A woman subjected to domestic abuse and her children “had to flee” their new home when a council and a housing association inadvertently moved a relative of her perpetrator into the same road, a report has revealed. The Local Government Ombudsman has upheld a complaint against Bristol City Council for failures in its response.
However, the watchdog ruled that what happened was an “unfortunate coincidence” that could not have been foreseen. But it said the local authority “failed to follow its complaint policy” and provided a poor response that was uncoordinated and caused confusion and injustice to the abuse victim, referred to as Miss B, and her mother, Ms C, who spent time and trouble chasing it up.
The ombudsman’s report said Miss B secured a property with a housing association through the council’s allocations scheme Home Choice in April 2021, reports the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
“She complained the council did not prevent Ms D, a relative of her perpetrator, moving into her road [in July 2021],” it said. “She also complained the council did not support her to leave this property and move into a new one. Miss B said this caused her and her family considerable distress and her children had to change schools.”
The ombudsman said it found “fault” – which means maladministration or service failure – with the council’s complaint response.
But its ruling said: “There was no information on Miss B or Ms D’s housing applications to indicate they knew each other, or that Ms D knew Miss B’s perpetrator. The fact that Miss B and Ms D were housed on the same road was an unfortunate coincidence, and not something either the council or the housing association could have foreseen.
“When the council became aware Miss B was concerned about her and her children’s safety because Ms D had moved into the same road, it accepted her homelessness application and offered emergency accommodation. The housing association offered her an urgent management transfer, and she was rehoused within six weeks.”
It said the local authority’s systems on allocating homes to applicants who “pose significant risks to the public” did not extend to relatives.
“The council said it had reviewed the housing applications of both parties and found each one was assessed correctly. It said there was no information to suggest there was a link between the two applicants and no risks were identified.”
However, the report said “there were problems with the council’s complaint response”.
“The council’s stage-one complaint response was confusing,” it said. “Two separate teams responded and suggested Miss B’s mother would get another response from a third. The responses were not coordinated and did not address all her concerns.”
The ombudsman said that when Ms C escalated her complaint to stage two, “the council should have responded in 20 working days, but it took over four months”.
“The council’s poor complaint response and delay was fault. It caused confusion and put Miss B’s mother to time and trouble chasing the council. The council apologised and offered Miss B £150. I consider this a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.”
It said the authority “acknowledged the situation must have been devastating for Miss B and said sorry for any further distress its complaint response caused”.
The report added: “The council accepted it made errors in its complaint handling: it should have sent one stage-one complaint response, not three; it failed to tell Miss B how to escalate her complaint; it should have escalated the case to a senior member of the customer relations team sooner; it advised it has reviewed its procedures to ensure this does not happen in future.”
