Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take suitable action after it became aware she was a high-risk victim of domestic abuse. She also complained it failed to improve the security in her temporary accommodation, and it failed to award her the correct priority on its housing register. We find the Council was at fault as it failed to take sufficient action to improve the security in Mrs X’s temporary accommodation. This caused Mrs X distress and worry about the safety for her and her family. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to take suitable action after it became aware she was a high-risk victim of domestic abuse. She also says the Council failed to use the Pan-London Housing Reciprocal or refer her case to another authority. She adds the Council failed to improve the security in her temporary accommodation and it failed to award her Band 1 priority on its housing register. Finally, Mrs X complained the Council unlawfully ended the main housing duty.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s faults have caused severe emotional distress and upset.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the Council unlawfully ending the main housing duty. Mrs X had appeal rights to the county court if she disagreed with the Council’s decision. It was reasonable for Mrs X to use this appeal right.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X and the Council 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 main housing duty

9. 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). (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitability of accommodation

10. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)

Domestic abuse

11. 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)

Housing allocations

12. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
13. The Council’s published allocations policy places eligible applicants into priority bands. The Council introduced a new policy on 12 August 2025. For this complaint, I have looked at the Council’s previous policy from October 2022. This says applicants who have emergency priority will be placed in Band 1. It also says domestic abuse victims who cannot remain in their current homes may be awarded emergency priority by a housing panel.

Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities

14. Local housing and social service authorities must have regard to this guidance when exercising their functions relating to people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
15. Paragraph 10.30 of the guidance says if a housing authority’s inquires under section 184(2) of the Housing Act 1996 determine that an applicant has a local connection with the district of another housing authority in England, Wales or Scotland, section 198 allows a housing authority (‘the notifying authority’) to refer a case to another housing authority (‘the notified authority’) at the point of the relief duty or main housing duty. Before making a referral, the notifying authority must decide if the conditions for referral are met.
16. Paragraph 10.32 says referrals are discretionary only: housing authorities are not required to refer applicants to other authorities.

Pan-London Housing Reciprocal

17. The Pan-London Housing Reciprocal offers long-term and affordable housing for social tenants fleeing domestic abuse and other forms of violence.

What happened

18. Mrs X is homeless. The Council accepted the main housing duty for her in September 2024.
19. The Council provided Mrs X and her family with temporary accommodation in February 2025.
20. Mrs X contacted the Council in early June. She said she was a survivor of serious and ongoing domestic abuse. She said she wanted it to reassess her priority on the housing register to Band 1.
21. The Council completed a suitability assessment with Mrs X in mid-June. Mrs X provided further information about the domestic abuse she had suffered. The Council sent a letter to Mrs X on the same day and explained the temporary accommodation was now unsuitable for her.
22. Mrs X contacted the Council and said she wanted it to transfer her to another authority (Authority X) where she would be near to people that could support her. She also said she did not want it to change her temporary accommodation. She instead asked it to change the locks and implement additional safety measures. The Council responded and said it could not transfer her to Authority X. It also said it had contacted the property agent about changing the locks.
23. Mrs X complained to the Council two days later about its failure to take appropriate action after she made it aware she was a high-risk domestic abuse survivor. She said it had not taken safeguarding action, reassessed her banding, carried out essential lock changes or provided a lawful reason for refusing a referral to Authority X.
24. The Council offered Mrs X alternative temporary accommodation in late June. Mrs X replied and said she was refusing the offer as it was unsuitable. She said the Council had not explored other options such as referring her to the Pan-London Housing Reciprocal or implementing safety measures at her current address.
25. The Council responded to Mrs X and said it would complete a suitability review. It said the Pan-London Housing Reciprocal was only available to existing social housing tenants wishing to move due to urgent safety needs.
26. The Council had a telephone conversation with Mrs X in early July. Mrs X said she wanted to move to Band 1 on the housing register. The Council said she did not meet the criteria for Band 1, and her situation was not the same as someone who is in permanent social housing fleeing domestic abuse.
27. The Council issued its stage one response to Mrs X’s complaint. It said given the details of her case it was not considering making a referral to Authority X. It said banding priority applies to applicants seeking long-term housing, not to those in temporary accommodation. Therefore, a reassessment of her banding was not applicable. Finally, it said it regretted the delay in actioning the concerns about the security of her property. However, it had offered her alternative temporary accommodation.
28. Mrs X referred her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. She said it had a legal duty to make referrals to Authority X and the Pan London Housing Reciprocal. She also said she qualified for Band 1 and the allocations policy stated applicants that are owed a main housing duty must be given a priority that reflects their circumstances. Finally, she said it had a duty to ensure her safety and so it should have put in place safety measures.
29. The Council sent a letter to Mrs X about her suitability review request. It said she did not meet the criteria for Band 1. Fleeing abuse did not guarantee Band 1 priority. It said it reserved Band 1 for cases where there was an imminent and ongoing risk and a confirmed and immediate need for permanent rehousing. However, her housing needs were being met through safe temporary accommodation.
30. The Council issued its final response to Mrs X’s complaint in early August. It said a referral to Authority X was discretionary. It said it would ask the tenancy management and resettlement team to contact the housing provider to address changing the locks.
31. Mrs X referred her complaint to us the following day.
32. The Council sent a letter to Mrs X in early September about her suitability review request. It said it was not using its discretion to refer her to Authority X because she had been subject to domestic violence in a borough that was close to Authority X.
33. The Council discharged the main housing duty to Mrs X in October. It also said it was satisfied it had offered her suitable alternative temporary accommodation. It said if she disagreed with its decisions she could appeal to the county court.

Back to top

Analysis

Council’s actions after it became aware Mrs X was a high-risk domestic abuse victim

34. The Council acted quickly and completed a suitability review within seven working days after becoming aware Mrs X was a high-risk domestic abuse victim. It decided she was living in unsuitable accommodation. It then had an immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified duty to provide alternative suitable accommodation. The Council did not offer alternative accommodation until 10 days later. While I accept the Council acted quickly, it did not meet its immediate duty. Therefore, it was at fault.
35. This fault did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice. Mrs X refused to move to alternative accommodation. She initially told the Council she did not want to move to new temporary accommodation. She wanted it to make a referral to Authority X instead. She also wanted it to implement safety measures in the property. She later expressed her wish to move to safe accommodation, but only in Authority X’s area (or surrounding areas). The Council did not consider Authority X was a safe area for Mrs X to move to. It is therefore highly unlikely Mrs X would have moved even if the Council had provided her with immediate alternative accommodation because it would not have provided her with accommodation in the area she wanted to move to.
36. Mrs X says the alternative accommodation the Council offered was not suitable. The Council considered Mrs X’s views and completed a suitability review. It decided it was suitable accommodation. The appropriate way to challenge the Council’s decision on this is through the county court. The Council explained this to Mrs X in the decision letter it sent to her.

Pan-London Housing Reciprocal

37. This service only applies to social housing tenants fleeing domestic abuse. Mrs X was not a social housing tenant. Therefore, the Council was not at fault for not making a referral.

Banding on the housing register

38. The Council explained to Mrs X that she did not qualify for Band 1 because her situation was not the same as someone who is in permanent social housing fleeing domestic abuse. It later said it reserved Band 1 for cases where someone had an imminent and ongoing risk and a confirmed and immediate need for permanent rehousing. However, her housing needs were being met through safe temporary accommodation.
39. The Council’s allocations policy (October 2022) had a section for domestic abuse victims and Band 1 priority. However, this did not state it only applied to tenants in permanent social housing. I welcome the Council has now updated its policy to make this clear.
40. However, despite the unclear policy, it is unlikely Mrs X qualified for Band 1. The Council owed her a main housing duty, and it therefore had to act immediately, in line with that duty, to provide her with alternative suitable accommodation. This is the approach the Council took. It does not have that duty to tenants living in permanent social housing. Its offer of alternative accommodation negated the need for Band 1 priority. Even if the Council had placed Mrs X in Band 1, there was no guarantee when she would have been successful in bidding for a permanent property. The Council states on its website someone in Band 1 can wait a few months to a couple of years to secure a property. This was not an appropriate option given the high-risk nature of Mrs X’s case.

Referral to Authority X

41. The Homelessness Code of Guidance states referrals to another authority are discretionary, rather than mandatory. While the Council’s complaint response lacked detail on why it did not make the referral, it later clarified this in the letter it sent to Mrs X in September 2025. That was a decision it was entitled to take. I do not find fault.

Security in temporary accommodation

42. The Council contacted the property agent and asked it to change the locks. Mrs X complained to the Council two days later and she mentioned the agents had not changed the locks. The Council should have followed up with the property agent to ensure it had put proper safety measures in place. The Council knew Mrs X was a high-risk domestic abuse victim. It should have therefore ensured appropriate safety measures were in place until it could move her to alternative safe accommodation. Its failure to do so was fault. This has caused Mrs X an injustice as she was understandably seriously concerned about her and her family’s safety during this time.
43. However, by late June, the Council had offered Mrs X alternative accommodation. Mrs X chose not to move, which was her choice, but the Council’s actions in offering her alternative accommodation was appropriate to ensure her ongoing safety. I do not consider the Council had an ongoing duty after that to put security measures in place.

Back to top

Action

44. By 22 June 2026 the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

46. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mrs X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman