Summary: Miss X complained the Council refused to assist her with her homelessness after she fled domestic abuse in another council area. The Council was not at fault. It identified and offered interim accommodation. Following enquiries, it decided Miss X was not homeless.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council refused to assist her with her homelessness, after she fled domestic abuse in another area. In particular, the Council:
1. initially told her she must report the domestic violence to the police before it could assist her, which she later found out was not correct;
2. offered unsuitable emergency accommodation with a bed and breakfast provider;
3. wrongly said she had refused refuge accommodation when, in fact, the refuge said it could not offer accommodation that would meet her son’s needs;
4. visited her relative’s house, where she was staying, which put her at further risk;
5. wrongly refused her homelessness application twice; and
6. failed to assist her to join its housing register.
2. She said that, as a result, she and her son did not have safe accommodation, which affect their mental health. She said her son, who has a disability, was particularly affected by the lack of his own space and the changes to his routine. She also had to pay £150 to a solicitor to assist her.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. In this case, Miss X told me the Council had refused to assist her from July 2019. This is more than 12 months before she complained to us, and I am not aware of any reasons preventing her from complaining to us about events in 2019 before. Further, I note the complaint to the Council and to us related to the period from June 2020. On this basis, I have restricted my investigation to the events from June 2020 onwards.
7. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
8. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
9. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered:
• the information Miss X provided and spoke to her about her complaint;
• the information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
11. Miss X and the organisation 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

12. 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.
13. When a person applies to a council for accommodation and the council has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, a number of duties arise, including:
• to make enquiries to determine if it owes a housing duty;
• to secure suitable accommodation for certain applicants pending the outcome of the enquiries;
• to notify the applicant of the decision in writing and the right to request a review of the decision.
14. If the Council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless and in priority need, it must, if the person asks for it, provide emergency accommodation until it has finished assessing the homelessness application.  Examples of priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• people with serious health problems;
• some elderly people.
15. Where the council is satisfied the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it must take reasonable steps to help them secure suitable accommodation. This is the relief duty. It applies for 56 days, which is sometimes called the relief stage.
16. During the relief stage councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 11)
17. Homeless applicants can ask for a review of most housing decisions within 21 days. If they are not happy with the outcome of the review, they may appeal to the County Court on a point of law. There is no right to request a review of the suitability of interim accommodation provided by a council under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996.

Housing allocations

18. 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))
19. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medial or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

20. If the Council decides to suspend or close an application, it must write to the applicant and give its reasons. It must also inform the application of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
21. This Council’s allocations policy says applicants must have a “local connection” to be eligible to join its housing register. Relevant to this case, to establish a local connection, the applicant would need to provide evidence they live in the Borough and have done continuously for the last five years or have worked in the Borough for the last two years. An exception is made for applicants who are victims of domestic abuse who cannot return to their place of origin as it would place them at risk of violence.

What happened

22. Miss X lives with her son, Y, who has special educational needs (SEN). She approached the Council for homelessness assistance in June 2020 and I am investigating events from that point onwards. However, events in July 2019 are relevant to the way the Council considered her homelessness application in 2020 so I will set out the relevant aspects here.
23. In July 2019 Miss X applied to join the Council’s housing register. On the application form she said she had:
• left a previous property in 2017 after her relationship with Mr Z, Y’s father, had broken down;
• had been living with a relative but could no longer do so due to her son’s behaviour, which was a result of his SEN; and
• been declared homeless by the council where she was living, Council 2.
24. The Council wrote to her in early October 2019 to say she could not join the housing register because she did not meet its local connection criteria. It asked Miss X to let it know if she believed it had made an error of fact in reaching its decision.
25. In June 2020, Miss X contacted the Council again. She said she was of no fixed abode as she could no longer live with her relative. She gave her relative’s address, address A, which was the same address she used when she applied for the housing register in 2019.
26. Two days later, Miss X made a further request. This time she said she was fleeing domestic abuse from Mr Z, Y’s father, from address B. The same day the Council tried to contact her by telephone but was unable to do so. It sent an email providing advice and asking her to complete a domestic abuse form. It also made a referral to refuge C.
27. Refuge C contacted Miss X the same day it received the referral. It said it could offer shared accommodation. Miss X said Y had complex needs and she felt shared accommodation would have a negative effect on him. Refuge C had no self-contained accommodation available that day. There was some confusion at the time about whether Y needed self-contained accommodation or whether this was Miss X’s preference. There was also confusion about whether refuge C offered shared accommodation, which Miss X refused, or whether it said it could not offer accommodation that was suitable for Y’s needs.
28. On the domestic abuse form, which Miss X completed the same day, Miss X said Mr Z had found a letter referring to her claiming domestic abuse. He became angry, threatened her and said she must leave. She said the relationship had broken down in 2017, following which she had stayed with friends and with a relative but at the start of the pandemic was living with Mr Z. She said she was on a waiting list for housing with Council 2 but did not feel safe in some parts of Council 2’s area.
29. The following day, the Council recorded that it had reason to believe Miss Z was eligible for assistance and in priority need. It advised Miss X it did not have any self-contained emergency accommodation and the most it was likely to secure was a private bathroom. It made referrals to several refuges. It arranged bed and breakfast accommodation at hotel D.
30. Miss X went to hotel D without Y or her belongings to assess whether it was suitable. She said it was not suitable because:
• the room provided was on the ground floor close to a rear door that was not locked;
• its window overlooked the car park and had to be kept closed as people were walking close by outside;
• she saw a man drinking beer from a can in the car park, and another man selling drugs;
• there was only one double bed, and it was not appropriate for her to share a bed with her son;
• the kitchen was dirty and unusable; and
• there was no social distancing as required by COVID-19 restrictions at the time.
31. She emailed the Council to say she would not stay there and stayed instead with a friend. As this was a Friday evening, the Council was not aware of this until the following Monday and hotel D reported it was not aware Miss X had left. The Council responded to the concerns Miss X raised, apart from the sharing of a bed.
32. Also on the Monday, the Council made a further offer of emergency accommodation in a refuge. This was not self-contained, but the Council said its priority was that Miss X and Y were safe. It noted that the nearest refuges with self-contained accommodation were too far away. It also said that, as this was the third offer it had made, it would discharge its duty to provide interim accommodation if it was not accepted. Miss X refused the offer. She said she wanted self-contained accommodation in the Council’s area.
33. Also on the Monday, the Council reminded Miss X it needed her to complete the homelessness application forms so it could make enquiries about what duty, if any, it owed her.
34. On Tuesday, it made a home visit to address A to check whether Miss X was still living with her relative. The relative was not at home but the officer spoke to Miss X. They explained the reason for the visit and asked why Miss X felt she was not safe at address A. Miss X said Mr Z was aware of address A.
35. On Wednesday, it wrote to Miss X to set out the confusion over the addresses she had given, its reason for visiting address A and the reasons it could not provide self-contained accommodation in its area. It explained there were other families in bed and breakfast accommodation, who would be prioritised if any self-contained accommodation became available. It explained the further enquiries it was making and said it would assist her to find private rented accommodation.
36. On Thursday, the Council again asked Miss X to complete the homelessness forms. It said no further offer of interim accommodation would be made in view of the refusals. It also explained that private rented accommodation in its area was expensive and suggested cheaper areas she could consider. She could not join its housing register as she had no local connection unless the Council accepted a relief duty, in which case she could join for 56 days only. It signposted her to free legal advice.
37. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s response and complained. She also contacted her local MP and a solicitor. The Council responded to the complaint in early July. It set out what had happened, which it said showed it taken her claims of domestic abuse seriously, and said it had met its obligations to offer suitable interim accommodation. It also corresponded with Miss X’s solicitor.
38. In late July, the Council interviewed Miss X. The record of the interview states the incident in June 2020 was the sole reason for leaving address B. On the same day, Miss X completed a vulnerability questionnaire.
39. Also in late July, Miss X’s solicitor threatened legal action, to which the Council responded. The records note Miss X had given her solicitors a different account of events.
40. Enquiries showed Miss X was issued with a driving licence at address A in 2017 and was registered to vote at that address.
41. In October 2020, the Council wrote to Miss X with its decision that she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. It set out the inconsistencies in the information Miss X had provided. It concluded she had been living at address A since 2017 and it was reasonable for her to continue to do so.
42. In November 2020, Miss X’s solicitors asked for a review of the decision. The review decision was made in December 2020. This upheld the original decision. There was an appeal to the county court, following which the Council withdrew its decision. It carried out a second review in October 2021 in which it accepted Miss X was homeless because her relative wanted her to leave, which meant it was not reasonable for her to remain there. Given the lapse of time since its original decision, the Council carried out further enquiries, which established Council 2 had assisted Miss X to find private rented accommodation in its area.

My findings

Homelessness application

43. In June 2020, when Miss X said she was homeless, having fled domestic abuse, the Council took a homelessness application.
44. Although the Council did ask her if she had reported the incident that led to her leaving, and any other previous incidents, to the police, there is no indication it made assisting her conditional on her reporting the matter to the police. The question was asked as part of its routine enquiries to assess the situation. The Council was not at fault.
45. In light of apparent inconsistencies in the information Miss X provided in her housing register application of July 2019 and the two advice requests in June 2020, the Council decided to visit her relative at address A. Although Miss X was unhappy that an officer visited and did not give her advance notice of their intention to do so, I consider it was appropriate for the Council to check whether Miss X was still living with the relative and whether the relative was genuinely asking her to leave. The Council was not at fault.
46. After making enquiries, the Council decided Miss X was not homeless because it said it was reasonable for her to continue to live with her relative at address A. Miss X has exercised her right to ask for a review of that decision and to appeal to the county court. We cannot consider complaints about matters that have been considered by a court. Therefore, I cannot comment further on the decision made.
47. I have considered whether there was undue delay in making its decision in October 2020. I note the housing team were proactive during June 2020. In July and August 2020, the Council focussed on responding to communications from Miss X’s solicitor and the local MP. It also responded to her complaint. In view of this, although the overall time taken to reach its decision that it did not owe a relief duty because Miss X was not homeless was longer than I would expect to see, it does not amount to fault in the circumstances.

Housing register application

48. Whilst it was considering the homelessness application the Council advised Miss X she would qualify for the housing register if it owed her a relief duty. This was in line with its allocations policy.

Interim accommodation

49. The Council immediately made a referral to refuge C, which was able to offer shared accommodation. It is unclear from the information refuge A provided to the Council at various points in June 2020 whether it had initially offered shared accommodation and Miss X refused it, or whether it had decided shared accommodation was not suitable for Y, as Miss X stated. There was also no medical evidence at that stage to show Y needed his own room or that the household needed self-contained accommodation.
50. When it became aware Miss X did not wish to accept shared accommodation with refuge C, the Council arranged bed and breakfast accommodation in hotel D. It told hotel D that it needed accommodation for an adult female and a child. It gave the child’s age but not their gender. It is not clear whether the Council was aware the room hotel D was providing only had a double bed until Miss X raised it by email after office hours on the Friday. In responding to her email on the following Monday, the Council did not respond to the point about sharing a bed, but it did explain why it considered the accommodation was suitable in other respects.
51. The courts have found that accommodation may be suitable for a short time that would not be suitable longer term. Therefore, the accommodation may have been suitable for the weekend, following which the Council could have arranged a move. In the circumstances, I do not find the Council at fault in arranging the bed and breakfast accommodation. I note that Miss X and her son were able to stay with a friend on the Friday night, following which they returned to address A.
52. The Council made several other attempts to arrange refuge accommodation. It provided details of various places Miss X could go to. Miss X refused to consider shared accommodation and she considered the self-contained accommodation that was identified was too far away from where she wanted to live. The Council warned Miss X that if she did not accept its offer of shared refuge accommodation on 22 June 2020, it would not offer any further interim accommodation. Miss X declined that offer.
53. I am satisfied it took appropriate steps to provide interim accommodation for Miss X and her son, whilst it made enquiries about her homelessness situation, and it was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman