responded the same day asking for more information. In this response it also said that if she approached the Council as homeless it would be difficult to provide emergency accommodation within the borough and she would most likely be placed outside the borough. It also said she faced a long wait for four-bedroom social housing.
16. Ms B replied saying the most recent incident had occurred in June 2024 and the court granted a continuation of a non-molestation order in early July. The Council sent her a form to apply to join the housing register which she completed.
17. Ms B chased the Council for a response to her application in October 2024 and her domestic abuse support worker also contacted the Council on 28 October confirming that another MARAC was due to be held on 31 October, and she had been assessed as high risk under the DASH protocol.
18. The minutes of the MARAC meeting in October 2024 list further incidents Ms B reported to the police since June. They also noted she was assessed as high-risk under the DASH protocol, that she and the children were vulnerable and that her ex-partner had threatened to set fire to the household. The adult social care representative said there were no duties to safeguard her due to the measures already in place and ongoing support from the police, domestic abuse services and children’s services to mitigate the risk. The housing representative from the Council said that Ms B was in Band D as she had a low housing need. She had a social worker in the disability team, has said she is a victim of domestic abuse had multiple disabilities and health issues and is a housing association tenant.
19. A note was added after the meeting to say the housing association had agreed a management transfer on 11 June 2024 for a three-bedroom property and she should be able to bid on suitable properties, but the housing association did not have many suitable properties in the area, so Ms B should contact the Council which she had done.
20. Following the meeting the Chair wrote a letter supporting her application to move house. They said she was at high risk of domestic abuse, but risk management was in place.
21. On 13 November the Council awarded her Band B priority on its housing register for harassment and violence with a priority date of 31 October 2024.
22. On 18 November Ms B’s advocate complained to the Council about the failure to offer Ms B a management move, as she was at high risk of harm due to her former partner being on bail. They said the Council could nominate her for a management move to another local authority area or look at using the Housing Reciprocal scheme which is designed to help tenants fleeing violence move to a different area but retain their social housing tenancy. The Council responded on 11 December saying that it had already emailed options to Ms B, the issues raised fell outside the complaints procedure, banding reviews were non-statutory decisions and there were no further appeal rights.
23. On 19 November the Council informed Ms B’s support worker of her banding on the housing register and the likelihood of a long wait for a four bedroom house. The Council said in the email that it had no note on file that Ms B wanted to make a homeless application but that if she did the duty officer would make contact. The Council added that a homeless application would not improve her waiting time for social housing.
24. At some point after this Ms B’s advocate complained again to the Council about the lack of action on finding Ms B alternative accommodation. The Council responded saying that direct lets were an exception and the choice-based lettings scheme was the route for people to find alternative housing. Ms B was currently 56th on the list for her most recent bid; other families ahead of her on the list had also experienced domestic abuse and had children with special needs.
25. On 28 April 2025 a senior social worker from the county council wrote to the Council on behalf of Ms B and her family requesting an urgent management move due to serious and ongoing safety concerns. They said Ms B’s situation was an emergency that required immediate attention as she was continuing to experience harassment and threats from her former partner and that he continued to breach the non-molestation order.
26. The Council replied stating that it had explained to the chair of MARAC that it had concerns about housing Ms B in the town as it was small and risks to her safety would remain. It advised Ms B to apply for assistance out of the borough or wait for the housing association to find a property. It noted safety measures were in place, and the police had an alert on the address if further incidents should arise.
27. In June 2025 the housing association confirmed that Ms B was registered for a four-bedroom property, but none had become available in the previous 12 months.
28. Also in June 2025 Ms B’s local councillor met a senior housing officer (Officer X) with Ms B, her advocates, support worker and social worker. I have listened to a recording of this meeting. Officer X explained the difference between applications to join the housing register and homeless applications. Ms B said she had approached different local authorities to join their housing register as a victim of domestic abuse but had been refused because they said it was the Council’s duty to house her. Officer X said Ms B could apply to any other Council as homeless as a victim of domestic abuse.
29. Officer X was asked why the Council had not taken a homeless application from Ms B. He said because Ms B had not wanted to make one. Ms B denied this and said the Council had never offered to take one. She also denied that she had said she did not want to live in another borough, but she explained why she needed to live within travelling distance of her daughter’s school.
30. In an email after the meeting Officer X said Ms B had agreed to discuss with her support worker making a homeless application to the Council or another borough. On 12 June 2025 Officer X emailed Ms B to say that an officer from the County Council had offered to assist her with a homeless application. Ms B replied on 17 June 2025 saying that she had met with the officer and discussed the actions she needed to take in relation to her current housing situation, in particular a homeless application which was in process.
31. In early August 2025 Ms B’s advocate made a formal complaint to the Council about the failure to move Ms B to alternative accommodation, take account of the risks of domestic abuse to her and her children or to increase her priority on the housing register to Band A.
32. The Council responded on 12 August 2025 explaining why Ms B was appropriately placed in Band B as she had an urgent need to move but was not in an emergency situation or immediate danger. It said at the MARAC meeting on 31 October 2024 the Chair had suggested she could approach another local authority for assistance with housing and the Chair would issue a letter of support. It said she had Sanctuary scheme measures in place, the police had an alert on her property, and she had applied for an extension of the non-molestation order. The housing association had agreed a management move but most of their properties were outside the borough. The Council did not have any of its own stock and no four-bedroom properties had come up in the past two years. 26 three-bedroom properties became available, but Ms B was currently 56th on the list. The Council said its allocations policy took account of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and her housing application had been correctly awarded Band B priority. It said she could request a stage two review if she remained dissatisfied.
33. By this point Ms B had also complained to us. In responding to my enquiries the Council said:

“The perpetrator did not live with her. It is normal practice to offer “sanctuary scheme” to victims of [domestic abuse]. This allows them to remain in their own home without the disruption of moving. Other options were for a management move from her social household and making a homeless application either to this or another authority.”

34. It also said the decision on the housing was multi-agency and the chair of MARAC wrote a supporting letter for her landlord, the housing association. It said while Ms B’s case was deemed high-risk it was only discussed at MARAC at six-monthly intervals. Other higher risk cases were discussed on a monthly basis.
35. The Council says it accepted an application to join the housing register but the offer to make a homeless application was never taken up. It said it raised at the meeting its concerns about housing Ms B in the borough and if she made a homeless application she would have to move to emergency accommodation and would not get an offer of permanent accommodation from her current property. It maintains Ms B was not prepared to accept interim accommodation out of the borough.

Findings

Homeless application

36. The bar for accepting a homeless application and making inquiries is relatively low: the Council only needs to have reason to believe a person may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. When Ms B approached the Council in September 2024, I consider the Council had sufficient information about her circumstances to take a homeless application from her: it knew she was a high-risk domestic abuse case and that her former partner continued to harass and threaten her on a regular basis in spite of a non-molestation order. It also knew that the housing association was unlikely to find an alternative property in the near future. There was no requirement for Ms B to ‘make’ an application or complete a specific form. The Council had the power to accept an application based on the information it had received and make inquiries.
37. There is no evidence that the Council discussed this properly with her or explained how the process worked or that she may have to go into interim or temporary accommodation initially. The only reference to the homelessness route was a negative comment in the first email to Ms B, saying she was unlikely to be housed in temporary accommodation within the borough. This was fault as it did not give Ms B all the necessary information, she needed to decide whether to follow this route. It also suggests the Council was actively discouraging her from making an application which could be considered ‘gatekeeping’.
38. I accept the Council strongly believes that Ms B refused this option because she did not want to move into interim accommodation or move out of the borough and did not pursue a homeless application even after June 2025 when assistance in doing so had been offered. However, there is very little evidence to support the Council’s view that it was Ms B’s refusal to make an application rather than the Council’s failure to properly explain the options to her. As it was a key decision, I would have expected the Council’s records to have contained clear reference to her rejection of the homelessness route. I have not seen evidence that she either said these things or that the process was properly explained to her or the interim accommodation options fully explored, including referrals to or liaison with other councils.
39. By considering a formal application the Council would also have been obliged to make formal decisions on the case and provide Ms B with a right of review. The failure to do so meant she had no formal route to challenge the Council’s actions. Any lack of challenge would also have provided evidence to support the Council’s view that Ms B did not wish to pursue this route.
40. The Council said it discussed Ms B’s housing situation at the MARAC meeting. The minutes however only show basic facts were given and there was no mention of clear advice or explanation about homelessness being given to Ms B. Furthermore, it is the Council’s responsibility to consider the question of homelessness, not MARAC’s.
41. The only option left for the Council was to rely on its housing register and the housing association to find alternative accommodation. This was unrealistic given the lack of accommodation, the number of people on the register with a higher priority and the long timeframes involved. It was also inadequate to say that the sanctuary measures, the police alerts and the non-molestation order were sufficient to safeguard the household: these measures may have mitigated the risk, but the former partner had breached the non-molestation order and continued to harass Ms B even with these measures in place. Furthermore, the guidance specifically says that it was not reasonable to expect a person to return to home on the basis of a court order.
42. Because Ms B never made a homeless application, I am unable to conclude that she would definitely have been able to move to suitable alternative accommodation. The Council is confident alternative accommodation could have been found but given the nature of such interim accommodation (probably bed and breakfast) and its location out of the borough, it believes it is very unlikely Ms B would have accepted it. I cannot reach a conclusion on that point because there is no clear evidence to support either view.

Banding review

43. The Council’s response to Ms B’s advocate’s complaint in on 11 December 2024 said that there was no right of appeal against the banding decision. I have not seen evidence that a review was considered before this response was sent, even though the allocations policy details a right of review against banding decisions.
44. The Council says it does not send decision letters to applicants regarding banding decisions, but the information is available on the online portal when applicants log in. I am concerned in this case that Ms B was unable to request a formal review of the banding decision as she was not properly notified of the right to do so. This was fault.
45. Even though the response said that none of the matters raised were suitable for the complaints policy I note the Council then responded to the review request in its complaint response sent in August 2025. This was a thorough decision with detailed reasons given as to why Ms B did not qualify for Band A priority, however I consider this should have been made eight months earlier, in December 2024. The outcome would not have been different, but Ms B would have experienced less uncertainty and frustration.

Complaint responses

46. Aside from the banding review issue, the complaint response given in December 2024 to Ms B’s advocate was inadequate. It said there was nothing suitable for the complaints process. I disagree: the Council could have explained how and why it had only directed Ms B to the housing register application and not taken a homeless application. It could also have clearly detailed Ms B’s housing options to her. It said it had done this, but I have not seen a copy of such advice before December 2024. This was a missed opportunity to properly inform Ms B of her rights and for the Council to reconsider its decision not to take a homeless application.
47. The Council responded to the same issues in a similar vein on three further occasions (once more to the advocate (undated), once to Ms B’s social worker in April 2025 and at the meeting with the councillor in June 2025) before the more detailed response was given in August 2025 when the advocate had complained once more. A comprehensive response in December 2024 could have avoided some of these repeat complaints and ensured a meaningful escalation to stage two. By the time Ms B received the stage one response in August 2025 she had already waited nearly a year for rehousing and complained to us instead. This was fault which caused Ms B additional frustration and uncertainty over an eight- month period.

Back to top

Action

48. In recognition of the injustice caused to Ms B I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision:
• offers Ms B a meeting to fully discuss the homelessness process and take an application if she wishes to pursue one, along with consideration of interim accommodation options; and
• apologises to Ms B and makes a symbolic payment of £500 to her.
49. I also recommended within two months, the Council:
• ensures it properly records its reasons for not pursuing a homeless application in situations where it appears to be the best option for rehousing.
• ensures housing register applicants are properly informed of their rights to dispute decisions made in connection with their application.
50. The Council has agreed to the recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman