Ombudsman criticises London borough for contacting alleged domestic abuser during enquiries into homelessness of applicant

August 22, 2024

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets was at fault for contacting the alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse against a complainant as part of its inquiries into her homelessness, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.

The council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the distress caused and act to improve its services.

The complainant, Ms X, initially approached Tower Hamlets for help because she was homeless. She told the council she had fled from a relative, referred to in the Ombudsman’s investigation as ‘Z’. She said Z financially abused her by forcing her to hand over money.

The London borough asked the complainant to provide copies of her bank statements, which she did. The council’s records show it did not consider the statements demonstrated financial abuse. An officer met with the complainant to get more details of her allegation.

The council asked where the relevant money had come from, as the complainant had stated that she was not working at the time. The records show the council said it would need to verify the source of the money. Council records reveal that Tower Hamlets did not believe that the complainant had experienced domestic abuse because there was no evidence.

The council then did a more formal assessment of financial abuse. During this, the council was told that Z would force the complainant to hand over cash, and that another relative knew about this and could verify her account. Tower Hamlets spoke to this relative, who confirmed the account. However, this relative said the complainant only disclosed this after she left Z’s home.

The complainant also replied to a letter from the council which said she had not disclosed any physical abuse. She disputed this and told the council Z would hit her.

In a telephone call with Tower Hamlets, the complainant provided Z’s telephone number when she was asked to.

The council then called Z. The local authority’s note of this call said Z claimed that:

The complainant left because the property was overcrowded. Z had recently got married and they were expecting a baby.
Ms X was also pregnant. Z had a one-bedroom property and so the family were overcrowded.
“when asked about concerns around financial abuse” Z said they did not “forcefully collect” money from the complainant but had asked her to contribute to the household when Z was unemployed.

The complainant then complained to the council, saying that:

The council wrote that Z did not abuse her physically despite her telling the officer Z would hit her if she didn’t give them money
The officer told her it wasn’t abuse because she was an adult and expected to contribute to the household
The officer told Z where she was, putting her at risk

In response to her complaint, Tower Hamlets said:

It had been given permission to contact Z and been provided the telephone number
It asked Z about financial issues because there was “insufficient evidence to substantiate [her] claims about financial abuse”
It had no reason to ask Z about physical abuse because Ms X had not disclosed any
There was no evidence the council had disclosed her location to Z, and in any event she was not in interim accommodation at that point and so the council had no address to disclose.

The Ombudsman said the Homelessness Code of Guidance sets clear expectations for councils dealing with allegations of domestic abuse. This recognises that councils may need to seek further evidence. It is explicit, however, that councils “should not approach the alleged perpetrator”.

The Ombudsman found that the Council had breached this guidance through a ‘significant departure’ from the code.

The fact that the complainant had provided Z’s telephone number was irrelevant. If the council considered it needed to contact Z despite the expectation in the Code, it should have fully recorded its reasons for this. It should have explained this to the complainant and sought her informed consent to make the call.

Even if the council had good reasons to call Z, it should not have then raised the matter of the alleged abuse. This was fault, the Ombudsman found.

In response to her complaint, the council said that since the complainant had no address at the time, it could not have disclosed this to Z.

“This was to miss the point that in calling Z, the officer likely said which council they were calling from. This would have revealed to Z where she had fled to. This was fault,” the Ombudsman found.

As a result of these faults, the complainant had experienced “significant and avoidable distress and uncertainty”. This was an injustice to the complainant.

To remedy the injustice to the complainant from the identified faults, Tower Hamlets has agreed – within four weeks – to:

apologise in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making an effective apology
pay £300 to the complainant in recognition of her avoidable distress and uncertainty.

The council will also take the following action to improve its services:

provide training or guidance to relevant staff on the expectations of Chapter 21 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance relating to gathering evidence and making inquiries about domestic abuse.
remind relevant staff that the Homelessness Code of Guidance explicitly directs that the council should not approach alleged perpetrators of domestic abuse.
remind relevant staff that if they are departing from the Code of Guidance, they should record detailed reasons for doing so in a particular case.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s full decision is available here.

Harry Rodd