Summary: The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) found service failure by the Council for delay dealing with Ms X's reports of disrepair in her council tenancy. LGSCO found fault by the Council in its assessment of Ms X's medical needs. Both Ombudsmen found fault with the Council's decision making about Ms X's management transfer and for delays in the complaint process. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Ms X and improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of disrepair in her council home and her need to move home urgently because of domestic abuse. In particular, she says the Council:
1. Failed to address issues of damp, mould, and pest infestation in the property
2. Delayed assessing her medical needs
3. Wrongly decided her urgent move would be to a like-for-like two-bedroom property when she needs a three-bedroom property
4. Delayed responding to her complaint
2. As a result, Ms X says she and her children remain living in overcrowded accommodation, at risk of domestic abuse, and affected physically and mentally by the disrepair.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. 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. The LGSCO considers whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The LGSCO investigates complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner of failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
7. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
8. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
9. If the LGSCO is 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)
10. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

11. Ms X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
12. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations. We will say which Ombudsman has made the finding on each part of the complaint.
13. The scope of our investigation is limited to events from December 2022. This is in accordance with:
• paragraph 42.c. of the HOS’ Scheme that the HOS may not consider complaints which were not brought as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
• section 26B of the Local Government Act 1974, which says LGSCO cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done.
14. We made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law, guidance, and the Council's policies.
15. We considered the LGSCO's guidance on remedies.
16. Ms X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. We considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What we found

Management transfer

17. When a council agrees that one of its own tenants needs to move, usually for urgent reasons, to another property, this is called a management transfer.
18. The Council has a housing panel which considers and approves requests for management transfers. The panel has a policy which says that properties offered as a management transfer will be "like for like" regardless of any overcrowding. This means the property offered will be the same size as the one the tenant currently lives in. However, the policy also says that in "exceptional cases" it may also address overcrowding if the welfare of the household is of "over-riding concern".
19. Approval of a management transfer results in priority under the Council's allocations policy.

The Council's allocations policy

20. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
21. The Council places applicants who qualify to join its housing register in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band C (lowest priority).
22. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band A to council tenants approved for a management transfer. The policy says the Council will make these applicants a direct offer of a property. If the applicant has assessed medical needs, the property offered will reflect those needs.
23. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band C to council tenants who are overcrowded because they have one fewer bedroom than they need.

Background

24. Ms X is a tenant of the Council. She lives in a two-bedroom property. The number, ages, and gender of her children mean she is overcrowded. She needs a three-bedroom property. She has been on the housing register in Band C since 2017.
25. In 2019, Ms X's GP wrote to the Council explaining that Ms X was allergic to mould and had conditions which affect her breathing. The GP said Ms X's issues with breathing were made worse by overcrowding in a damp property. The GP wrote again in 2021 emphasising the impact on Ms X's breathing and mental health of living with extensive mould and damp.
26. Ms X is a survivor of domestic abuse. In 2022, the Council approved a management transfer for Ms X. It explained that this would be a "like for like" move. This means it would offer Ms X another two-bedroom property.

What happened

27. In July 2023, the Council offered Ms X a two-bedroom property as a management transfer. Ms X refused this offer as she said it did not meet her medical needs. She provided copies of the GP letters from 2019 and 2021. She also asked the Council to consider offering her a three-bedroom instead of a two-bedroom property.
28. In November, the Council wrote to Ms X by email. The email:
• explained that management transfers cannot address overcrowding
• said that once she moved, her application for a transfer to a three-bedroom property would be reinstated with her original priority date
• asked Ms X to provide up to date medical information
• said it would put her case on hold until it had an updated medical assessment
29. Ms X's GP wrote to the Council in early December. The letter said:
• Ms X has a condition which affects her breathing
• Her current property was affected by mould, damp, and mice
• Previous letters had explained the impact on Ms X and her children
• Ms X had developed claustrophobia as a result of her breathing issues and PTSD from the domestic abuse
• The GP recommended a move to a three-bedroom ground-floor property with at least one window in every room
30. In early December, Ms X complained to the Council. She said:
• She had needed to move urgently for more than two years
• She lived in constant fear of domestic abuse
• Her flat had mice, damp, and mould
• The Council's offer in July was unsuitable
31. In early January 2024, Ms X contacted the Council. She said she had not received a response to her complaint. The same day, the Council sent an internal email asking for a medical assessment of Ms X.
32. The Council asked its medical advisor to assess Ms X at the beginning of March. The medical advisor responded the same day. The medical advisor said Ms X could manage a property up to the second floor without a lift or any floor with a lift.
33. The Council responded to Ms X's complaint in late March. It did not uphold the complaint. It said now it had received the medical advice, it would make one further offer.
34. In early May, the Council wrote to Ms X with the result of its medical assessment. The letter set out the criteria for medical priority under its allocations scheme and the medical advisor's opinion about Ms X's future housing needs. The letter said Ms X would remain in Band A for a two-bedroom direct let.
35. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of the complaint process. She said the Council had not considered all the medical evidence and so its decision that a management transfer would be "like for like" was wrong. The Council sent its response in late May, in which it:
• Apologised for the delay responding to the complaint
• Said it had written to Ms X in early May confirming she was in Band A for a two-bedroom property.
• Accepted fault for its delay telling Ms X the outcome of its medical decision
36. In mid-June, the Council responded to Ms X's complaint about disrepair in her home. The Council:
• Confirmed its position that the management transfer was to address risk, not overcrowding
• Said it had an appointment booked within a week to look at the damp and mould
• Said it had booked a pest control appointment at the start of June but Ms X cancelled this
• Apologised "that there was confusion in responding to these issues previously".
37. In September 2024, Ms X accepted an offer of a two-bedroom property.

Our findings

38. We set out our findings on the complaint in the order they appear in paragraph one.

Disrepair

39. Ms X informs the HOS that she holds the Council responsible for the impact on her and her family’s health and belongings. The HOS does not make definitive decisions about liability and negligence, and the impact on belongings and mental and physical health, but we can consider if a landlord has responded reasonably.
40. Ms X also refers to historical events. The HOS recognises that historical findings, such as the property’s small size making it difficult to move furniture and treat damp and mould, should be relevant to how the Council approached treating any recent damp and mould. However, the main focus of the HOS’ investigation is events from December 2022, 12 months before Ms X complained.
41. The Council booked an inspection for the damp and mould in June 2024, after which a surveyor reported that there was evidence of mould in 2 bedrooms due to inadequate ventilation and a mould wash was required. The Council also scheduled a pest control visit in June 2024 which Ms X cancelled.
42. The landlord’s actions in the timeframe of the complaint seem proportionate, given the scope of the HOS’ investigation to focus on events within the past 12 months before the complaint. Before Ms X’s December 2023 report, damp and mould issues were last reported over 1 year prior, and mice and bed bugs were last reported 2 years prior, when identified actions were progressed. Ms X says she cancelled the pest control visit due to concerns that dead rodents would create a bad smell, but a pest control visit would have given them the opportunity to consider action required, including for any structural entry points Ms X suggested were present.
43. However, after Ms X’s December 2023 reports, it took the Council until June 2024 (6 months) to take any substantive action for the damp and mould and reports of pest infestation. This is not satisfactory and will have undermined Ms X’s confidence in the Council. This leads the HOS to find a service failure in the Council’s handling of damp, mould, and pest infestation in the property. As Ms X has now moved, the HOS has not made any orders or recommendations in respect to the works, but has ordered compensation for these failings.

Medical assessment

44. The Council agreed to assess Ms X's medical needs in November 2023. Ms X provided up-to-date information from her GP in early December. However, the Council did not refer this to its medical advisor until March 2024. LGSCO finds this delay of three months was fault. The Council was waiting for this information to inform its offer of a property to Ms X. The fault therefore delayed the Council making Ms X a further offer by three months. This is a significant injustice to Ms X.
45. Although the medical advisor responded in March, it took the Council until late May to write to Ms X with the outcome. LGSCO finds this further delay was fault.
46. The Council should not merely adopt or repeat the opinion of the medical advisor. It should make its own decision, considering all the available evidence. Where it prefers one medical opinion over another, it should explain why. There is no evidence to show why the Council preferred the opinion of its medical advisor over the evidence from Ms X's GP about what Ms X needed for a property to be suitable. LGSCO finds this was fault. This leaves Ms X with avoidable uncertainty about whether the Council has properly considered her medical needs. This is an injustice to Ms X.

Like for like transfer decision

47. The Council's decision to approve Ms X for a management transfer in 2022 is outside the scope of this investigation. However, Ms X asked the Council to review this considering the medical information she provided in 2023.
48. The Council's policy on management transfers says it can, in exceptional cases, make an offer which also addresses overcrowding. It says this will be rare and where the "welfare of the family is of such over-riding concern" that discretion is necessary. The policy includes a section on welfare which sets out the relevant criteria for the Council to consider.
49. There is no evidence the Council considered whether to exercise this discretion in Ms X's case. LGSCO and HOS find this was fault. The Council told Ms X that a management transfer could only address risk and not overcrowding. This shows the Council was unaware of or failed to consider its discretion.
50. This caused Ms X avoidable frustration and distress, which is an injustice. We cannot say what the Council would have decided had it properly considered its discretion, especially where the policy says this would be rare. However, Ms X must live with the uncertainty, which is an injustice. As Ms X has now moved, we have not recommended the Council make a new decision.
51. The Council's housing panel policy sets out a review process for its decisions. The review criteria in the policy for the panel are limited to new evidence or previously provided evidence not being fully considered.
52. A decision about a management transfer is a decision about priority under the Council's allocations scheme. Decisions about priority under the allocations scheme carry a statutory right of review. This includes any decision about the facts of a case "which is likely to be, or has been, taken into account in considering whether to allocate housing". (Housing Act 1996 s166A(9))
53. LGSCO finds fault with the Council for limiting the review criteria for management transfer applicants. This is not in line with the statutory review rights set out in law.

Complaint handling

54. The Council's complaint policy says it will respond to complaints at stage one of its process within 10 working days. It took the Council 69 working days to respond to Ms X's complaint. LGSCO and HOS find this delay of 59 working days (or three months) was fault.
55. The Council further delayed by over 20 working days (or four weeks) responding to Ms X's stage two complaint. This was further fault.
56. These faults caused Ms X avoidable frustration and time and trouble chasing up her complaint, which is an injustice.

Back to top

Action required

HOS orders

57. Within four weeks of our final decision, apologise to Ms X for the faults identified by both Ombudsmen in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology.
58. The HOS orders that within two weeks of our final decision, the Council should pay Ms X £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified with its handling of the reports about damp, mould, and pest infestation.
59. The Council should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above orders.

LGSCO recommended action

60. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• Make a new decision about Ms X's housing needs resulting from her medical conditions. Communicate this to Ms X in writing, explaining how the Council has considered the evidence.
• Pay Ms X £400 in recognition of her avoidable distress, frustration, and uncertainty
• Pay Ms X a further £150 in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by the Council's poor complaint handling.

61. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services within three months of the final decision:
• Provide training or guidance to relevant staff on making decisions about medical priority and housing needs resulting from medical conditions, using this decision as an example and with reference to LGSCO's guide for practitoners.
• Remind relevant staff that the Council has discretion to address overcrowding as well as risk when approving a management transfer and ensure records show the Council has considered whether to exercise this discretion.
• Amend the decision review process for management transfer applications to ensure the Council tells applicants about their statutory review rights, as set out in the Housing Act 1996.
62. The Council should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

63. We have completed our investigation. The Ombudsmen find fault with the Council. The actions required are a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman