Ombudsman finds council did not do enough to support woman fleeing violence

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found that West Berkshire Council failed to consider properly whether it had a duty towards a woman when she first approached it as homeless.

The council has agreed to pay the woman £500 for the frustration caused. It will also improve its homeless application process and guidance to staff.

The woman behind the complaint and her children were fleeing threats of violence. The woman had been a tenant in a different council area, in which the police confirmed she was no longer safe, the report revealed.

She approached West Berkshire for support, because the police said she would be safe in this area, and that she was also at risk in certain other areas.

The Ombudsman’s investigation revealed that instead of taking a homelessness application from the woman, West Berkshire told her to go back to the council where she had been living. The other council then arranged interim accommodation for her in the West Berkshire area, the report noted.

The other council asked West Berkshire for help as the woman was living in a hotel with no kitchen facilities. That other council said the most appropriate way to deal with the woman’s homelessness was for her to be offered social housing in West Berkshire because of the risk to her safety, the Ombudsman found.

West Berkshire Council refused to help. It said the police evidence provided was not sufficient and in any case, it did not maintain its own housing stock.

After spending two months in interim accommodation in the hotel, the woman eventually found a private tenancy in West Berkshire.

The Ombudsman investigated and concluded that West Berkshire “failed to consider properly whether it had a duty towards the woman when she first approached it as homeless”.

The report noted that had it done so, it is likely the council would have decided it had a duty to provide her with interim accommodation.

The Ombudsman found that the council had “sufficient information” to establish the woman “may be” homeless on the grounds it was not reasonable for her to continue to occupy her council property.

This meant it was under a duty to make enquiries about what duties it may owe her, including whether it owed a relief duty.

The Ombudsman additionally noted that under section 188 where an applicant “may be” homeless, is in priority need and is eligible for housing assistance, councils have a duty to provide interim accommodation for them.

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was told to apologise to the woman and pay her £500 in compensation.

It will also improve its homeless application process and guidance to staff to prevent the situation happening again.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “Vulnerable people at risk of homelessness, such as this woman, should not have to face the uncertainty of not knowing whether they will be housed while councils argue among themselves about responsibility.

“Any discussions about who should fund interim accommodation should take place while the accommodation is being provided, not before agreeing to provide it.

“In the end the other council provided accommodation for the woman, so she and her children were not ultimately left unhoused, but West Berkshire should have done more to establish whether it owed any duties to the woman when she approached it."

In a statement West Berkshire Council said: “We take our responsibility to assist those facing homelessness, including fleeing from threats of violence and domestic abuse seriously. We have dedicated teams and strong relationships with local partners in this field to support those in need.

“On this occasion we accept the findings of the Ombudsman’s ruling and following the recommendations we have reviewed and made the necessary changes to our operating procedures. In addition, staff in the Housing Service have received updated training in light of the outcomes of this case. The issues raised in this matter are also being highlighted to Members and Senior Managers as per the recommendations in the report.

“We will be formally apologising to the applicant and pay £500 for the frustration caused.”