West Northamptonshire Council (21 015 756)

Category : Housing > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 13 Apr 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council responded when she asked to move house because she was at risk of domestic abuse. This caused Ms X distress. We found fault with the Council. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice to Ms X.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complained about the way the Council responded when she asked to move house because she was at risk of domestic abuse.
  2. She said the lack of action and support placed her at risk and caused her distress. She also said it had a negative impact on her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
  3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered Ms X’s complaint. I made enquiries with the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
  2. Ms 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

Law and guidance

Domestic abuse and homelessness

  1. Councils had a duty to support victims of domestic abuse and work with other agencies such as health, education and police.
  2. Chapter 21 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance sets out the Council’s duty to those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of domestic abuse.
  3. The new Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (The Act) came into effect from April 2021. This extended councils duties to those fleeing domestic abuse, particularly in terms of their housing duties.
  4. The Act introduced a new statutory duties for relevant local authorities in England and made changes to councils housing duties. Including:
  • Changes the definition of priority need for those seeking assistance with homelessness after fleeing domestic abuse.
  • Introduces a domestic abuse protection notice.
  • Requires councils to grant secure tenancies when rehousing victims in certain circumstances.
  1. Councils must provide emergency housing if it thinks someone is at risk of domestic abuse.

Housing allocations

  1. All councils are required to have a published allocation scheme which sets out how they assess and prioritise applications for housing. Councils are required to give ‘reasonable preference’ to certain categories of people.
  2. Many councils run a choice based letting scheme in partnership with other landlords, however responsibility for allocations remains with the council under part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. This is irrespective of whether the assessment of the application is undertaken by a partner landlord. In these circumstances the partner landlord is acting on behalf of the council.

Northampton Partnership Homes

  1. Northampton Partnership Homes (NPH) is an “arms-length” management organisation that manages West Northamptonshire Council's housing services.
  2. NPH are owned by West Northamptonshire Council but has its own management team and board of directors.
  3. NPH is responsible for:
  • Allocations and lettings
  • Repairs and maintenance
  • Housing management, including dealing with anti-social behaviour
  • Tenancy support
  • Tenant involvement

What happening

  1. What follows is a brief summary. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
  2. Ms X lives with her child. She was a victim of domestic abuse by her ex-partner, Mr Y. He was in prison and was due to be released in 2021. Ms X was living in rented housing association accommodation. The Council accepted its homelessness duty to Ms X.
  3. In March 2021 Ms X’s case was discussed at a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC). She was also given a specialist domestic violence support worker. There were concerns that Ms X was at risk of further abuse when Mr Y was released from prison. There were also concerns because he had continued to contact her whilst in prison. The MARAC meeting assessed her as being at high risk of further abuse.
  4. The Council offered to house Ms X in temporary accommodation or a refuge before Mr Y was released from prison. It told her she would stay in temporary accommodation until NPH could offer her suitable accommodation. Ms X declined the offer. She said she would only leave her accommodation for permanent accommodation and she did not want to move to a flat for safety reasons.
  5. Mr Y’s release was delayed until 2022.
  6. There was another MARAC meeting in April 2021. It assessed Ms X as high risk and asked for her to be given priority banding and supported to move to another property before Mr Y was released. Her support worker told NPH:

“… my advice is that Ms X needs to be placed on priority banding so that she can be moved and settled before he (Mr Y) is released, which reduces the need for her to go into temporary accommodation or refuge”.

  1. Ms X joined the NPH housing list. She was initially placed in priority band A because of the perceived risk from Mr Y
  2. Ms X’s housing association offered her a management transfer to a flat in April 2021. Ms X declined. The Council ended its homelessness duty because it no longer considered Ms X to be threatened with homelessness within 56 days.
  3. In September 2021 Ms X complained to NPH. She complained:
  • Her housing application should be fast tracked because she was a victim of domestic abuse and Mr Y was due to be released from prison. She did not feel safe at her address.
  • No one was listening to her or understanding what was going on in her life.
  • She was unhappy with the service from an NPH because it showed little understanding for her circumstances.
  • She was unhappy with the ‘quick win’ response from NPH and asked for her complaint to be investigated.
  1. NPH responded and told Ms X it would not consider her complaint at stage one of its process. It referred her to the Housing Ombudsman.
  2. Ms X was unhappy with NPH response. She complained to us in January 2022.

My findings

  1. I did not find fault with the way the Council considered Ms X’s homelessness. It accepted its duty because it found she was threatened with homelessness within 56 days. This was based on her accommodation not being suitable because of the risk of domestic abuse when Mr Y was released from prison.
  2. It offered Ms X temporary accommodation whilst it searched for a more permanent solution. Ms X decided to decline the offer. This was her choice and does not mean the Council was at fault.
  3. I found fault with the Council for the delay finding Ms X suitable permanent accommodation.
  4. After Ms X declined the offer of temporary accommodation she decided to apply for housing through NPH. She was awarded the highest priority band. She was also offered a management move by her housing association. She declined these offers.
  5. The fault came between May 2021 and January 2022. Following the initial action by the Council and NPH there was nine months with very little contact or action.
  6. It was only after the Ombudsman became involved in January 2022 that the Council managed to resolve Ms X’s housing issue. Because of the delays this happened the week before Mr Y was released from prison. This caused Ms X distress as she became increasingly anxious about her family’s safety.
  7. I understand that Ms X declined offers of other properties but on balance I think the situation could have been resolved earlier if NPH and the Council had worked together more effectively.
  8. In response to our enquiries the Council said:

“We recognise the disjointed approach between ourselves and NPH when looking to support Ms X for a permanent move. This way of working does not reflect the Council’s vision and values. Our new approach aims to put adults and children who are victimised at the centre of our future service. As well as a physical place of safety, we recognise that victim- survivors and children require support and fast, early interventions that recognise the trauma and long-term damage of continued and repeat victimisation”.

  1. Ms X complained and NPH refused to consider Ms X’s complaint at stage one. It told Ms X:

“…has advised Mr Y has not been released yet and not had any contact with you since his arrest. As there’s no evidence to suggest you or your family are in any danger…”

  1. This was not correct. Mr Y had been in contact with Ms X from prison. The MARAC meeting also decided she was at high risk and recommended she moved accommodation prior to his release.
  2. NPH failed to deal with Ms X’s complaint. It also incorrectly referred her to the Housing Ombudsman. This was fault.
  3. NPH and the Council missed an opportunity to resolve Ms X’s complaint and it caused her unnecessary time and trouble referring her to the wrong Ombudsman scheme. This was injustice.
  4. In response to our enquires the Council said:

“We acknowledge that we need to find more collaborative ways to link up working with NPH in the future to co-produce responses when a complaint refers to shared housing and homelessness applications case rather than complaints being dealt with in silo”.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of our final decision the Council agrees to:
  • Apologise to Ms X.
  • Pay Ms X £300 in recognition of the distress, time and trouble it caused her.
  1. Within three months of my final decision the Council agrees to:
  • Review its approach to joint complaint handling with NPH. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of what changes it made as a result of this investigation.
  • Provide evidence of the procedure the Council introduced in relation to cases where the perpetrator is due to be released from prison.
  • Remind relevant officers of which complaints should be referred to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and Housing Ombudsman.
  1. The Council should provide the Ombudsman with evidence it completed the agreed actions.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I found fault with the Council causing injustice. I completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings