Summary: Miss X complained the Council has withdrawn support with finding alternative housing despite her circumstances. She complained it has also failed to consider her medical conditions when withdrawing support. We found there was fault in the way the Council considered Miss X’s homelessness application. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss X and provide guidance to staff.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council has withdrawn support with finding alternative housing despite her circumstances. She complained it has also failed to consider her medical conditions when withdrawing support. Miss X says the Council’s actions have placed her at risk of homelessness, financial hardship and harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Miss 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

Homelessness

6. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
7. 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) 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)
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. 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)

What happened here

11. Miss X contacted the Council in December 2024 via an online request form. She said she had no fixed abode and was living with friends or family due to domestic abuse and had been homeless since January 2023. In a separate email Miss X reiterated she was a victim of domestic abuse and said she had tried without success to obtain housing via the Council’s housing register and private rentals. Miss X told the Council she had moved out of her parents’ house due to abuse and had been sofa surfing for several months. She said she was also at risk of abuse on the nights she stayed with her partner. Miss X asked the Council to contact her by email only.
12. An officer contacted Miss X in January 2025 to arrange a telephone appointment to discuss her housing situation. The officer also asked Miss X to provide documentation including proof of identity and income, a copy of her tenancy agreement and any relevant medical evidence.
13. Miss X told the officer she could not receive or make telephone calls at present but could communicate by email. She provided copies of her medical records.
14. The officer sent Miss X details of two private rental properties which were available for viewing. They also told Miss X they could work around a time and place that was most suitable for Miss X to complete a housing assessment, either in person or by telephone. The officer also asked whether Miss X had any crime reference numbers and offered to search for a place at a refuge.
15. In a subsequent email the officer explained they would need to complete a homelessness assessment and investigate further to see what if any duty the Council owed Miss X. Even if the Council did not owe Miss X a duty it said it could still provide advice and assistance and work with Miss X to find suitable alternative accommodation.
16. In February 2025 Miss X provided details of some private rental properties she would consider but would need assistance with the deposit and upfront payments. The officer confirmed there were resources for financial support but they would need to investigate Miss X’s case further. They again asked Miss X for a date, time and location to complete a homelessness assessment.
17. Miss X said she could not meet face to face or speak on the telephone for safety reasons and asked the officer to send her all the questions by email so she could answer them.
18. The officer told Miss X that without completing a housing assessment they could not support Miss X further with her housing. They said the assessment could not be completed by email as it allowed for open-ended questions with potential for expansion. The assessment would then enable the officer to carry out enquiries into Miss X’s threat of homelessness. The officer also noted Miss X had not yet provided proof of her identity or income. They explained this was necessary to ensure eligibility and so that the officer was aware of the budget Miss X was working to.
19. In addition the officer provided detail of a domestic abuse support service and offered to search for vacancies at refuges.
20. Miss X agreed to speak with the officer the following afternoon. The records show Miss X did not answer the call or contact the Council. The following week the officer wrote to Miss X asking her to contact them by 19 February 2025 to complete the assessment or they would close the case. Miss X arranged to speak with the officer on 19 February 2025. This was then rearranged for 28 February 2025, when the Council completed the assessment.
21. In late March 2025 Miss X provided a letter from a family member regarding her circumstances and told the officer she did not consent for her family to speak to the Council.
22. In late March and April 2025 the officer spoke with Miss X about private rental properties and provided details of properties available for viewing.
23. In May 2025 the Council asked Miss X to provide outstanding documentation, including proof of identity and income, her five year address history, contact details for a family member as the letter provided was not signed, and contact details for the friends she had been staying with. The Council set out Miss X’s housing options and said it was now looking to close her case
24. Miss X told the Council she had already sent the documents but would resend them and asked the Council to keep her case open. There is no record Miss X provided further information.
25. In June 2025 the case was allocated to another officer who contacted Miss X to confirm whether she still needed housing assistance. They advised Miss X that if she did not contact them by 19 June 2025 they would close her case. The Council closed Miss X’s case on 13 July 2025.
26. Miss X made a formal complaint about the Council’s failings in its duty of care to her as a victim of domestic abuse and person with chronic health conditions. She complained the Council had:
• withdrawn support due to a lack of evidence of domestic abuse. Miss X complained it was inappropriate for the Council to require police reports or statements.
• removed her from the housing support list due to a lack of income evidence. Miss X says financial information is relevant to affordability but should not be used as a barrier to access support.;
• unnecessarily requested five years of address history;
• wrongly requested family contact details. Miss X complained it was dangerous and inappropriate to request these details given her disclosure about one of her abusers. She said this put her at risk of further harm.
• wrongly required her to provide contact details of friends offering her temporary accommodation;
• wrongly requested details of a professional no longer engaged; and
• failed to consider her chronic health conditions and ADHD
27. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in early August 2025. It did not uphold Miss X’s complaints. The Council said that when someone presents as homeless due to domestic abuse, it has a duty to assess the level of risk and need. It said it requires evidence to ensure it provides appropriate support, prioritises safety and meets its legal obligation.
28. The Council said it was required, as part of the statutory assessment, to verify income to assess need and allocate resources fairly. It was also a standard part of the assessment process to request a five year address history to consider eligibility and risk. The Council considered these request were appropriate in Miss X’s case.
29. It acknowledged Miss X’s concerns about the request for her family member’s details, but said it sometimes requested information from individuals known to the applicant to speed up the process. It was the same position regarding the requests for details of friends she had stayed with and any professionals. The Council said this was never mandatory and her safety was the Council’s priority. It was satisfied its actions were appropriate
30. The Council considered it had provided clear communication, given reasonable time to respond and confirmed that ongoing support was available. It was satisfied it had handled Miss X’s case appropriately.
31. In addition the Council said it had considered Miss X’s medical conditions and ADHD. It was satisfied this aspect of the process was handled appropriately.
32. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for her complaint to be considered further. She asserted the Council’s actions were contrary to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and breached the Equality Act 2010. And that the Council had failed to act in accordance with the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.
33. The Council responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure and concluded its original decision was sound and appropriately reached.
34. In response to our enquiries the Council says that although it carried out an interview it could not complete verification checks as Miss X did not provide consent to share information or contact family members to discuss the situation. It said the file remained at the triage stage.
35. The Council says it offered support including attempts to complete the assessment and carry out the required checks. It said it discussed options for securing private rented accommodation or registering for social housing. The Council also sent Miss X property details, but she was only interested in a particular area. It says Miss X also declined offers of refuge accommodation.

Analysis

36. Based on the documentation available I consider there was fault in the way the Council dealt with Mis X’s homelessness application.
37. 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.
38. If the duty to make inquiries is triggered, the council must issue a decision about what duty it owes the person. If it decides the person is not homeless and so no duty is owed, it must issue a decision to that effect giving review and appeal rights.
39. The Council accepted a duty to make inquiries but then closed Miss X’s case without issuing a decision confirming whether it owed any further duty. This is fault and means Miss X missed out on statutory rights of review and appeal, which is an injustice.
40. I also consider the Council’s failure to provide interim accommodation to be fault.
41. The Section 188 duty to arrange interim accommodation sets a low threshold and is triggered as soon as the Council has reason to believe an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. The duty is absolute and cannot be postponed. The Homelessness Code of Guidance states interim accommodation should be made available immediately whilst the Council undertakes its investigations.
42. In this instance, there is no evidence the Council considered whether it had reason to believe the interim accommodation duty was triggered. This is fault. Based on the documentation available I consider the low ‘reason to believe’ threshold was met and the Council should have offered Miss X interim accommodation while it made inquiries. The failure to offer interim accommodation is fault and caused Miss X an injustice.
43. In considering an appropriate remedy I am mindful that we cannot know what type of accommodation the Council would have offered, or where it would have been located. And I recognise that Miss X only wanted accommodation in a small area so may not have accepted the interim accommodation offered. But this option should have been available to her. This was a missed opportunity and Miss X has experienced distress and uncertainty as a consequence.
44. I consider the Council should make a symbolic payment to recognise the distress and uncertainty Miss X experienced.

Back to top

Action

45. The Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Miss X for the distress and uncertainty caused by the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• pay Miss X £250 for the avoidable distress caused by the uncertainty and lost opportunity;
• issue Miss X with a decision on her homelessness application;
• issue guidance to relevant staff to ensure they understand:
1. the low threshold that applies in deciding whether there is reason to believe a homeless applicant may be in priority need for housing; and
2. all applicants who meet the threshold for homelessness inquiries receive written decisions including their review rights.
46. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman