Summary: The Council was at fault in its handling of Ms X’s case when she became homeless due to domestic abuse. The Council was also at fault for significant delays responding to her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £1000 and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council failed to help her when she was homeless because of domestic abuse. In particular, that the Council failed to:
1. provide emergency or temporary accommodation
2. refer her to the IDVA service or its specialist Outreach Officer
3. provide full details about its scheme to help her access private rented accommodation.
4. respond to her stage one complaint.
5. deal with her complaint in a timely manner.
2. As a result, Ms X says she went to significant time and trouble pursuing help from the Council and experienced avoidable distress and uncertainty about whether and how it could help 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. 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

5. I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Ms 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

Homelessness law and guidance

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. (Housing Act 1996, section 184) 
11. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. In July 2021, the law changed so that homeless applicants fleeing domestic abuse will always be in priority need. However, at the time of Ms X’s approach to the Council, the test was whether, as a result of her circumstances, Ms X was vulnerable.
13. 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:
1. The circumstances that have caused them to become homeless or threatened with homelessness
2. Their housing needs
3. Their support needs (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.7)
14. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
15. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty lasts a maximum of 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
16. The council must give the applicant certain decisions in writing. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)

Find Your Own Scheme

17. This is a scheme where the Council can help homeless applicants meet the cost of a deposit and rent in advance for a private tenancy they find themselves.
18. The Council pays the landlord directly but applicants have to provide the Council with various documents. The Council also has to check the property is affordable before it will agree to pay any money to secure the property.

What happened

19. Ms X approached the Council for help in October 2020. She said she was sofa surfing with a friend because she had to leave her previous accommodation due to domestic abuse. She spoke first to a customer services representative and then to a duty officer who ‘triaged’ her case and decided she needed a full assessment.
20. The Council arranged to complete the full housing assessment with Ms X a few days later. Following this appointment, the Council emailed Ms X asking her to provide various documents and telling her about its Find Your Own Scheme. It attached some forms for her to fill in about her health and income.
21. Ms X explained that she was unable to get all the information the Council asked for because it was not safe for her to return to the property to retrieve documents. She asked the Council if it could complete the forms over the phone because she didn’t have access to a printer.
22. The Council sent Ms X her personalised housing plan (PHP) by email in early November. The PHP said the Council would review the plan on 23 November.
23. The next day, the Council asked Ms X for consent to share information with various organisations and for “the circumstances that has contributed to your homelessness (sic)”. Ms X responded to this email by telephone. She expressed frustration that the Council was not helping her after she fled domestic abuse.
24. Following this call, the Council referred Ms X’s case to its specialist Outreach Officer, who became the officer responsible for her case. This officer contacted Ms X by phone once in November and once in December but was unable to speak to her.
25. Ms X complained to the Council in December. In February 2021, she asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two because she received no response. The Council declined to investigate her complaint at stage two because it said it was still investigating her complaint at stage one.
26. Ms X still had no response to her stage one complaint in March, at which point the Council agreed to investigate at stage two.
27. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage two in April 2022. It:
• apologised for the “extreme delays” dealing with the complaint
• said Ms X had approached for help in October but didn’t tell the Council she was fleeing domestic abuse until early November. It said this meant it had no reason to believe she might need interim accommodation or a referral to its specialist housing officer or an IDVA.
• Acknowledged that it didn’t provide enough information about the Find Your Own Scheme.
28. To remedy the injustice and improve its service the Council said it would:
• Make sure applicants got detailed information about the Find Your Own Scheme criteria
• Pay Ms X £100 for the delay in responding to her complaint.

My findings

Homelessness

29. The Council has already accepted some fault in how it communicated with Ms X about the Find Your Own Scheme.
30. However, I find additional fault in how the Council handled Ms X’s homelessness. Contrary to the Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council knew from the outset that Ms X was fleeing domestic abuse. This is recorded in the notes of its initial triage conversation and in the address history the Council recorded as part of its full housing assessment a few days later.
31. There is no evidence the Council took this into account in deciding whether it had reason to believe Ms X may have a priority need and therefore was owed interim accommodation. Failure to consider this relevant information was fault. I cannot say whether the Council would have decided it had reason to believe Ms X may be in priority need. However, Ms X must live with this uncertainty, which is an injustice.
32. The Council has a specialist Outreach Officer who works with homeless applicants fleeing abuse. The Council should have referred Ms X to this service in October when she first approached. It did not do so for several weeks. This was fault.
33. The evidence indicates the Council entirely overlooked Ms X’s support needs resulting from domestic abuse when she first contacted the Council or at any time prior to Ms X’s telephone call in November. It therefore did not refer her to its IDVA service in a timely way. This was fault. By the time it did so, Ms X had lost confidence in the Council’s ability to do anything to help her and had accessed support from a charity instead. Ms X was able to access the support and advocacy she needed from the charity. However, she should not have had to go to the time and trouble of seeking this out for herself when the Council had a duty to consider her support needs as part of its assessment. This is an injustice to Ms X.
34. Ms X had to tell the Council why she was homeless several times. She had to tell the customer services representative when she first called, the duty officer, and the officer who conducted the full housing assessment. Despite this, the Council still asked Ms X to tell it the circumstances that lead to her homelessness again in an email in November. The Council’s records already contained the answer to this question. Ms X should not have had to answer it again in circumstances where doing so was understandably difficult for her. This was fault. It caused Ms X unnecessary distress at an already difficult time. This is an injustice to Ms X.
35. The evidence also shows procedural failings in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s case:
• It sent her a PHP by email and agreed to review this in November. However, there is no evidence the Council completed the review. This was fault.
• The Council appears to have accepted Ms X was homeless and that it owed her the relief duty. However, there is no evidence it wrote to Ms X explaining this decision. The Council provided such a letter in response to my enquiries, however it is dated May 2021. The email correspondence between the Council and Ms X shows it sent the PHP and various other forms but not this letter. Homelessness decision letters are important because they explain the Council’s legal duties and the applicant’s statutory review rights. Failure to send this letter was fault.
• The Council attempted to call Ms X once in November and once in December. After that, it took no action on her case until May 2021, when it called to see if she still needed help. If the Council had properly accepted the relief duty, this should have ended after 56 days. At that point, the Council should have decided whether it owed Ms X the main housing duty. Instead, it allowed her case to drift for a further five months. This was fault.
36. These faults added to Ms X’s sense that the Council was not doing enough to help her. It also indicates some poor practice which might affect other homeless applicants who have not complained.

Complaint handling

37. There is significant fault in the Council’s complaint handling in this case. The housing complaints team is responsible for responding to housing complaints at stage one. Ms X complained in December 2020. The Council did not respond to this complaint at all. This was fault.
38. When the Council escalated the complaint to stage two in March 2021, the corporate complaints team investigated. It did not assign the complaint to an officer until August, over five months later.
39. The corporate complaints team then asked the housing complaints team for further information which it then chased five times until November. It wasn’t until November that the housing complaints team even requested the relevant information from the service. It then took until April 2022 for the Council to write to Ms X with its complaint response.
40. In total, it took the Council 16 months to deal with Ms X’s complaint. This significant delay was fault. It caused Ms X avoidable distress, frustration, and time and trouble over an extended period. This is an injustice to Ms X.
41. I am concerned that the extent of this delay, and the repeated failings in the housing complaints team, indicate a lack of regard for complaints which is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice or our guidance on Effective Complaint Handling.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. To remedy the injustice to Ms X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Provide Ms X a specific apology in writing
• Pay Ms X £500 in recognition of the injustice caused by faults in its homeless service
• Pay Ms X a further £500 in recognition of the additional injustice caused by the Council’s poor complaint handling.
43. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
44. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Share a copy of this decision with staff in the relevant departments.
• Consider whether the process for homeless applicants to access the service can be streamlined, in particular to prevent homeless victims of domestic abuse from having to repeat potentially distressing details to multiple officers.
• Remind relevant staff that support needs are an important part of the housing needs assessment, which should be fully considered and recorded, with referrals to other services as necessary.
• Remind relevant staff that the duty to provide interim accommodation can arise as soon as it has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless. Staff should therefore consider whether interim accommodation should be provided prior to a full housing assessment where a triage process is used.
• Remind relevant staff that records of homelessness triage and full assessments should contain sufficient detail to demonstrate consideration of whether there is reason to believe the applicant may be in priority need such that a duty to provide interim accommodation arises.
• Review a representative sample of complaints to the housing complaints team from the last 12 months to identify whether the failure to respond to this complaint was an isolated incident. Provide training, guidance, or other improvements as necessary.
45. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman