Pregnant Victim of Domestic Abuse Denied Housing

Ealing Council criticised for outdated views

The council was using definition of domestic abuse that only included that involving physical violence. Picture: Raw Pixel

September 8, 2024

A watchdog has described Ealing Council’s views on domestic abuse as outdated after it refused to rehouse a pregnant woman who was being harassed by her ex-partner.

The woman asked to be added to the council’s housing register in Summer 2023 when she was sofa-surfing with her family in the borough.

She told the council she was experienced domestic abuse from an ex-partner. Although he had not physically attacked her, she reported that he had subjected her psychological abuse, threatening behaviour, and coercive and controlling behaviour relating to her pregnancy. On one occasion he kicked down the front door of where she was living.

When asked to provide further information to the council, she submitted a letter from an Independent Domestic Violence Advisor (IDVA), police crime reference number, a letter from her landlord, and a statement from Miss X. The social worker assessing her unborn child highlighted the concerns about her well-being raised by police and the necessity of leaving her current accommodation due to the actions of her ex-partner.

Despite this the council’s Social Welfare Panel decided she could not join the housing register. It said there were “no special circumstances” for an exemption to the residency criteria and that she should request a transfer from the landlord. The woman had been resident in the borough for fewer than five years.

The woman asked for a review of this decision saying that she had already been informed by the landlord that there were no available properties in Ealing borough where her family and support network were situated.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman determined that the council’s decision used an outdated and overly narrow definition of domestic abuse limiting it to physical attacks only. The legal definition had been changed in 2021 to include psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour.

The Ombudsman, Ms Amerdeep Somal said, “This case demonstrates a clear lack of understanding within the council’s housing department of what constitutes domestic abuse, as defined by law. The idea that domestic abuse is limited to physical violence is outdated. This lack of knowledge could potentially have affected other vulnerable people in the council’s area.

“It failed to even investigate whether it owed her a duty to house her, or to offer her interim accommodation. Instead, it left a pregnant woman to sofa-surf with family.

“This woman had the additional distress and indignity of giving birth not knowing where she and her baby would live.

“I hope the measures the council has agreed to put in place will ensure other vulnerable people who have suffered domestic abuse do not have their experiences discounted in future.”

The council was directed to apologise to the woman, pay her £1,000 for her ‘significant and avoidable distress’ and review her application to join the housing register again, if necessary providing her with temporary accommodation.

In addition, the council was required to provide training on domestic abuse to all staff dealing with housing allocations, including the statutory definition of domestic abuse, the relevant standard of proof, and the information and evidence which may be relevant.

An Ealing Council spokesperson said, “We are sorry for the procedural errors we made in this case around the statutory rules on domestic abuse, and for the impact the errors have had on this person.

“Domestic abuse ruins lives, and we should have done better in this case. We accept the Ombudsman’s finding that we should have been more proactive with supporting her to apply for our housing register. We have apologised and provided compensation to them.

“This case was also affected by the fact that we implemented a new allocations policy midway through our handling of her initial enquiry and incorrectly applied the outdated version. We are urgently reviewing the person’s application to join our housing register using our new allocations policy.

“It is categorically not true that we did not investigate whether we owed the person a housing duty or offer her interim accommodation. We assessed and reviewed her case and repeatedly offered her emergency housing, which she refused. We are approaching the Ombudsman to raise questions about this serious misunderstanding of the facts of this case.

“We have made some internal changes as a result of the Ombudsman’s recommendations. We have amended our internal procedures to be more proactive and are providing additional guidance to our officers on the statutory rules on domestic abuse.”