Key Points
- Enfield Council forced a domestic abuse victim and her children to move to unsuitable accommodation far from their home area.
- The family lived in out-of-area accommodation for nearly three months, disrupting their lives significantly.
- The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) found the council at fault for short notice given to accept housing and failure to support children’s schooling.
- The mother, referred to as ‘Ms X’, fled domestic abuse and was seeking help in early 2024.
- One child was sitting GCSEs; another had special educational needs; no coordination occurred with the new local authority for school placements.
- The council acknowledged the accommodation was unsuitable and later offered housing within the borough.
- The council agreed to apologise and pay the family £1,100 in compensation.
- The LGO highlighted councils must give reasonable time for families to consider housing offers, especially for prevent and relief duties.
What happened to the domestic abuse victim and her family in Enfield?
As reported by Grace Howarth, Local Democracy Reporter, a family fleeing domestic abuse was forced by Enfield Council to move “to the other end of the country” into unsuitable accommodation, igniting widespread criticism. The mother, referred to anonymously as ‘Ms X’ in the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) report, sought help as a homeless victim in early 2024.
Enfield Council accepted its relief duty to house Ms X and her children and initially provided interim accommodation. However, within one week, the council made a “direct offer” of a private rental property located outside the borough, described in the report as “out-of-area accommodation.” Ms X was given just a few days—specifically from 4pm on Thursday until 10am on Monday—to accept or decline this offer.
Why was the accommodation considered unsuitable by the family and the Ombudsman?
The report detailed multiple reasons why the accommodation was inappropriate. It highlighted the severe disruption to the family’s lives, especially in the context of domestic abuse recovery. One of Ms X’s children was sitting their GCSEs that year, while the other had special educational needs. The council had not liaised with the new local authority about arranging school places for either child, compounding the upheaval.
A representative for the family emphasised the importance of local support networks following domestic abuse, which were virtually lost due to the out-of-area relocation. The LGO report found that this failure to coordinate and support the family’s educational and social needs added to the unsuitability of the housing offer.
How did Enfield Council respond to these criticisms?
By April 2024, Enfield Council agreed the property was unsuitable. It was not until July that they offered accommodation within the borough, which Ms X accepted. Despite this eventual resolution, the delay in moving the family back to a suitable area was criticised by the Ombudsman as causing “injustice” to Ms X and her children.
The LGO was particularly critical of the “short notice” period for accepting the out-of-area offer, calling it less than four days and including the weekend, which they deemed insufficient. While they noted there is no fixed “reasonable period” in government guidance, the council’s approach did not meet fairness standards, especially considering the intense disruption involved.
What formal findings did the Local Government Ombudsman make in the investigation?
The Ombudsman concluded that Enfield Council was at fault for the way it handled Ms X’s case. Key points from the report include:
- The council disrupted the family’s life by relocating them far from their support network without adequate notice or consultation.
- Not giving “reasonable time” for the family to consider housing offers, especially ones likely to end prevention and relief duties.
- Failing to coordinate with schools and local education authorities about the children’s needs.
- Causing “injustice” due to delays in rectifying the accommodation situation once it had been identified as unsuitable.
What compensation did the family receive, and how did the council justify it?
Following the Ombudsman’s report, Enfield Council agreed to apologise formally and compensate the family with a payment of £1,100. This total breaks down as £350 for each month the family lived in unsuitable accommodation, amounting to just under three months of such conditions, considered a “suitable” amount.
An additional £100 was added by the council to acknowledge that it “could have managed better,” reflecting a recognition of its procedural failings and the distress caused to the family.
What is the wider significance of this case for councils dealing with domestic abuse victims?
This case serves as a cautionary example criticised in local government and housing circles. The Ombudsman’s emphasis on reasonable notice periods for housing offers and the need for councils to consider family support systems carefully highlights systemic issues in local housing protocols.
Grace Howarth of Local Democracy Reporter notes that victims of domestic abuse are particularly vulnerable, and moving them far away from established local support networks can be deeply harmful, especially when children’s education and special needs are involved.
The case underscores the importance of partnership working between housing authorities and educational providers to safeguard children’s interests during emergency housing placements.
Will this decision impact Enfield Council’s future housing practices?
While no detailed public statement on future policies has been issued by Enfield Council beyond the apology and compensation, the LGO’s findings place clear expectations on the council and others in similar situations:
- Allowing reasonable timeframes for considered responses to housing offers.
- Prioritising proximity to existing schools and support networks, especially for vulnerable families.
- Improving inter-agency communication regarding education and welfare needs.
Legal experts suggest this complaint and subsequent financial payment could prompt Enfield and other councils to review their housing allocation procedures to reduce risk of injustice and LGO rulings in the future.
What have local advocates said about this case?
Advocacy groups for domestic abuse survivors and homelessness have expressed concern that the case reflects broader failings in local authority housing responses. Advocates stress that forcing victims and their children to move hundreds of miles without adequate support disrupts recovery and potentially puts families at greater risk.
Representatives highlight the need for thorough assessments beyond mere availability of accommodation, emphasising the intertwined issues of safety, education, and emotional stability.
