Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not deal effectively with a slug infestation in his temporary accommodation. Mr X said it was unsafe, caused unnecessary distress, and took him time and trouble to resolve. We find the Council at fault, and this fault caused Mr X and his family injustice. The Council will make a payment to Mr X, apologise, and make improvements to its service to prevent a recurrence.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained that the Council did not deal effectively with a slug infestation at his homeless temporary accommodation, despite saying it would do so in response to an inspection report and his complaint.
2. Mr X said it was unsafe for him and his family to live there. He said it caused unnecessary distress, and took him time and trouble to resolve.

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 an organisation’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
6. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. The law says councils must make sure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206)
8. In determining whether accommodation is suitable for a person, the local housing authority must take into account the location of the accommodation and its physical condition (state of repair and safety of utilities). (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation (England)) Order 2012, sections 2 & 3)
9. Homeless applicants can ask for a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
10. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is an ongoing duty. The council must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.8)

What happened

11. The Council accepted its main homelessness duty to Mr X and his family (wife and two young children), and provided them with temporary accommodation. Mr X and his family moved into temporary accommodation in April 2021.
12. In July 2021, Mr X told the Council slugs were getting into the property. The Council started work to address the problem.
13. In August, Mr X told the Council slugs were still getting into the property. At that time, an internal Council email said if the problem continued, it would have no choice but to re-house Mr X to other temporary accommodation. One department asked another if it was possible to re-house Mr X.
14. In September, Mr X told the Council slugs were still getting into the property. An internal Council email recognised that the situation was becoming “intolerable” and was unsafe for Mr X’s two young children.
15. Between October 2021 and February 2022, Mr X told the Council repeatedly that slugs were still getting into the property, despite the numerous pest treatments that had been done.
16. In February, the Council’s contractors told the Council it could not resolve the slug problem. An internal Council email said Mr X needed to be transferred to different temporary accommodation.
17. In May, the Council moved Mr X and his family to different temporary accommodation.

Analysis

18. As I have said above, councils must keep the issue of suitability of temporary accommodation under review. In this case, the Council says it kept the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation under review. However, the Council acknowledges it did not do a written section 202 review, nor did it tell Mr X it was reviewing the property’s suitability.
19. As there is no written record of the Council’s review, I cannot say with certainty what the Council’s view was of the suitability of that property.
20. Mr X told the Council repeatedly and consistently that the pest control measures had not resolved the issue. This should have caused the Council to review the suitability of the property (in writing) with a section 202 suitability review.
21. If the Council had completed a (written) section 202 suitability review and decided the property was not suitable, it would have had a duty to provide suitable accommodation to Mr X. Any delay doing this would be fault.
22. If the Council had completed a (written) section 202 suitability review and decided the property was suitable, despite the slugs, it should have told Mr X of its decision in writing.
23. I find the Council at fault for failing to review (in writing) the suitability of Mr X’s temporary accommodation following a change in circumstances (the slugs).
24. Also, there is no evidence the Council told Mr X of his right to request a section 202 suitability review, despite him repeatedly telling the Council of the problem. This is fault.
25. The Council has handled the Ombudsman’s requests for basic information poorly. It has not explained its decision-making process clearly, so the Ombudsman has had to make inferences based on limited information.
26. It appears, from internal Council emails in September, that the Council accepted the situation was “intolerable” and was unsafe for Mr X’s children. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that the Council did not consider Mr X’s temporary accommodation to be suitable. Therefore, the Council is at fault for breaching its duty to provide suitable accommodation.
27. The Council says it did not rehouse Mr X earlier because pest control management was in place. The Council says it felt the problem was being managed and could be resolved. There is no written record of these decisions or how these decisions were reached.
28. I find these faults caused Mr X and his family injustice because they were deprived of suitable accommodation, which the Council had a duty to provide. I also find the faults caused Mr X injustice in that he took considerable time and trouble keeping the Council (and its contractor) informed of the ongoing problems, and seeking a resolution.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Mr X first told the Council of the slug problem in July 2021. The Council took action, but this did not resolve the problem. In September, the Council recognised that the slug problem was “intolerable” and was unsafe for Mr X’s children. It is my view that the Council should have completed a written section 202 suitability review in September. Given the Council’s internal emails, lack of formal records of decisions, and its subsequent decision to move Mr X to another property, I find it is likely that the Council would have formally found the property unsuitable (and therefore had a duty to move Mr X) in September.
30. I therefore find Mr X was in unsuitable accommodation from September 2021 to May 2022: eight months. For this reason, I proposed the following which the Council has agreed to:
31. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X in writing for depriving him and his family of suitable accommodation for eight months, and for his time and trouble.
32. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X of £2300. This is made up as follows:
• I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies, which sets out a payment of between £150 and £350 for each month a family is deprived of suitable accommodation. I have taken into consideration the state of repair, the children’s vulnerability, and the action the Council took to address the problem. I consider £250 per month is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. For this reason, I consider a payment of £2000 (£250 per month multiplied by eight months) is appropriate.
• I consider Mr X went to considerable time and trouble contacting the Council and its contractors, trying to resolve the problem. I have considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and consider a figure of £300 appropriate. I have taken into consideration the length of time involved and the amount of effort Mr X went to.
33. Within three months of this decision, the Council has agreed to remind staff of their duty to keep written records of section 202 suitability reviews, and to provide copies of these reviews to the resident(s) involved.
34. Within three months of this decision, the Council has agreed to remind staff of their duties to tell people complaining about the state of property repair that they have a right to request a formal section 202 suitability review.
35. The Ombudsman will need to see evidence that these actions have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation. I uphold Mr X’s complaint because I find fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice and improve its service so there is no recurrence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman