Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing applications because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness and housing register applications after she fled domestic abuse. In particular, that it:
• gave incorrect and inconsistent advice, which put her at risk of the Council deciding she was “intentionally homeless”;
• said it could offer temporary accommodation, but the family needed long term stable housing;
• failed to follow the law and its allocations policy when awarding band 2 because it failed to consider she was a victim of domestic abuse.
2. Ms X said that, as a result of Council’s failings she was sharing a small room at a relative’s with two children. She also said her ex-partner knew the address and had made threats to attend it, putting the relative’s family at risk as well as her own family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X asked the Council for help after fleeing domestic abuse with her child in July 2025. The Council accepted a relief duty and discussed arranging temporary accommodation. Ms X said she refused this because the nearest place it could offer was 25 miles from her support network. She arranged to stay with a relative.
7. In July 2025, her name was on a joint tenancy with Mr Y, the perpetrator of domestic abuse. The Council advised Ms X to seek independent legal advice about the tenancy because having her name removed could be a disadvantage for her. It explained the usual position would be for the perpetrator to be prevented from returning to the property. However, the court later made an order that meant she could not return to that property, and her name was removed from the tenancy.
8. The Council accepted a housing register application in July 2025 and awarded band 2. It explained that priority within band 2 was based on a quarterly review of the various groups in that band.
9. The joint tenancy did not prevent Ms X from joining the housing register but did mean the Council could not make an offer of social housing as her name was already on a social tenancy. However, she was not nominated for a social housing tenancy prior to her name being removed.
10. Ms X asked for a review of the priority band. She said she should be in band 1 as a victim of domestic abuse. She also referred to an incentive whereby the Council could award a higher band where it was not arranging temporary accommodation.
11. The Council responded that:
• band 1 can be awarded where a domestic abuse victim is at exceptional risk. It said, based on the information it had, the case did not meet that threshold. It advised her to let it know if the position changed;
• whilst it had discretion to offer a higher band, it was not doing so because that was for cases where temporary accommodation was not going to be needed. In this case, it did not consider Ms X would be able to continue living with her relative until offered social housing. It said it would arrange suitable temporary accommodation, when needed.
12. Also in July, Ms X made a complaint about the advice relating to the joint tenancy and about the priority band awarded. The Council responded, referring at one point to Ms X as expecting another child. Ms X replied she was not pregnant. The Council apologised for the error and confirmed its records were correct.
13. There was further correspondence about Ms X’s priority within band 2. In September, the Council told her a change of policy meant all applicants in band 2 would now be prioritised by date order within the band.
14. In October, the Council accepted a main duty. In January, it made a final offer of housing to end that duty and in early February, Ms X’s new tenancy began.

My assessment

15. It is standard advice that removing yourself from a joint tenancy may risk an intentionally homeless decision being made. However, this case was unusual as the court later said Mr Y could remain in the property. Therefore, although the advice changed this did not indicate Council fault. Rather, the Council’s advice evolved as it learnt more about the situation. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the homelessness advice given to justify further investigation.
16. There was no delay in accepting a relief duty and offering to arrange temporary accommodation. Whilst Ms X wanted to move straight to a long-term tenancy, this is rarely possible, especially where (as here) the applicant is seeking a social tenancy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating further.
17. There was no delay in the Council accepting a housing register application. It waived its usual local connection criteria to recognise Ms X had fled domestic abuse. It was not fault for it to say it could not offer a social tenancy whilst Ms X’s name was still on the joint tenancy. And, in any case, it was not in a position to offer a social tenancy until after Ms X’s name was removed from the tenancy. There was also a change in advice about Ms X’s priority within band 2, but this was due to a change of policy by the Council, and not because earlier advice was incorrect. There is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to this part of the complaint to justify investigating further.
18. The Council awarded band 2 on its housing register as it accepted Ms X was homeless. Ms X asked for a review. I have not seen evidence the Council carried out a formal review. However, it did respond to the issues Ms X raised. It explained why she did not meet the criteria for band 1, based on an exceptional need to move, and also why it was not exercising discretion to award a higher band because she was not in temporary accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation. Even if the Council failed to issue a review decision, this did not cause Ms X a sufficient injustice to justify further investigation because the review was unlikely to have reached a different outcome. Further, the Council advised Ms X to tell it if her situation changed and it kept the level of risk under review.
19. The Council did refer to Ms X being pregnant in one communication, in error, for which it has apologised. An apology is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman