Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions relating to her temporary homeless accommodation. We found fault because the Council took too long to complete a suitability review of her accommodation, took too long to deal with disrepair issues and did not have appropriate oversight of the condition of the property. This caused avoidable frustration and distress to Miss X. To remedy the injustice caused by the identified fault, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a payment to her, issue reminders to relevant officers and managers and consider reviewing some of its processes.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has been too slow to deal with disrepair in her temporary homeless accommodation, since she moved there in February 2023. Specifically, she complains that:
• it took multiple visits to properly deal with a mouse infestation;
• there is damage to carpets and doors from the mice;
• it took too long to fix a leak and deal with linked remedial work;
• the Council has repeatedly passed her onto the property management company rather than investigating ongoing issues itself; and
• the Council has said there will be a delay completing a suitability review she requested on the property.
2. Miss X says this has caused her significant distress and frustration and affected her and her family’s wellbeing.

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. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. My investigation begins when Miss X first moved into the property in February 2023 and ends when the Council sent its informal suitability assessment to Miss X at the beginning of July 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered all the information Miss X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
8. Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness legislation and statutory guidance

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Interim and temporary accommodation

10. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
11. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitable temporary accommodation

14. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
15. If the council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
16. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is an ongoing duty. Councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.8)
17. A suitability review should be completed within eight weeks of being requested.

The Council’s non-statutory suitability review process

18. The Council first completes a non-statutory review of accommodation rather than a review under section 202 as referenced above. The Council calls this a suitability assessment.
19. When this non-statutory review is finalised, it gives the right for a tenant to request a formal suitability review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996, as outlined above.

What happened

20. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
21. Miss X moved into temporary homeless accommodation (TA) in mid-February 2023. The accommodation was outside of the Council’s area. She lives in the accommodation with her young family.
22. In mid-April 2023, Miss X contacted the Council to say there was a mouse infestation at the property. She said pest control operatives had been to the property, treated various areas and were planning to return in a week to check progress.
23. At the beginning of May 2023, Miss X again contacted the Council. She said she had tried to contact the Council and the managing agents of the property (Company A) about disrepair in the home but that no real progress had been made. The Council sent a request for pest control services to contact Miss X. The Council asked Company A to provide it with an update about what pest control operatives had done so far.
24. During May 2023, Miss X sent two further chase emails to the Council and Company A about the lack of contact and the condition of the property.
25. In mid-August 2023, Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council saying there was still a mouse infestation at the property.
26. The Council’s later complaint response explained that Company A had said pest control operatives had attended late in September 2023. It said works had been done to proof against the mice.
27. At the beginning of December 2023, Miss X contacted her local MP to ask for help. She said there had been persistent issues with mice, pest control services had been out four times to try and deal with the issues but that there were still problems. She listed various other things she said were issues at the property. She asked her MP to help her to ensure she had a suitable property and to ensure the remedial works were done properly so it would be safe and maintained to a good standard. Miss X complained to the Council on the same day.

2024

28. At the beginning of January 2024, the Council sent its complaint response to Miss X. It said it had contacted Company A about the issues. The Council said pest control operatives had been to the property a week after Miss X’s December complaint and that evidence of mouse activity had been found. The Council advised Company A would be arranging for another pest control visit after further identified remedial works had been completed and Company A would then inspect the property. The Council apologised. It upheld Miss X’s complaint due to the length of time in resolving the mouse infestation. It signposted her to the Ombudsman.
29. At the end of January 2024, Miss X contacted the Council to again say there were issues with the condition of the property.
30. Miss X brought her complaint to us at the beginning of February 2024.
31. At the end of February 2024, based on her MP’s advice, Miss X contacted the Council to say her property was no longer suitable. She felt the Council’s complaints process had not helped her with the property issues and there were also problems with damp and mould in the property.
32. The next day, the Ombudsman sent initial enquiries to the Council about the complaint. Later on the same day, the Council chased Company A to ask the position on what works had been done at the property. Company A advised proofing work to deal with the mouse problem was due to start at the beginning of March.
33. At the beginning of March 2024, Company A sent the Council a short summary to say more proofing had been done for the mouse infestation, and that damage from mould and a leaking roof had been dealt with. Attached pictures showed the works carried out. Company A said it would be re-attending to check the works and check the floor under the carpets.
34. In mid-March 2024, the Council advised Miss X it would be conducting a non-statutory review of her TA. It asked her to send any evidence she wanted considered, within 14 days.
35. In mid-June 2024, Miss X was still waiting for the suitability review to be done. She contacted the Council to advise she was sending in recent evidence she would like considered as part of the review.
36. Towards the end of June 2024 and after the Ombudsman had contacted it about the complaint, the Council asked Company A for a summary on any works completed after the previous contact at the beginning of March 2024.
37. Two days later, at the end of June 2024, the Council completed an inspection on Miss X’s property. The report listed various maintenance issues and defects. It made recommendations of what should be done to improve the property, including carpet replacements. The report did not find any damp or mould. It noted Miss X’s unhappiness with the previous mouse proofing and recommended further checking and mouse proofing if required. The report finished by stating the property was “not unfit for human habitation.”
38. At the beginning of July 2024, the Council sent Miss X the decision on its non-statutory suitability review of her accommodation. The review stated the TA was “not unsuitable.” The document advised Miss X of her right to request a review within 21 days if she disagreed with its assessment.

Analysis

39. Issues at the property
40. Miss X complains it took multiple visits to deal with a mouse infestation and other disrepair issues at the property. She also complains the Council passed her onto Company A without investigating the issues itself.
41. I have viewed the evidence provided by the Council in response to our enquiries.
42. Miss X first contacted the Council about a mouse infestation in April 2023. After this, she chased the issues throughout May 2023 and then made formal complaints in both August and December 2023.
43. I acknowledge the Council sent a request for pest control services to contact Miss X in May 2023. I also acknowledge its stage one complaint response sent later in 2023 referenced that Company A had said pest control operatives had attended late in September 2023.
44. However, there is no evidence of an update from Company A that the Council had asked for in May 2023, nor of any chase for this. There is no other evidence to say the Council knew what the overall condition of the property was until March 2024’s report from Company A. There is no other evidence that infestation issues had been addressed to a satisfactory standard from the original contact in April 2023 until Miss X’s complaint made in December 2023 prompted the Council to contact Company A again, which then led to ongoing infestation issues being identified. There is no evidence the Council had directly assessed the property itself until June 2024.
45. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council if it had completed any checks on the property itself, so it could be satisfied works had been done properly. The Council said this was carried out as part of a review into Miss X’s complaints and the suitability assessment.
46. There is evidence of this, but following its complaint response early in January 2024, the Council did not contact Company A to request an update until after the Ombudsman had made initial enquiries late in February 2024. The Council did not inspect the property itself until the end of June 2024. This was after it had already asked for an extension to reply to Ombudsman enquiries made in June and over 14 months since Miss X had first complained about an infestation in the property.
47. I am satisfied that Miss X’s persistent contacts about a variety of issues, but particularly the mouse infestation, should have prompted much swifter action by the Council to assess the situation itself. Instead, it relied too much on Company A to deal with issues. If it had acted earlier, it would have ensured it had sufficient oversight of the condition of Miss X’s TA long before the end of June 2024.
48. The Council has a duty to ensure Miss X is in suitable accommodation which is free of disrepair or hazards. I am satisfied, that in the circumstances of this complaint, the Council allowed things to drift. It lacked proper oversight of the property’s condition and the infestation. Its actions were reactive rather than proactive.
49. This lack of decisive action and proper oversight is fault. It meant Miss X was living in a property that was assessed 14 months after her initial complaint as needing multiple remedial actions to be completed in terms of general disrepair (including the carpets Miss X complained of) and also further mouse proofing. It would have caused avoidable frustration and distress to Miss X. I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice caused.
50. In terms of repairs linked to a roof leak and ceiling damage, there is evidence to say the roof leak was fixed and that a contractor visit in March 2024 repainted the affected ceiling. The Council has provided no other specific evidence about the roof leak and timescales involved in remedial works, or explained any delays as requested. Even on the balance of probabilities, I am therefore unable to come to a conclusion about whether there was an undue delay. However, I am satisfied there is no ongoing injustice to Miss X in that the roof is watertight and the ceiling repainted. I therefore make no recommendation in relation to this specific issue.
51. The Council’s inspection report was thorough but did not mention any damage to doors caused by mice. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied it is more likely than not there is no evidence of any such damage and find no fault in relation to this.

Suitability review

52. Miss X complains the Council had said there would be a delay in completing its suitability review of the property. I have seen no evidence of this.
53. However, it took the Council over 18 weeks to provide the result of its suitability assessment after her initial request. The Council has chosen to complete informal suitability reviews before it then gives the chance for householders to request a statutory review of TA suitability under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. The timescale for this statutory review to be completed is eight weeks.
54. Although the Council does not have a timescale set out for its informal review, given the timescale for the statutory review, I am satisfied Miss X’s wait was too long. There is no evidence of any action between the Council’s acknowledgement of Miss X’s request in March 2024, until it inspected the property itself at the end of June 2024 and after I had made further enquiries with it. The Council has not explained any delay. This delay and lack of action is fault. It would have caused further avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty for Miss X. It also delayed Miss X’s opportunity to know the Council’s decision and consider taking any next steps available to her. Her opportunity to consider any eventual right of appeal was therefore also delayed. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
55. The Council’s informal assessment highlighted Miss X’s next step which was the right to a review. However, it did not make it clear this was a statutory review. Miss X has already requested a further review. Whilst this lack of clarity has not caused a personal injustice to Miss X, I have made a recommendation below so it is clear to those requesting a review of the informal assessment/review that the next step is a statutory review.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the identified fault;
• pay Miss X £350 to recognise the avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the identified fault;
• remind relevant officers and managers of its duties to provide TA which is free of disrepair and of the need to deal with any reported issues quickly and decisively;
• remind relevant officers and managers of the need for the Council to inspect TA itself if there are persistent reports of disrepair issues;
• consider reviewing how it can improve its general oversight of the condition of TA it is providing under its homelessness duties;
• remind relevant officers and managers of the need to complete non-statutory suitability reviews in no more than eight weeks (in line with statutory reviews);
• inspect the property (if Miss X is agreeable to this and at a mutually convenient time) to check that recommendations made in its June 2024 inspection report have been carried out;
• review the wording on its suitability assessments to be clearer about the next available steps; and
• share the Ombudsman’s focus report - unsuitable temporary accommodation: guide for practitioners (issued May 2023) with relevant staff, managers and directors.
57. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
58. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

60. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman