Ealing Council wrongly denied housing to a pregnant woman fleeing domestic abuse, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.

Despite evidence from a social worker, the police, and the woman herself showing it was not safe for her to return to her previous living arrangements, the council continued to turn her away.

The report, which refers to the woman as "Miss X", found that the council used an incorrect and outdated definition of domestic abuse, which only considered a risk of physical violence when assessing her application for housing. 

As a result, the woman was sofa surfing and homeless whilst pregnant and this continued once she had given birth.

She told the council in the early summer of 2023 that she was sofa surfing having fled domestic abuse. She described this abuse as "psychological", "threatening", and "coercive and controlling behaviour relating to her pregnancy." 

As requested by the council, Miss X then provided evidence to support her claims of domestic abuse. She provided a letter from an Independent Domestic Abuse Advisor, a police crime reference number, a letter from her landlord, and a statement from herself. However they denied her application because there were "no special circumstances" which would exempt her from local residency criteria.

In September 2023, Ealing Council implemented a new housing allocation scheme. This new scheme retained the previous residency criteria, however it included an exemption for victims fleeing domestic abuse that could not remain where they previously lived.

The woman appealed the decision in October 2023, however the council stood firm arguing that their original decision was correct, despite the new scheme exempting domestic abuse victims.

At the time the council said: "Having fled domestic abuse would not make your circumstances exceptional so under the policy in place at the time, the council was right not to waive the residency criteria". They then advised her that she could apply again under the new housing allocations scheme.

Miss X decided to apply for a second time, this time under the new scheme. However they again decided she did not qualify, and maintained that view when she appealed. 

In response to the appeal the council told Miss X that the information provided "does not indicate that you are at risk of being attacked or threatened with attack. We therefore cannot say that there is a risk to you or your baby where you previously lived."

The council said: "Miss X reported an incident to the police when her ex-partner kicked in her front door but the police took no further action … it was not satisfied that you are at risk of domestic violence that is likely to be carried out by your ex-partner".

Following the conclusion of the investigation, Local Government and Social Care 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 has agreed to recommendations outlined in the report. They will apologise to Miss X, review her application to its housing register, and pay her £1,000 for the distress caused. They must also take action to improve their services.

A spokesperson for Ealing Council 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."