The mother who felt unsafe in her home was told to ask a different council for help despite having lived in Enfield for eight months, reports Grace Howarth, Local Democracy Reporter

An Enfield resident who felt unsafe after her child became a victim of hate crime was wrongfully told to seek help from another council, an ombudsman has ruled.

In late 2023, the resident, referred to anonymously as Miss X, was placed in a privately rented property in Enfield by another local council.

But In August 2024, Miss X reported to Enfield Council that her child had been “assaulted for wearing a religious item” and the property’s location was “not safe” for them to live.

However, Miss X was told to raise this with the previous council which placed her in the borough. After investigating the case, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, called this a “fault”.

The watchdog said that, given the information provided, Enfield Council “had a duty to make inquiries and decide, what, if any, further duty it owed her”.

In late August the council said it “might not owe” a homelessness duty because Miss X had only “recently moved” and told her to confirm in writing that the other council had ended its homelessness duty. This was despite Miss X having already lived in Enfield for eight months.

The ombudsman report said the council was “gatekeeping” and that Miss X was not required to obtain a letter in order for the civic centre to help her.

In September last year, the council completed a triage assessment and confirmed Miss X “might be homeless or threatened with homelessness” but did not confirm it would help her.

In February this year, the council closed the case due to “no contact” and Miss X’s “failure to provide required documents”.

However, the watchdog said there was “no evidence” the council had told Miss X what documents were needed or that it had followed up with her between September 2024 and February 2025, or that it had informed her of her closing application.

According to the ombudsman report the last information Miss X received from the council was that it was deciding whether it owed her duty.

The ombudsman concluded that, due to the handling of her housing case, Miss X experienced “significant and avoidable distress and frustration” and remained living in the property in question “without knowing if the council has a duty to help her”.

The council was ordered to apologise to Miss X, complete an assessment of her circumstances, decide if it owes a homelessness duty, and pay £300 in compensation to recognise the “avoidable distress and frustration” caused.

The council was also instructed to provide more training and guidance to staff “on the minimum expectations for record keeping and communication with applicants in homeless applications”.

Enfield Council was approached for comment.

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.