Summary: Mr D complains the Council mishandled his homelessness application. I have found fault by the Council including a failure to offer interim accommodation. The Council has agreed to pay Mr D redress and to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to assist with his homelessness caused by domestic abuse. Mr D states the Council mishandled his homelessness application and did not provide support and interim accommodation.

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 future we may recommend 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have looked at events from July 2025 through to 9 January 2026 when the Council issued its final stage complaint response. I have advised Mr D that if he is dissatisfied with the Council’s actions after 9 January, including issues about the suitability of interim accommodation, he can make a new complaint to the Council. Once he completes the two stage complaints process, he can bring those recent events to the Ombudsman. Where he has a statutory right of review (such as challenging the suitability of temporary accommodation) we expect him to use the review process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 10 July 2025 Mr D called the Council’s out of hours service. He spoke to an Officer who completed a duty team report. The Officer noted that Mr D said he was experiencing domestic abuse and could not remain at his home. He said money had been stolen from him. The Officer told Mr D he was “not currently homeless” and if he was in fear “for his life he should call the emergency service”. The Officer wrote “there was no clear immediate danger” to Mr D.
8. On 11 July Mr D applied to the Council as homeless due to domestic abuse and met a Housing Options Advisor (Advisor) who interviewed him and carried out a DASH (domestic abuse, stalking and honour based violence) assessment. This resulted in a score of 10. The case notes for that day state Mr D told the Council he could not stay at his home because a family member had stolen money from him and he had been grabbed and punched on separate occasions. He also said there had been other incidents of threats of violence and the problems had escalated. He wanted the Council to provide interim accommodation. The Advisor wrote that based on their assessment they were not satisfied the relief threshold had been met “as I do not believe that it crosses the [domestic abuse] threshold”. They considered Mr D was experiencing a “relationship breakdown”. I understand Mr D asked to speak to a Manager. He then spoke to a Domestic Abuse Advisor and a Manager. I do not have a contemporaneous note of that conversation. Later that day the Advisor wrote to Mr D about his homelessness application. They concluded he was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. They said the “facts show this is a case where your relationship has broken down with family members” rather than domestic abuse. The Council said Mr D was not at risk of domestic abuse by staying in his home. The evidence Mr D had provided did not demonstrate a pattern of sustained or significant abuse that made it unreasonable to occupy his home. There was no indication his health, safety or wellbeing was at risk to an extent that he could not reasonably remain at the property. Also, on 11 July Mr D asked the Council to review its decision on his application. He said he had been subject to coercive and financial abuse. The Council had dismissed his claim about domestic abuse. He had remained at the property because of limited mobility and no access to alternative suitable accommodation. He also said the severity of incidents had increased and disputed the Council’s view. He had been told to self-refer to an Independent Domestic Violence Advisor (IDVA). He felt the Council had taken the view that he did not fit the profile of a domestic abuse victim because he was male and black.
9. On 12 July Mr D submitted a complaint to the Council. He had completed a DASH risk assessment with the Council and scored 10 points which showed he needed domestic abuse support. The Council had incorrectly said Mr D was not homeless, but he had told Officers he had nowhere safe to stay. He had to explain his situation to three different Officers on 11 July which was distressing. Mr D said the Council’s actions “felt less like help and more like being interrogated”. The Council had failed to make appropriate referrals or trigger safeguarding. The Council had told Mr D to make a self-referral to an IDVA. Mr D felt he was disadvantaged because of his race and gender.
10. On 15 July the Council acknowledged receipt of the review request and told Mr D he was entitled to an oral hearing. On 21 July Mr D sent the Council a letter from a third-party stating Mr D had been staying at their home recently after a period of sleeping in his car. They were unable to continue providing accommodation for him. On 11 August Mr D’s representative (from a homelessness charity) wrote to the Council about the review. They asked if the Council would have taken the same approach if Mr D had not been male and black. They questioned how some decisions had been reached about Mr D’s situation. Also in August the Council asked Mr D for consent to contact his GP. Mr D said he had not reported incidents to the GP because there was a stigma attached to experiencing domestic abuse.
11. On 18 August the Council replied to the complaint. It said Officers had undertaken training with the local Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) Team and training about the DASH form. The Council had carried out a full assessment for Mr D’s application including the DASH form but concluded he did not meet the criteria for domestic abuse. When Mr D had challenged the decision at the assessment meeting a specialist Domestic Abuse Housing Advisor and a Manager then came to the same conclusion that Mr D did not meet the criteria for domestic abuse. Mr D had now asked for a review of the decision. The Council said that it did not owe Mr D a prevention or relief duty because he was not considered to be homeless. The Council said it was appropriate for three Officers to meet with Mr D; he had requested he speak to the Manager, and it was right for the specialist Advisor to also attend. In respect of the call to the Council on 10 July, the Officer taking the call concluded that Mr D was “not in immediate danger” and so not at imminent risk of homelessness. Concerns about coercive behaviour by Mr D’s parents did not present an immediate danger and was thought by the Officer to be a breakdown in family relations rather than domestic abuse that warranted immediate safeguarding action. The Council said the actions on 10 July were appropriate and there was no evidence of discrimination.
12. On 18 August Mr D asked the Council to escalate his complaint. He said his disclosures about his situation met the definition of domestic abuse including coercive control, financial abuse, emotional harm and physical abuse. It was not simply a relationship breakdown. He was staying at his original home because of his limited mobility, and he had nowhere else to go. At the assessment meeting the first Officer told him, “I do not believe you”. He reiterated that having to meet with three Officers was intimidating and he felt staff were hostile. The call on 10 July was not handled correctly and only considered if there was physical risk. Mr D had to sleep in his car that night. Mr D also said he had set out how events were escalating at the home and this was not addressed by the Council.
13. On 5 September the Council issued its review decision. It found that Mr D was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. It had considered the information provided by Mr D and his representative alongside the Equality Act and the Domestic Abuse Act. The letter detailed the points raised by Mr D and addressed each the key point. The Council explained why it did not consider there was evidence of coercive control, economic abuse or other forms of domestic abuse.
14. On 11 September Mr D emailed the Council with additional information relating to financial transactions and a physiotherapy report. On 17 September he asked the Council what else it could do to assist him because there had been another altercation that day where he experienced verbal abuse. The next day Mr D’s representative asked the Council what action it would take. The Council replied that it would consider the new evidence in light of the review. Mr D responded the same day with more information about the incident.
15. On 6 November a MARAC Officer emailed the Council, Mr D’s case had been heard at MARAC that week. The Council had stated it could not assist Mr D with homelessness and MARAC were asking why. I understand the referral to MARAC had been made by the NHS. Also on 6 November the Chair of MARAC wrote to the Council that it had agreed a plan to protect Mr D from current risk of harm, and it supported an application for housing to ensure his safety.
16. On 7 November the Council invited Mr D to attend the office for an oral hearing about his review request. On 12 November the Council replied to MARAC and said a final decision had not been made on the case and the Council was still making enquiries. Also, on 12 November Mr D attended an oral hearing with the Council. He explained the circumstances leading to making a homelessness application and his current situation. On 13 November the Council issued its new review decision. It had decided to overturn the original decision, and accepted Mr D was owed a relief duty. The Council emailed Mr D with the review decision and asked him to supply financial information to help support him finding an affordable home. Mr D replied the same day with the requested information. He wanted to be considered for a one-bedroom home within reach of his medical services.
17. On 21 November the Council told Mr D the reply to his escalated complaint was delayed and apologised for the inconvenience. On 24 November the Council issued a relief duty decision letter and a personalised housing plan (PHP). The PHP stated Mr D would be referred to the Private Rented Sector Team. It also said the Council had advised Mr D about non-molestation orders and would consider him for the Sanctuary Scheme (which can provide increased security measures for a person in their home). Mr D emailed the Council the same day and noted he spoken to an Advisor and discussed accommodation options. He advised which areas he could live in. Mr D also stated he did not feel comfortable being placed in shared accommodation because it would not feel safe given his history of domestic abuse. Mr D also asked about whether he could be referred to a housing association. The next day the Advisor told Mr D the Council could nominate him for housing association properties via the housing register.
18. On 5 December Mr D emailed the Council that he needed self-contained one bedroom accommodation. He said, “I just really need something safe and stable as soon as it is possible”. The Council replied that Mr D’s case would be referred to a specialist Domestic Abuse Advisor. On 11 December Mr D’s IDVA emailed the Council. They asked for the Domestic Abuse Advisor to contact Mr D as he needed to secure accommodation and may need a referral for a housing association. On 18 December Mr D emailed the Council. He said any accommodation needed to allow access to his work and support services. He had not found private sector rentals to be an option for him. He wrote “I haven’t asked for temporary accommodation so far” but his housing situation was increasingly difficult, and he was constantly trying to find somewhere safe to stay.
19. On 22 December the IDVA emailed the Council stating Mr D was staying between his original home and with friends. He required interim accommodation as soon as possible while he waited for longer term housing. He also needed an update on referrals to organisations to assist with rehousing. They asked the Domestic Abuse Advisor to contact them, Mr D had not heard from that Officer.
20. On 5 January 2026 Mr D emailed the Domestic Abuse Advisor, he said he had not been contacted by her, and his situation was getting worse. There had been further incidents of abuse, and he was sofa surfing which was impacting his physical and mental health. He felt unsupported by the Domestic Abuse Advisor and wanted contact to discuss his options “including temporary accommodation”. On 8 January 2026 Mr D told the Council he required interim accommodation. The Council then contacted him, and he agreed to attend the Council office on 13 January to discuss interim accommodation.
21. On 9 January 2026 the Council issued its final stage complaint response. Following receipt of new evidence the Council said it had accepted, at a statutory review, that Mr D was homeless. In respect of an Officer saying they did not believe Mr D, the Council had spoken to the Officer who said they did not believe the “problems at home” amounted to domestic abuse under the statutory definition. The Council said it recognised Mr D’s “experience of the interaction was clearly negative” and apologised. The Council said where it confirms domestic abuse it will refer an applicant to an IDVA, but this was not applicable to Mr D in July 2025. Mr D said the Council cancelled a meeting with a Domestic Abuse specialist, but he had spoken to a specialist Advisor on 11 July, so no further appointment was necessary. It apologised if that had not been made clear to him at the time. The Council said it had never accepted a prevention duty in July 2025. In respect of the 10 July call Mr D said he disclosed events had escalated in recent months and he had experienced physical violence in the past. The Officers dealing with the out of hours service disputed Mr D’s recollection that physical violence was mentioned. The Council said the correct actions had been taken. The Council said there was no evidence of discrimination against Mr D.

Events outside my investigation timeframe

22. On 13 January the Council offered Mr D interim accommodation. Mr D raised issues with its suitability. Mr D was also offered viewings of private rental properties. In March the Council accepted a main housing duty towards Mr D.
23. In June I made enquiries of the Council. The Council then contacted Mr D and provided him with temporary accommodation. Mr D submitted a suitability review request to the Council.

What should have happened

The prevention duty

24. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. This assessment must include: the circumstances that have caused them to become homeless or threatened with homelessness; their housing needs; and their support needs. The assessment should consider support needs. The Code of Guidance says this should be “holistic and comprehensive” and not limited to the most apparent needs. In respect of housing need the Council should consider the applicant’s preferences and record those in the assessment. The Code of Guidance also says that in most circumstances assessments will require at least one face to face interview or telephone call. The Council should notify the applicant about the assessment outcome and provide a PHP and those two notifications can be combined. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.10, 11.11, 11.7, 11.25)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

25. 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)
26. If there is evidence that would give the authority reason to believe the applicant may be homeless because of domestic abuse the authority should make interim accommodation available to the applicant immediately whilst they undertake their investigations. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 21.25)

Priority need

27. Applicants in priority need include victims of domestic abuse and people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.

The relief duty

28. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

29. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (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)

Review rights

30. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a range of decision including:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness.

31. Councils must complete a review within eight weeks of the date of the review request about the eligibility for assistance. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

Accommodation pending review

32. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

Domestic abuse

33. The DASH checklist is used by IDVAs and councils. The checklist is a tool to help identify adult victims of domestic abuse and identify if they are at a high risk of harm. It also identifies if a person should be referred to a MARAC meeting to manage their risk. A range of questions about abuse are listed and if experienced by the person the corresponding box is ticked. Where a person has 14 or more ticks in the ‘yes’ section the case would usually be considered high risk and meet the MARAC referral criteria. A score of 10 to 13 is medium risk meaning there are identifiable indicators of risk of serious harm where a perpetrator has the potential to cause serious harm but is unlikely to do so unless there is a change of circumstances.
34. Where a homelessness applicant approaches the Council for assistance and says they are fleeing domestic abuse they will usually be contacted by an Advisor to carry out an initial assessment on the same day. That assessment is to determine if the applicant’s case is an emergency. The Advisor will carry out a DASH assessment and make any relevant enquiries to determine what, if any, duty the Council owes the applicant. If the DASH assessments scores 14 or more the Advisor should refer the case to MARAC. If the score is under 14 and the Council accepts a homelessness duty the case should be referred to an IDVA. Professional judgement should be used as to whether a MARAC referral is needed. If the Council consider the applicant is eligible, homeless and in priority need it will offer interim accommodation.
35. If an applicant first contacts the out-of-hours service an Officer will carry out an assessment to determine if they are eligible, homeless and in priority need. If they are considered to meet those criteria the Council should offer interim accommodation. If they do not meet the criteria the Council does not have to offer interim accommodation. The out-of-hours service complete a duty team report which it sends to the regular daytime service.

Was there fault by the Council

36. Mr D feels the Council should have accepted a homelessness duty towards him when he first approached it for assistance in July 2025. I have carefully considered the evidence and have not found fault by the Council. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from Mr D and its own policies. The evidence shows the Council followed the appropriate process when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it. Its decision letter to Mr D in July set out how the assessment had been made and gave Mr D information about his review rights. I appreciate Mr D feels the Council’s decision was wrong, but the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. I am satisfied the correct process was adhered to by the Council.
37. I understand Mr D feels Officers acted in a hostile manner towards him at the 11 July meeting and the 10 July call was not handled correctly. Having considered the limited contemporaneous record, I am unable to say whether Officers acted unfairly or inappropriately as I do not have evidence to corroborate Mr D’s recollection of the meeting and call.
38. When Mr D first approached the Council for assistance he made it clear he wanted interim accommodation. The Council has a duty to consider a request for accommodation pending the outcome of the review process. It failed to do so in this case. The Council has told me it accepts that it did not consider Mr D’s request for accommodation pending his review in 2025.
39. I have considered the Council’s handling of the case once it accepted a relief duty towards Mr D and there is evidence of fault. The Council says the same Advisor who had previously dealt with the case considered Mr D’s housing and support needs after the 13 November relief duty decision. It states the assessment included taking account of information produced at the oral hearing on 12 November and the initial assessment carried out on 11 July. I understand the Council had information from Mr D at the oral hearing and the earlier assessment but that was primarily focused on whether the Council owed Mr D a homelessness duty rather than a detailed and careful assessment of his housing and support needs in light of his domestic abuse. As good practice I feel the Council should have met with Mr D and carried out a further assessment that took account of Mr D’s current situation in November and his support and housing needs. That would then accord with the Code of Guidance (section 21.35) which says that a council should be sensitive to an applicant’s wishes when developing a PHP and “victims should be allowed sufficient time and space to absorb and understand the options open to them”. Had an assessment involving Mr D taken place in November, the PHP, that was subsequently produced, would have been more relevant to his specific needs. For example, it would not have included a referral to the Sanctuary Scheme which was not appropriate for Mr D’s circumstances.
40. When the Council accepted a relief duty to Mr D in November it had a duty to offer him interim accommodation. The Council says it did not make an offer of accommodation because Mr D was seeking alternative housing options. The case notes do not show Mr D refusing interim accommodation, instead he told the Council on 24 November that he would not feel comfortable in shared housing because of the domestic abuse. Mr D was understandably looking to secure long term housing, but he was never formally offered interim accommodation in 2025. I see the IDVA told the Council on 22 December that Mr D needed interim accommodation, but no action was taken. Mr D then contacted the Council on 5 and 8 January 2026 and interim accommodation was offered in mid-January. The Council accepts it should have made a written offer of interim accommodation once it accepted a relief duty in November.
41. Mr D was told at the start of December 2025 his case was being referred to a Domestic Abuse Advisor. During that month Mr D and the IDVA requested the Officer contact them, I have no evidence of any contact being made. Mr D emailed the Domestic Abuse Advisor on 5 January 2026 that abuse had occurred again and he needed assistance. I consider there is fault by the Council because Mr D did not receive any contact or support from the Domestic Abuse Advisor in December and early January despite requests for contact.
42. The Council acknowledges that it delayed issuing the final stage complaint response. It says this was caused by staffing shortages and increased workloads. Mr D was subject to a delay of around three months.

Did the fault cause an injustice

43. The Council failed to consider accommodation for Mr D pending the outcome of his review. I cannot say whether, had the fault not occurred, the Council would have provided accommodation, but I am satisfied there was a lost opportunity to consider the issue. In respect of the Council’s failure to offer Mr D interim accommodation in November I cannot say for certain whether Mr D would have accepted the offer at that time however it is more likely than not that Mr D would have accepted interim accommodation by 22 December at the latest. Instead, he had to wait until mid-January 2026 to receive an offer, a delay of around three weeks which included the holiday period.

Back to top

Action

44. The Council has offered to pay Mr D redress for the delays in the complaint handling and the failure to consider accommodation pending the review outcome. In its contact the Council also referred to having failed to offer temporary accommodation to Mr D after it accepted a main duty in 2026. That issue is outside the timeframe and scope of my investigation; I refer to this below. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and will:
• send Mr D a written apology
• pay Mr D a total of £1,000 for avoidable distress (which covers the lost opportunity to consider a request for accommodation pending the review outcome, the lost opportunity to offer interim accommodation, the failure to provide interim accommodation on 22 December 2025, the failure to provide support in December and early January 2026 and the delay in complaint handling)
45. The Council will also contact Mr D about the admitted fault in not providing temporary accommodation to him in 2026. It should treat this as a complaint response and explain its findings, set out an offer of redress and advise Mr D if he can escalate the complaint internally or lodge a new case with the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied.
46. The Council will detail what service improvements it has made and will make in light of this case. It should remind Officers about the requirement to offer interim accommodation where a relief duty has been accepted.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

48. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman