Watchdog Finds Hounslow Council Failed Domestic Abuse Victim
Man wasn't rehoused and reported to police for complaining
Picture: The Mankind Initiative
August 4, 2023
Man not rehoused despite ex-partner shouting threats outside his home
A victim of domestic abuse who said he didn’t feel safe in his council house was not moved as a priority by Hounslow Council. This is despite someone shouting threats outside his house and kicking in the door to his shed.
He went through ‘avoidable distress and uncertainty’ as a result of the lack of action by the local authority. They initially offered him a B&B, but he could not live there as it wasn’t suitable for his dog.
The council has now been told to apologise to him by the ombudsman.
The man, who has learning difficulties and a mental health condition, was found not to be a priority for rehousing by the council due to a non-molestation order (NMO) against his ex-partner. This order is extended on a yearly basis and was in effect during the period the report covers.
The council stated that he was not in any imminent risk in March 2022, but then in early July, he reported a violent incident to the council believed to have involved his ex-partner. He said an unknown person had shouted threats outside his house and kicked the door to his shed, causing damage. He believed this was instigated by his ex-partner and reported it to the police as a breach of the NMO.
This prompted the council to offer the housing tenant temporary emergency accommodation in a B&B which he refused because he was unable to take his dog. Fault was found with the council’s handling of the incident, with the ombudsman concluding that a month’s delay in him being assessed by the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) caused avoidable distress and uncertainty.
The outcome of the MARAC was for the man, known as Mr X in the report, to continue to report incidents to the police and his Independent Domestic Violence Advisers and for the housing department to monitor the risk. Hounslow Council then referred the case to its exceptional needs panel in November.
It decided not to award Mr X priority for a transfer. It considered the NMO mitigated the risk. It said the housing officer should continue to monitor and consider any sanctuary measures to help Mr X feel safer in his home.
Mr X’s NMO expired in March 2023 and he is currently still in the same flat. Included in the issues the ombudsman found with the council’s handling of the case were things being poorly communicated to him as well as failing to make reasonable adjustments due to his learning disabilities.
During the period in question, Mr X is noted to have contacted the council repeatedly about his concerns regarding his housing situation. In late May, the council told him that it considered some of his correspondence to be threatening towards staff and that they had called the police.
This prompted an apology from the distressed tenant who promised to stop sending complaints about the same subject. This was a misunderstanding of what the council was requesting which lead to issues.
The report says that issues around communication could have arisen from Mr X’s learning disabilities. It reads, “Mr X told the council in June that he needed things explained to him slowly because of his disabilities. This was a request for a reasonable adjustment. There is no evidence the council recorded this request or considered what it could do to facilitate this.”
Adding, “This caused Mr X avoidable distress and limited his ability to communicate effectively with the council. This is injustice to Mr X.”
Another finding of the report places the council at fault for failing to properly assess Mr X’s housing position. The ombudsman says that because of his initial appeal, the council should have assessed if Mr X could be classified as homeless and taken action to see what, if any, duty it owed him.
This was not done and therefore it was judged to have been an injustice against Mr X. The ombudsman concluded that the council had also not put proper contingencies in place once his NMO expired in March 2023.
Due to the NMO being the main mitigation to risk that the council cited, this was seen as a fault by the council. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults, the ombudsman has concluded the council should:
- Apologise to Mr X in writing
- With input from Mr X, consider what reasonable adjustments the council can make to enable Mr X’s communication with it and ensure the agreed adjustments are communicated to relevant staff.
- Review Mr X’s priority on the housing register, having invited him to provide any further supporting evidence about the risk to him in his home and his mental health.
- Make inquiries into what, if any, duty the Council owes Mr X under Part 7 of the Housing Act and give him a decision in writing, setting out his review rights.
- Pay Mr X £250 in recognition of his avoidable distress and uncertainty.
The council is also expected to take the following action to improve its services:
- Provide training or guidance to relevant staff on identifying and making reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities.
- Ensure all frontline staff are aware of the low threshold for the duty to make inquiries into homelessness and how to direct such cases to the relevant service.
- Ensure all decisions of the Exceptional Needs Panel about priority under the allocations scheme are communicated in writing and set out the right to ask for a review.
Rory Bennett - Local Democracy Reporter