Summary: Miss X complained about the failure to make a safeguarding referral, the priority awarded to her Housing Register application and poor conditions in her temporary accommodation. We found the Council has taken satisfactory steps to improve safeguarding procedures and staff training following the concerns Miss X reported. We did not find fault in the way it assessed her priority on the Housing Register. There was fault in the way the Council responded to reports of a mice infestation in her temporary accommodation. We have completed the investigation because the Council accepted our findings and agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the nuisance and inconvenience this caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that:
• a caseworker in the Housing Assessment team did not liaise with Children’s Services when she reported her child had been sexually abused at her nursery in March 2019;
• the Housing Assessment team did not give sufficient priority to her Housing Register application and did not accept evidence from medical and other professionals who supported her need to be offered social housing rather than private rented accommodation;
• there are long-standing issues with significant disrepair and a rodent infestation in her current temporary accommodation which make it unsuitable and adversely affects her family’s health and wellbeing.
2. In this statement, I refer to the involvement of another Council, which I shall call Council B. However Miss X’s complaint to us is about the actions of the London Borough of Enfield only.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons to do so. A complaint is late when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken to Miss X and considered all the evidence she sent me. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries, the relevant housing records and its published housing allocations scheme.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

What I found

The background

8. Miss X and her children became homeless in 2017. The Council decided it owed Miss X the main housing duty because she is homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. The family have been in temporary accommodation since 2017. They moved to their current temporary accommodation in April 2019.
9. Miss X is a survivor of domestic abuse. She says she still experiences abuse from her ex-partner. One of her children, whom I shall call Z, is disabled and all three children have medical conditions.

Safeguarding action following report of incident of abuse at the nursery

10. We received Miss X’s complaint in May 2021. This was more than 12 months after she first knew about the Council’s failure to make a safeguarding referral to Children’s Services in March 2019. So this part of the complaint was made late. However we exercised discretion to investigate because Miss X and her family are vulnerable due to the history of domestic abuse, the incident at the nursery, and their medical conditions and disabilities. I also considered there was a public interest in finding out what the Council had done to review and improve its safeguarding practices.
11. In 2017 the Council placed Miss X and her children in temporary accommodation out of London. Council B is the children’s services authority for that area.
12. Z attended a nursery in Council B’s area. On 7 March 2019 Z disclosed to Miss X that she had been sexually abused by a member of staff at the nursery. Miss X said a social worker from Council B’s Children’s Services visited to make an assessment after she reported Z’s disclosure. She says Council B later closed its investigation because she removed Z from the nursery and moved out of the area. Miss X says Council B also told her it could not pursue the investigation further because Z could not name or identify the perpetrator. She says the police in Council B’s area recently agreed to reopen the investigation.
13. On 21 March Miss X also reported the incident of abuse to a caseworker in Enfield’s Housing Assessment team. The caseworker did not make a safeguarding referral to the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub in Enfield’s Children’s Services.
14. The Council swiftly arranged for Miss X and her family to move to alternative temporary accommodation in the borough on 1 April 2019.
15. Miss X did not have an allocated social worker at Council B when she returned to Enfield. She does not know if Council B liaised with Enfield Children’s Services after she moved back to the borough. In response to my enquiries, the Council did not mention getting a referral from Council B.
16. Miss X complains that the Council did not make a safeguarding referral to its Children’s Services when she first reported the incident to her housing caseworker or consider Z’s need for an assessment and support. Several months later, Z was referred to an NHS funded service which specialises in supporting young people who have suffered sexual abuse or exploitation. This referral was made when Miss X sought help from her GP. Z attended her first assessment with a clinical psychologist in November 2019.
17. Miss X says the Housing Assessment team should have made a prompt referral to Children’s Services and intervened much sooner to assess Z’s needs. She says Z has psychological and behavioural issues and had to wait several months to start therapy. Miss X told me a paediatric nurse has since referred Z to Enfield Children’s Services and she has been assessed as a Child in Need.
18. In August 2020 Miss X complained to the Council about its failure to take effective safeguarding action when she first reported the incident. In its first response, the Council said Council B was responsible for safeguarding because the incident happened while Miss X’s family were living in its area.
19. Miss X was not satisfied and took her complaint to the next stage of the complaints procedure. The Council then accepted fault. It said the Housing Assessment team caseworker should have made a safeguarding referral to Children’s Services in March 2019. It apologised to Miss X for the failure to take action then.
20. Miss X accepted the apology. She told me she does not want a financial remedy. She wants assurances that the Council has learned lessons and reviewed the safeguarding procedures in the Housing Advisory Service (HAS) so staff do not make the same mistakes and let down other children.
21. With this in mind, I asked the Council for more information about the changes made in HAS to improve safeguarding practices. It has taken the following actions:
• Appointed a Safeguarding Lead Officer based in the Resilience Team in the restructured HAS;
• The Safeguarding Lead gives advice and guidance on safeguarding concerns across HAS. Officers know they can contact the Resilience Team for advice on an individual case, or when they have specific concerns about an applicant;
• Staff in the Resilience Team work closely to support the most vulnerable customers, including victims of domestic abuse, and liaise with Children’s Services and other relevant bodies within the Council and externally;
• All new staff complete mandatory Safeguarding Children and Safeguarding Adults training as part of their induction programme;
• All staff attend annual refresher training on safeguarding awareness with a particular focus on learning from cases and the consequences of not properly recording, reporting and following up concerns;
• There is a comprehensive Safeguarding Guidance manual for staff to complement the Council’s safeguarding policies and protocols. A key aim of this guidance is to ensure staff are clear about the procedures for identifying and reporting safeguarding concerns;
• HAS is an active member of the Safeguarding Adults Board which meets quarterly. Staff from HAS work with the Board to jointly improve pathways and services to meet the needs of adults and families with children who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness.
22. It has also made a commitment to complete these further actions by 31 March 2022:
• Appoint safeguarding champions in each service team within HAS;
• Establish a safeguarding network across HAS and Housing services to share learning, improve practice and work with the Safeguarding Adult Boards to advise on best practice;
• Procure a new case management system to make it easier to identify and record customers’ vulnerabilities and help support officers to make suitable offers of interim and temporary accommodation
• Further training on safeguarding awareness.
23. In response to my enquiries the Council said:

[Miss X] made a self-referral to Enfield’s Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) in May 2019 and reported the incident involving her child at the nursery as she was concerned for her [child]. The case did not meet the safeguarding threshold and so a referral was made to Enfield Early Help services.

On 14 & 15 May 2019 Early Help spoke to Miss X about her concerns. Miss X said she did not need support from Early Help. Miss X was advised to make contact with her GP for a referral to CAMHS [ the Child & Adolescent Mental Health Service].

Notes on the case indicate that [Council B] closed the case and recommended that Miss X access universal services.

Priority on the Housing Register

The relevant law

24. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
25. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

26. Housing authorities do not have to design their scheme to give more priority to applicants with more than one reasonable preference need (sometimes called cumulative preference).
27. The courts have decided that reasonable preference means giving the applicant a “head start” over other applicants who do not have reasonable preference. It does not mean they are given absolute priority for an allocation of social housing.
28. Housing authorities may choose to adopt a scheme which gives additional preference to certain categories of people who are entitled to reasonable preference and have urgent housing needs.  

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

29. The Council has a points-based housing allocations scheme to assess the relative priority of applicants who qualify to join its Housing Register. The maximum points award is 1000.
30. The scheme awards 200 points to homeless applicants in temporary accommodation who are owed the main housing duty.
31. The Council can end the main housing duty to accepted homeless households by making an offer of private rented sector accommodation. The allocations policy says homeless applicants are not entitled to an offer of social housing.
32. When a homeless person who is owed the main housing duty accepts and moves to a private rented property, their points increase to 250. If they sustain the tenancy for six months, the points increase to 300. The points award then increases by 10% annually.
33. The scheme does not allow for cumulative points if an applicant qualifies under different reasonable preference categories (for example, homelessness and medical needs).
34. Additional preference points can be awarded to applicants who have an accepted health and wellbeing need to move. There are three levels of priority – low (50 points), medium (150 points) and high (1000 points). However the scheme does not permit homeless applicants owed the main housing duty to be awarded these points. The Council says if a homeless applicant in temporary accommodation has an accepted medical or wellbeing need to move, it will offer alternative suitable accommodation to resolve that need.
35. The scheme also provides for applicants who have an urgent need to move, and an emergency and exceptional priority, to be awarded 1000 points. The policy gives some examples of when this may be awarded. It includes applicants under the National Witness Protection Scheme and victims of domestic abuse in the highest risk category. These decisions are made by the Emergency & Exceptions Panel. It decides whether to increase the applicant’s points or approve them for a direct offer. The scheme says homeless applicants owed the main housing duty are not eligible for points for emergency or exceptional needs.
36. The scheme is designed to incentivise homeless applicants in temporary accommodation to accept an offer of private rented sector accommodation to increase their points award.
37. The Council has provided information showing that homeless households in temporary accommodation have successfully bid for social housing with 200 points since 2017. 402 households with 200 points have been allocated social housing from 2017 to date.

Miss X’s priority

38. Ms X has been on the Housing Register since July 2012. She has 200 points because the Council owes her the main housing duty as a homeless person and she is in temporary accommodation.
39. Miss X has not been successful in bidding for social housing advertised on the Home Connections choice-based lettings scheme.
40. Miss X does not consider private rented accommodation is suitable for her family because they have complex multiple needs. She is also concerned that it will not be affordable and secure. She says her family need settled accommodation so they can rebuild their lives and start to recover from the trauma they have experienced.
41. Over the years, Miss X has sent the Housing Assessment team many letters and reports from health and other professionals involved with the family who support their need to move to settled accommodation. Due to the volume of evidence, I will not describe the contents of every letter. However I noted that:
• The GP said the family should be rehoused because of the damp and mould in the temporary accommodation and the impact this has on the children’s medical conditions;
• In early March 2021 Miss X submitted a letter from Z’s clinical psychologist requesting an urgent review of their priority on the Housing Register. She said there was a critical need and she had significant concerns about the serious impact on Z’s physical and psychological safety if she remained in the current accommodation;
42. As a homeless person in temporary accommodation, Miss X does not qualify for extra health or wellbeing points under the Council’s housing allocations scheme. A Medical Assessment Officer can only make recommendations about the type of property that would be suitable if she were to be offered social housing in future.
43. The Council sent me records of three recent medical assessments:

• January 2020 – no medical recommendations made;
• April 2021- the Medical Assessment Officer reviewed all the medical evidence submitted since December 2020, including the letter from Z’s clinical psychologist, and made no medical recommendations;
• June 2021 – the Medical Assessment Officer recommended the property should not have a “blow heating” system because one of Miss X’s children has asthma.

44. Miss X asked her case officer to put her case forward to the Emergency & Exceptions Panel. She believes a report was written but says she was not informed of the outcome. In response to my enquiries, the Council said Miss X did not meet the criteria for a referral to the Panel because, as a homeless person owed the main housing duty, she cannot get extra points for exceptional or emergency needs.
45. However the Council recently informed me Miss X’s case will be considered by the Panel on 1 March 2022 because concerns have been raised about her mental wellbeing.

Disrepair and pests in the temporary accommodation

The legal duty

46. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household.  This is a continuing duty and applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
47. Homeless applicants have the right to challenge certain decisions councils make by using a statutory review procedure. The review decision then carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law. Homeless applicants have the right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, s202)
48. Homeless applicants must request a review within 21 days of the decision. However, applicants can ask a council to reconsider its decision about the suitability of temporary accommodation at any time. This might be necessary, for example, if their circumstances change. This new decision carries a right of review, with a new 21 day timescale. R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin)

Miss X’s concerns about conditions in the temporary accommodation

49. Since April 2019 Miss X and her young children have lived in a two bedroom house in the borough which the Council leased from a private landlord. Her third child was born after they moved to this property.
50. The letter sent when she was offered this property explained her right to request a review of its suitability whether she decided to accept or refuse the offer.
51. Miss X has complained about several defects and a mice infestation in the property. When she complained to us in May 2021, she listed the following defects and concerns:
• Damp & mould;
• A collapsing kitchen ceiling;
• Rats & mice;
• The property was insecure which led to attempted break-ins and burglaries;
• A violent crime was committed outside the property.
52. The Council sent me the inspection reports and photographs taken by a property manager in the Temporary Accommodation team who visited the property in October 2020 and April 2021. Following Miss X’s complaint to us, further inspections took place in July, October and December 2021.
53. I have seen records of the Property Manager’s contact with Miss X, the landlord and Council and other contractors since April 2019. The Council’s Pest Control team produced a report in April 2019. Miss X sent me photographs showing current conditions in the property.
54. As there is a substantial amount of evidence, I have prepared a summary rather than describing everything that happened in this period.

Pest control – rats and mice

55. On 12 April 2019 an operative from the Council’s pest control team inspected the house. He said he had completed a treatment but did not say in his report if this was for rats or mice. The report was sent to the Council’s housing repairs team. It recommended proofing works around the pipework, boiler, sink unit and around the front door to block access. From the records sent to me, there is no evidence that the landlord was sent the report at the time and works were done. It is also not clear whether this report was forwarded to the Temporary Accommodation team which is responsible for liaising with landlords of leased properties.
56. On 1 June 2020 Miss X informed the property manager she had seen mice in the kitchen. She said there were mice droppings in the house when she first moved in. She had blocked some of the holes and entry points with wire wool but she had expected other mice-proofing works to be done. Nothing happened. As she was clinically vulnerable, she could not go to the shops to buy more materials to block the holes. She was also recovering from an operation which prevented her doing the work. She also reported the back door was broken and insecure.
57. The property manager wrote to the landlord on 1 June and asked him to carry out works to deal with the mice infestation. He attached a copy of the April 2019 pest control report (paragraph 55).
     
58. Miss X informed the property manager that pest control operatives placed several baited traps on 15 June. They said they were waiting for the landlord to approve a quotation to block the access points.
59. On 23 June 2020 the landlord’s pest control operative carried out mice proofing works.
60. In late July 2020 Miss X informed the property manager that the landlord’s pest control operatives had fixed mesh to block entry points. She said she had not seen any mice recently.
61. In July 2021 Miss X reported seeing mice again. In October 2021 she reported that the skirting board in the bathroom was rotten and she had blocked a hole that could have been made by a rat or a mouse. The landlord and property manager did a joint inspection in late October 2021 and the landlord agreed to carry out further mice-proofing works. Later in October 2021 Ms X reported that she had killed a rat inside the property.
62. In December 2021 the Property Manager told Miss X he had liaised with the landlord about outstanding rodent-proofing works.
     

Damp and mould

63. An entry in the case notes from March 2020 says the former property manager confirmed there was damp in the living room, bedroom and bathroom. The landlord wanted to visit the property but Miss X had recently given birth so he was waiting for a more convenient time. The property manager left a message for Miss X and agreed to follow this up in April.
64. In late March the landlord informed the property manager he had a report which recommended works to remedy the damp. Some works were external but most needed to be done inside the property. He asked whether he should postpone non-emergency works due to the COVID-19 pandemic or whether the Council and Miss X were happy to proceed.
65. On the same day the property manager told the landlord that Miss X would prefer to wait until it was safe to work inside. She was being cautious because she and her children had disabilities and medical conditions which made them more vulnerable to infection. She ordered a dehumidifier to use meanwhile.
66. Miss X says the landlord’s contractors damp-proofed one wall that had penetrating damp. The contractors were due to replace a cupboard after the wall was plastered. The Council arranged delivery of a dehumidifier to reduce dust levels during the works which could aggravate Miss X’s child’s asthma.
67. On 2 October 2020 the property manager inspected every room. In his report, he noted some mould at the bottom of the living room walls. He did not record any other defects. He arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property for damp and mould and check the kitchen ceiling.
68. The building surveyor inspected on 13 October 2020 and raised an order for works to treat areas in the kitchen and living room affected by mould growth.
69. Contractors attended in December 2020 to remove peeling paint from the kitchen wall, apply stain block and carry out mould treatment in the kitchen and living room.  According to the Council’s records these works were completed by early February 2021.
70. In mid-March 2021 Ms X informed the property manager that mould had reappeared.
71. In late March 2021 the landlord informed the property manager he had met Ms X at the property. He said she had removed small patches of mould with a mould killer. He did not see any signs of mould in the property during his visit. The front bedroom had internal wall insulation and a heat-recovery fan to tackle condensation.

72. In mid-April 2021 the Council’s contractors attended to replaster and paint the wall between the kitchen and bathroom.

73. In late April 2021 the property manager observed “slight mould” at the bottom of the living room walls when he inspected the property.

74. This investigation does not consider the Council’s response to repair requests Miss X made after she complained to us in May 2021. But the reports show the property manager found some mould at the bottom of the living room walls when he inspected in late October 2021. He asked Miss X not to place boxes and other items against the wall because this reduced air circulation and contributed to mould growth.

Security

75. In late March 2020 the property manager raised an emergency order for the back door lock to be repaired. It is not clear from the records I have seen when this job completed. By 9 June Miss X informed the property manager the locksmith had attended to replace the lock and fit a security bolt.
76. Later in June 2020 Ms X reported that the back door lock had to be replaced because the previous lock was not fitted properly. The front door lock also had to be replaced when a key jammed in it.
77. On 19 August Ms X reported that a locksmith had attended to fix the door. She said the back door had been insecure since she first moved in. The door and frame were rotten and the door was hanging by one hinge. She said the property was unsafe, unsuitable for her family and in disrepair.
78. In August 2020 the property manager and landlord inspected the door. The landlord ordered a new door which was due to be installed six weeks later.
79. In mid-August 2020 Miss X informed the property manager about another attempted break-in. He offered to get a police report and to move Miss X to alternative temporary accommodation. Miss X said she had spoken to professionals supporting her family who advised her only to move to permanent accommodation. She said there was no guarantee that other temporary accommodation would be safe. And she did not want to change the children’s schools and hospitals or move them at short notice. The property manager told her to let him know if she changed her mind.
80. Ms X informed the property manager in late November 2020 that the back door had been replaced.
81. In early August 2021 the property was burgled for a second time while Miss X and her children were out. She informed her MP and the property manager. She said she did not want to move to alternative temporary accommodation. Miss X and her children have been sleeping together in one bedroom since then because she is worried there could be another break-in.

Kitchen ceiling

82. In October 2020 the property manager inspected the house and asked the Council’s surveyor to inspect the damaged kitchen ceiling. The surveyor did not recommend replacement of the ceiling.
83. In October 2021 Miss X reported that the ceiling was at risk of collapse. She said it had been in the same condition for the past two years. The property manager arranged a joint inspection with the landlord a couple of days later.
84. The Council’s contractors also attended that day. They said the ceiling was dry with no sign of water penetration and it was in a safe condition. However they recommended it should be replaced. The landlord told the property manager he would find a builder to do these works.
85. The Council chased the landlord for a progress report in November. On 20 December the Council surveyor inspected again and prepared a detailed specification of works required. On 9 January the landlord confirmed these works had been completed.

Back to top

Analysis

Safeguarding

86. The Council accepts it did not respond appropriately when Miss X reported the safeguarding concern to the housing service in March 2019. It has apologised to Ms X for this failing.
87. Fortunately Ms X did not rely on the Housing Advice Service to make a safeguarding referral. She was pro-active and contacted the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub in May 2019, and her GP, to seek specialist support for Z. By contacting these agencies herself, she mitigated the injustice that would otherwise have been caused by the Housing Advice Service’s failure to act. The waiting time from the GP’s referral to the NHS specialist support service and Z’s first therapy appointment was outside the Council’s control.
88. Miss X told me she did not make this complaint to get a financial remedy. She wants the Council to demonstrate it has learned from her case and improved the service for the benefit of other families who may need similar support in future. The Council’s evidence shows it has already introduced a comprehensive package of measures. This includes safeguarding training for staff and an extensive overhaul of protocols and procedures in the Housing Advisory Service. Further work is planned. I therefore find the Council has taken on board the need to make improvements and it has strengthened safeguarding procedures in the service. We cannot achieve any more than this for Ms X.

Priority on the Housing Register

89. The Ombudsman cannot make a declaration about whether the Council’s housing allocations scheme is lawful: only the courts can do that. Our role is to decide if there was fault in the way the Council assessed Miss X’s priority under its published scheme.
90. There is a legal duty for the Council to give homeless households, like Miss X, reasonable preference in the scheme. But that does not mean there is a duty to make an offer of social housing. The Council’s scheme gives homeless households in temporary accommodation reasonable preference by awarding 200 points. Applicants need at least 100 points to bid for properties. Some other groups who qualify to join the Register have less than 200 points. So homeless households in temporary accommodation have a head start over them. For this reason, I am likely to find the scheme complies with the duty to give reasonable preference to homeless households in temporary accommodation.
91. Miss X says she will never be successful in bidding for social housing with just 200 points. However there is no right to an offer of social housing. If the Council had been operating a blanket policy, so that it never allocated social housing to homeless households, then we would be likely to say that was fault. The Council’s published scheme says homeless applicants on the Housing Register are not entitled to an offer of social housing. In my view that wording is slightly confusing. It could be interpreted to mean homeless applicants will never be allocated social housing. However I believe the intended meaning is that homeless applicants cannot insist on an offer of social housing because, for applications made since November 2012, councils can lawfully end the main housing duty by making an offer of suitable private rented sector accommodation. The Council may wish to clarify the wording when it next reviews the scheme.
92. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided evidence that it has allocated social housing to 402 homeless households with 200 points since 2017. This means it is not operating a blanket policy that excludes all homeless households in temporary accommodation from getting offers of social housing. The way the allocations scheme operates strongly incentivises homeless households in temporary accommodation to boost their points by accepting an offer of private rented sector accommodation. However the council has discretion to design its scheme to achieve that outcome.
93. There is no legal requirement for a scheme to give cumulative preference to a homeless household with more than one reasonable preference housing need. So the Council does not have to award extra points to recognise a combination of housing needs, such as homelessness and medical or welfare needs. Miss X considers this is unfair because it does not give enough priority to families, like hers, with multiple and complex needs. But it is not fault for the Council to adopt a scheme which does not give cumulative points for multiple needs. The Council has discretion to frame its housing allocations scheme in this way.
94. The Council recently decided to refer Miss X’s case to its Emergency & Exceptions Panel. The Panel has powers to award additional points in exceptional cases. I will not comment on this because the Panel will consider the reports and supporting evidence and make its decision. Miss X will be informed of the Panel’s decision in due course.

Conditions in the temporary accommodation

95. The Council has a duty to secure suitable accommodation for homeless households to whom it owes a housing duty. To be suitable, the accommodation must be in a decent state of repair and free from hazards.
96. The evidence shows recurring issues with mould growth and a rodent infestation in the property. Miss X reported other defects and the property has been insecure at times. The Council’s property managers responded to these reports by inspecting the property, arranging repairs and liaising with the landlord to get him to organise work for which he was responsible. From the records I have seen, the Council appears to have taken action each time Miss X reported a defect.
97. The only exception was a failure to liaise effectively with the landlord in 2019 to ensure he completed the rodent-proofing works recommended in the pest control team’s April 2019 report. That was fault. It is more likely than not that this contributed to the mice infestation Miss X reported in June 2020. That caused Miss X some inconvenience and nuisance for which I recommend a payment.
98. Works to treat mould growth in the property in spring 2020 were initially delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Understandably Ms X did not want to put her family, who were clinically vulnerable, at risk by allowing contractors to work inside the property. That delayed the start of works through no fault of the Council.
99. When assessing the injustice, I must also take into account the choices and decisions Miss X made. The Council offered to move Miss X and her family to alternative temporary accommodation. The property manager first made this offer in August 2020. Officers were also willing to approve a move following the burglary in August 2021. However Ms X stated on both occasions that she was not prepared to move to different temporary accommodation. She was only willing to move to permanent accommodation.
100. Miss X has lived in two temporary accommodation properties since 2017. I know she desperately wants permanence and security for her family. However it was appropriate for the Council to offer to move her to alternative temporary accommodation in these circumstances. That would have addressed Miss X’s dissatisfaction with the property. It was not fault for the Council to refuse to move her to social housing. It would only offer social housing if she had been successful with a bid on Home Connections.
101. The Council first told Miss X she could request a review of the suitability of the accommodation in April 2019 when it offered her the property. It reminded her about her review rights in its final response to her complaint in March 2021. She could have asked for a review on the grounds that the property was overcrowded and in poor condition but she did not do so. I understand the Council recently decided the property is unsuitable for her needs. However it says Miss X does not want to move to alternative temporary accommodation until the Emergency & Exceptions Panel has considered her case.

Back to top

Agreed action

102. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Miss X and pay £300 to recognise the impact of its failure to liaise effectively with the landlord in April 2019 to require him to carry out mice-proofing works.

Back to top

Final decision

103. I have completed the investigation and found the Council has made satisfactory improvements to address the fault in the way the Housing Advice Service handled safeguarding concerns. These service improvements, together with the apology already given to Miss X, provide a satisfactory outcome for this part of the complaint and we cannot achieve any more for Miss X.
104. I find no fault in the way the Council assessed Miss X’s priority on the Housing Register.
105. There was fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s complaints about the mice infestation in the temporary accommodation in 2019. That caused injustice. The Council has agreed to provide a satisfactory remedy.
106. Miss X’s decision not to move to alternative temporary accommodation, and the fact that she did not use her review rights to challenge suitability, means she has remained in temporary accommodation she considers unsuitable for her family’s needs. Although I understand her reluctance to uproot her family for another temporary move, doing so would have resolved her concerns about conditions in the current accommodation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman