Council agrees to train housing staff on Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and Homelessness Code of Guidance after Ombudsman investigation

April 2, 2025

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council has agreed to provide training or guidance to all of its housing staff on the changes introduced by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 as well as the requirements of chapter 21 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance on domestic abuse, following an investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

This was one of a number of actions agreed in the wake of the report, which found that Solihull failed to:

properly consider its homelessness duties to the complainant, Mr X, in particular the duty to provide interim accommodation;
refer him to domestic abuse support services;
be clear about the information required for his separate housing and homelessness applications; and
properly consider the need for the provision of safe accommodation for male domestic abuse victims within its area.

Solihull has apologised to Mr X and committed to make payments to recognise the impact of the failure. It will review his housing register application.

The Ombudsman's report noted that the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse and extended councils’ duties to victims of domestic abuse.

This included a duty for councils to:

provide safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse;
assess the need for domestic abuse support for victims living within their areas; and
prepare and publish a strategy for providing this support and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy.

Solihull will provide staff with training or guidance on the 2021 Act, the Homelessness Code of Guidance and how to appropriately deal with homelessness and housing register applicants at risk of domestic abuse.

The background to the investigation was Mr X's allegation that the council failed to properly consider its duties to him under the Housing Act 1996 as a person who was homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse.

He believed that the council did not appropriately treat him as a vulnerable person or properly assess the suitability of the accommodation it offered him.

He was placed in shared accommodation, which he said was completely unsuitable for him and resulted in a severe ongoing impact on his mental health and anxiety.

The complainant also claimed that the local authority discriminated against him as a male domestic abuse victim as he was not offered the services and support available to female domestic abuse victims.

Mr X initially contacted Solihull’s homelessness service after being assaulted at his home by a family member.

The mental health team with him at the time of contact told the authority that it would not advise that he be placed in shared accommodation.

Solihull recorded that there was reason to believe Mr X was homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days because he was fleeing violence.

After deciding it owed the prevention duty towards Mr X, the council identified a vacancy at supported, shared accommodation. Mr X moved in.

The council’s assessment of Mr X’s approach for assistance recorded he was not in priority need. In a letter it then told him it had ended its prevention duty because he now had supported accommodation suitable for his needs and available to him for at least six months.

However, the complainant disputed this, stating that the accommodation was completely unsuitable because it was in a very busy, noisy location some way from his local area, he was in constant fear of being attacked by the other residents, and there was minimal support available at the accommodation.

Mr X said the impact of the noise and fear had such a severe effect on his mental health he could not continue staying there.

He left the accommodation after about two months.

Mr X then contacted Solihull again and told it why he had left the shared accommodation. He was back at home but stated he would have to leave due to the danger of further violence.

He later contacted the council to say he was now homeless. He referred to conversations where he had again been offered shared accommodation. Mr X suggested that he should never have been placed in shared accommodation in the first place.

The council’s record confirmed Mr X had no priority need, and that it offered him supported accommodation which he had refused.

Mr X complained to Solihull about the way it had dealt with his homelessness application.

There was further contact, but Mr X said he did not want any further contact or involvement with the homelessness service, citing the impact on his mental health.

The council accepted in its response to Mr X’s complaint that, amongst other things, it should have referred him to domestic abuse support services and it should have advised he could call male refuges directly, or through Mankind, without a referral.

Mr X has since found alternative accommodation.

Following its investigation, the Ombudsman concluded that there were significant failures in the way the council responded to Mr X’s request for homelessness assistance.

The Ombudsman said there was no record:

it considered, properly or at all, whether Mr X was in priority need because he was vulnerable;
it considered, properly or at all, whether Mr X was in priority need as a person who was homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse;
of how it came to the conclusion Mr X was not homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need;
of the reason it decided to accept the prevention duty, not the relief duty, and why it decided not to offer Mr X interim accommodation; and
of when or how it notified Mr X it had ended the prevention duty and his right to request a review of this decision.

The council also failed to refer Mr X to its domestic abuse support services.

These failures had a wide-ranging impact, according to the Ombudsman. This include a failure to properly consider the information it recorded about Mr X’s circumstances - that he was fleeing his home because of domestic abuse – together with the relevant law, in particular the Homelessness Code of Guidance to “accommodate first ask questions later”.

“Had it done so, in my view it is more likely it would have accepted it had reason to believe Mr X might be homeless and in priority need and so owed him the relief duty and the duty to provide him with interim accommodation,” the report said.

When the claimant approached the council a second time after leaving the shared accommodation, it again failed to conduct a proper assessment of his circumstances.

It also provided incorrect information about his right to challenge the suitability of accommodation it referred him to, according to the Ombudsman.

“Mr X, in my view, missed out again on an offer of suitable interim accommodation, a referral to domestic abuse support services and a proper assessment of his homelessness application and whether he was owed the main housing duty,” the report said.

Solihull provided evidence to the Ombudsman that it had completed an assessment of need, and published a strategy, for domestic abuse support in its area in accordance with its statutory duty under the Domestic Abuse Act. It also provided information about its action to monitor and evaluate delivery of this support, in accordance with the 2021 Act.

The Ombudsman said, however, that it had also looked at whether the council gave sufficient consideration to its Public Sector Equality Duty and its duty under the Act to provide safe accommodation for domestic abuse victims, with regard to its strategy for the provision of refuge places for men within its area.

In its strategy and other documents, the council noted:

none of the refuge places for domestic abuse victims in its area were for men;
the number of male domestic abuse victims in its area, currently 25% of the total, was increasing at a higher rate than for female victims; and
it had taken action to increase refuge places for women in minority groups.

The Ombudsman’s report said: “I appreciate of course the majority of domestic abuse victims within its area are women, many with children (as is the case nationally), and the importance of providing sufficient refuge accommodation for their needs.

“I also recognise the council referred to its plan, regarding men and marginalised communities, to address inequalities for all victims and noted it had expanded support for men.

“But its current provision of refuge accommodation excludes 25% of all domestic abuse victims in its area because they are men. I can’t see the council has given any specific consideration to how it could address this inequality in the provision of safe accommodation for male domestic abuse victims.”

The Ombudsman’s view, based on the evidence seen, was that Solihull had not shown it had properly considered its strategy for the provision of refuge places for male domestic abuse victims. This was fault.

“The council’s failure to properly consider the provision of safe accommodation for male domestic abuse victims has an impact on the support available to men in its area who are currently experiencing, or may in the future experience, domestic abuse,” the report said.

The delivery of the homeless service is delivered by Solihull Community Housing on behalf of Solihull Council.

A spokesperson for Solihull Community Housing said: “We treat all cases of domestic abuse sensitively and as a priority. Regrettably, on this occasion we failed to meet our usual standards of care. We are very sorry about how this case was initially handled and have apologised unreservedly to the individual involved and offered further assistance.

“The council has been monitoring the action plan put in place by Solihull Community Housing since the finding. Targeted training for staff has taken place which will be ongoing to eliminate a repeat situation.

“In partnership with its stakeholders, the council is committed to taking all reports of domestic abuse seriously. Treating victims with respect and dignity remains paramount.”

Harry Rodd