Summary: The Council took too long to process Ms X’s application to its housing register and delayed considering if she was homeless. It was also at fault for delays in its complaint handling. As a result, Ms X avoidably spent seven months living with a perpetrator of domestic abuse. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X, and act to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council:
1. Delayed processing her application to the housing register
2. Delayed considering if she was homeless
3. Treated her differently than an applicant in similar circumstances
4. Failed to respond to her stage two complaint for over a year
2. As a result, Ms X says she remained living with a perpetrator of domestic abuse for longer than necessary and experienced avoidable distress.

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 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)
5. 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

What I have investigated

6. The events Ms X complained about began in 2021 and so this complaint is late. We have exercised our discretion to consider this late complaint because Ms X’s circumstances, fleeing domestic abuse and establishing a new life on her own with her child, are a good reason she could not have complained to us sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the complaint and the information Ms X and the Council provided.
8. I considered relevant law and guidance, including:
• the Housing Act 1996, as amended
• the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities
• the Council’s allocations scheme
• the Ombudsman’s Effective Complaint Handling guidance
9. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
10. 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

11. 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.
12. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
13. 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)
14. 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)
15. 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)
16. 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)
17. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
18. If, at the end of the relief duty, 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. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Allocations

19. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
20. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This means housing applicants can express an interest in available properties. This is called bidding.
21. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Emergency Band (highest priority) to Band 3 (lowest priority).
22. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards:
• Emergency Band to people who are homeless and fleeing violence or to whom the Council has accepted the relief or main housing duty
• Band 1 to people who have an urgent need to move where there is a severe impact on wellbeing or an imminent risk of homelessness

What happened

23. Ms X completed an application to the Council’s housing register in July 2021. In her application she said that she was a victim of domestic abuse from her partner, with whom she lived. She said that she and her child needed to be able to move to safe housing.
24. In October, Ms X called the Council for an update on her application as she had not heard from the Council. The Council’s records show it allocated Ms X’s application to an officer the next day.
25. A month later, the officer contacted Ms X and asked for copies of various documents to support her application.
26. Ms X provided all the documents requested by the end of December.
27. In early January 2022, an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA) contacted the Council on Ms X’s behalf to ask for an update. The next day, the Council wrote to Ms X to say it had awarded her Band 1 priority. It backdated the award to the date in December by when Ms X had provided all the necessary documents.
28. In early February, Ms X complained to the Council about the time taken to process her application. She said another person she was aware of in very similar circumstances to hers had not experienced the same delay. She said this was because the other person knew a housing officer at the Council.
29. The same day, the Council wrote to Ms X to ask for some information. It also gave some advice around bidding to improve her chances of securing a property more quickly. This email said if Ms X “wished to leave immediately” it would provide emergency accommodation for her and her child. However, it went on to say that demand for accommodation was very high and it frequently had to use B&B.
30. The records from this time show the Council had not started the homelessness process because Ms X “did not seem to want to do this.”
31. Ms X had a meeting with her IDVA and the Council. The Council’s record of the meeting says:
• They discussed emergency accommodation but Ms X did not want to consider this because of the difficulty getting her child to and from school
• The Council explained that she could still make a homeless application and the offer of emergency accommodation would continue to be available to her
• Ms X said she was not aware she could make a homeless application as this had not been explained to her previously.
• When asked, Ms X said that she would like to make a homeless application. The Council agreed to email her a form.
32. At this point, the Council passed Ms X’s case to its specialist domestic abuse officer, who arranged to complete an assessment with Ms X.
33. In late February, the Council accepted the relief duty to Ms X. A week later, it increased her priority on the housing register to emergency band.
34. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in early March. It said:
• It was “very frustrated with the manner in which we have dealt with your situation”
• The delay processing her application was because it had (wrongly) assumed that applicants who needed to move urgently, such as those fleeing domestic abuse, would make contact by phone and not use the online form
• It had since introduced a triage process for the online forms to make sure it could prioritise urgent cases, including those involving domestic abuse or homelessness and had also added information for victims of domestic abuse to its website
• It had recruited a specialist officer, who was now working with Ms X
• The other person Ms X was aware of had received the service “I only wish you yourself had received” because of these improvements and this was the reason for their different experiences
• It had made Ms X offers of emergency accommodation which she had not taken up
35. Ms X discussed interim accommodation with the Council again in early March. The Council had interim accommodation near Ms X’s child’s school which Ms X said she would like to move to. The Council told Ms X this accommodation currently had no spaces but it would look to place there if one came up.
36. The Council’s internal request for interim accommodation for Ms X says the particular property "is the only viable option for her because of its locality".
37. Ms X wrote to the Council about her complaint. She said she was disappointed the Council considered the matter resolved because she was getting the right support now. She also said she had not refused interim accommodation. She said the Council told her the only suitable accommodation was full. She asked to escalate her complaint to the next stage of the Council’s complaint process.
38. In April, Ms X successfully bid for a property. The tenancy did not start until June because of repair work needed to the property.
39. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in March 2023. We asked the Council to tell us if it had considered the complaint at all the stages of its process. As a result, the Council issued Ms X with a stage two complaint response in April.
40. The stage two response set out a detailed chronology. It said Ms X decided to remain in the house with the perpetrator despite its offers of accommodation. It concluded by saying it was “very encouraged that on multiple occasions the team were able to offer you a safe alternative and you were able to find a safe new home for you and your children in a sensible timeframe”.

My findings

41. I have set out my findings on the complaint in the order listed in paragraph one.

Application to the housing register

42. In its complaint response at stage one, the Council accepted there was delay in its processing of Ms X’s application.
43. Ms X completed her application in July. It was allocated to an officer three months later. This delay was fault. It took the officer a further month to contact Ms X for information. This additional delay was fault.
44. Ms X provided all the information the Council asked for by late December 2021. However, the Council did not make a decision on the application until Ms X’s IDVA asked for an update in January. I recognise this included the festive period but in the circumstances of this case, I consider this delay was also fault.
45. The Ombudsman considers four to six weeks to be an appropriate timescale to process an application to the housing register. Allowing for this, and the time taken for Ms X to provide necessary documents, I find the delay amounts to four months. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty at an already difficult time, which is an injustice.

Homelessness

46. Ms X’s application to the housing register included details of domestic abuse. This should have caused the Council to consider if it had reason to believe Ms X might be homeless. Had it done so, I find on balance it would have had reason to believe she was homeless.
47. It therefore had a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, homelessness duty it owed Ms X. The Council failed to do so from July 2021 until February 2022. This delay of over 6 months was fault.
48. The Council’s records include a note that there was no indication Ms X wanted to make a homeless application. However, there is no evidence this was discussed with Ms X as an option before February. It is for the Council to consider its duties and to know they might apply, not for Ms X to ask. This was fault.
49. Once it considered its duty, the Council accepted the relief duty. I find on balance it would have accepted this duty in July 2021 were it not for its fault. Alongside this duty, the Council would have issued Ms X with a personalised housing plan. This would have provided her with useful advice and reassurance about her options at a time when she was trying to leave an abusive home safely. She missed the opportunity to access this additional support for six months. This is an injustice to Ms X.
50. The Council says Ms X refused interim accommodation which would have enabled her to leave sooner. However, the Council did not discuss interim accommodation with Ms X until February. And initially this was only in general terms. It made no specific offer of accommodation to Ms X nor did it tell her about the options available for seven months. This was fault.
51. Furthermore, the Council’s records show that only one of the properties the Council uses as interim accommodation was suitable for Ms X. It was “the only viable option”. I do not, therefore, find that Ms X failed to take action which would have limited the injustice to her from the faults I have identified.
52. The Council identified suitable interim accommodation for Ms X in March 2022. Had the Council discussed this with Ms X sooner, she may have been able to flee the perpetrator sooner. Ms X must live with this uncertainty, which is an injustice.
53. Once the Council accepted the relief duty, it increased Ms X’s priority on the housing register to the highest band. Once in this band, she successfully bid for a property within a month. On balance, therefore, I find that the Council’s delay accepting a duty to Ms X means she missed an opportunity to secure permanent housing sooner. Instead, Ms X spent a further seven months living with the perpetrator. This is a significant injustice to Ms X and her child, who witnessed the abuse in the home.

Different treatment

54. Ms X told the Council about a person she knew in circumstances like hers who received a much better service from the Council.
55. The Council explained to Ms X that this individual received a better service because of the improvements it had made. There is no evidence this was not the case.
56. I therefore do not find additional fault in how the Council treated Ms X’s applications beyond that already described above.

Complaint handling

57. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its process or tell her if the process was exhausted in March 2022. The Council only issued a stage two response in April 2023 after the Ombudsman asked it to do so. This delay of over a year was fault. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and time and trouble, which is an injustice.
58. Furthermore, the stage two complaint response is inadequate. It merely sets out a chronology. It does not address Ms X’s complaint or make any findings. This was fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

59. To remedy the injustice to Ms X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X in writing
• Pay Ms X £300 a month for the seven months she spent in unsuitable accommodation avoidably, for £2,100
• Pay Ms X a further £750 in recognition of her avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble.
60. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
61. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Share a copy of this decision with staff in the relevant departments to identify learning from this complaint.
• Remind relevant staff of the duty to make inquiries if it has reason to believe an applicant for social housing may be homeless or threatened with homelessness.
• Remind relevant staff that where it has reason to believe someone is eligible, homeless and may be in priority need, it has a duty to provide interim accommodation while it makes inquiries into what duty it owes. An offer of interim accommodation should be specific and actually available to the individual.
• Remind staff with responsibility for responding to complaints that decision letters should address the specific complaint and reach a finding on whether there was fault, in line with the Ombudsman’s Good Complaint Handling guidance.
62. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

63. 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