Summary: Mx X complains the Council was at fault in how it dealt with their complaints of disrepair at their privately rented property and their homelessness application causing distress. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the issues of disrepair. We found fault as the Council delayed in dealing with Mx X’s homelessness application. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised and offered a suitable payment in recognition of the distress caused. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Mx X. They complain the Council:
• Failed to resolve persistent dampness and mould affecting their private rented property.
• Unreasonably delayed dealing with their homelessness application and in providing emergency accommodation.
2. Mx X says they have been caused distress as they had to stay in unsuitable and unhealthy accommodation for longer than was necessary. Mx X says it has affected their health and they have been caused time and trouble in pursuing their concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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 spoke to Mx X about their complaint and considered documents they provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
6. Mx X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of the relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))
9. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
10. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. If, at the end of the relief duty, a council is satisfied an applicant is 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 duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
12. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

What happened in this case

13. What follows is a brief chronology of key events and information. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.

Disrepair at property

14. Mx X and their partner Mr Y moved into a privately rented basement flat in September 2021 and raised issues of damp with the landlord. Mx X contacted the Council in February 2022 as they felt the landlord had not dealt with the damp and it was affecting their health. An environmental health officer (officer) from the Council’s Private Sector Housing Standards Service (PSHSS) visited the property and found some ‘moderate’ dampness. The officer assessed the flat under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) as possibly a high scoring category 2 hazard. But considered it non-urgent as no immediate acute threat to life or health.
15. The officer contacted the landlord who arranged a surveyor inspection and sent the damp survey to the Council in March 2022. The landlord’s agent confirmed repair work would start in a few weeks. The landlord suspended Mx X’s rent payments while looking into the issue of damp and carrying out works (February to May 2022).
16. Mx X and Mr Y moved to rent a room from a friend while the works started. But the Council’s homelessness prevention and advice service (HPAS) moved them into emergency housing in April 2022 while the landlord carried out the repairs.
17. In April 2022 the agent confirmed most works completed. The officer revisited the basement flat, noted items on the surveyor’s report had been carried out and was satisfied the landlord would complete the remaining works. The officer noted mould around the windows that could be treated with water and bleach. The officer also noted Mx X drying clothes in the kitchen which would generate humidity and advised against it.
18. Mx X complained the landlord had not completed all the works but painted over the mould and dry rot rather than treat it. The officer contacted the surveyor who recommended alterations to the building, but considered the remedial work already done would reduce the problems. The surveyor and Council sent Mx X a guide on reducing condensation within the flat.
19. The officer contacted the agent about further works and carried out two follow up visits to the property in April and May 2022. In May 2022 the landlord confirmed completion of works and Mx X and Mr Y could return. The officer visited the property and noted measures installed in the flat to reduce condensation but found a small pocket of dampness on a partition wall. The landlord agreed to monitor it and act if necessary. The Council decided to close the case and told Mx X and Mr Y it considered the works satisfactory.
20. Mx X and Mr Y moved back to the basement flat at the end of May 2022. In June 2022 Mx X reported the damp problem had not been resolved as fungus was growing in the flat. Mx X remained unhappy with the Council’s decision and conclusions on the case.
21. The officer contacted the agent as fungus growth suggested a remaining source of damp. The agent arranged a further investigation including a drain survey. But the survey did not show any significant issues with the sewer and suggested other areas to investigate to identify any leaks or sources of dampness. Mx X removed the fungus and reported a leak in the ceiling of the bathroom and kitchen. The property manager from the flat above Mx X’s and a drainage company investigated but could not identify the cause of the leak from the flat above. The drainage company found no evidence of a leak in Mx X’s bathroom.
22. The property manager and landlord’s agent agreed to investigate the leak further although it had stopped. The officer asked to be informed as the proposed actions seemed reasonable and said the landlord should employ a suitably qualified specialist to investigate further.
23. Mx X complained to the Council in August 2022 the matter was taking too long to resolve. Mx X said they were living in serious disrepair at the property and had provided evidence of the damp and unfinished repair work. Mx X said the flat was unsafe and the Council not properly assessed the issue onto Mx X’s mental health and physical disabilities. Mx X said the conditions of the flat caused them depression and anxiety and affected Mx X and Mr Y who both had asthma. Mx X alleged Council officers were rude and dismissive and blamed them for the damp at the property.
24. The Council responded to Mx X ‘s comments. It confirmed:
• Officers used their training and professional judgment to determine the level of risk in this case.
• The evidence showed officers did not dismiss Mx X’s concerns or failed to investigate properly. Officers worked with the landlord and agent to identify the source of dampness at the flat. The first issues identified were addressed but the growth of fungus showed an additional source of damp and the landlord asked to resolve it.
• The timescales were not unreasonable. Officers contacted the landlord and agent to discuss the works required and timescales. The Council considered the officers’ actions and response times were reasonable as there was no imminent danger or threat.
25. Mx X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked for it to be considered further at stage 2 of the complaint procedure. The Council’s stage 2 investigation did not uphold the complaint but found two minor issues it could have dealt with better. These related to providing our contact details sooner to Mx X when requested. And wording advice more sensitively about not drying clothes in the flat. The Council apologised for the upheld issues.
26. The Council acknowledged it moved Mx X and Mr Y back to their property from the temporary accommodation in May 2022 as it believed the disrepair was resolved. But once it became clear the issues remained at the basement flat officers acted and continued to liaise with landlord to remedy the matter. The Council accepted the more recent issues were taking time to investigate. But the landlord was cooperating and taking all necessary steps to resolve the issues informally.
27. The officer asked the agent for an update in September 2022 and said the Council may take formal action if there was no progress. The agent confirmed the surveyor carried out a specialist damp survey and sent the report to the officer. The officer told the agent to carry out the items on the report and chased an update in October 2022. The agent advised that Mx X and Mr Y had moved out of the flat.
28. In commenting on the complaint, the Council confirms its PSHS service mainly uses the powers under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 as the enforcement tool for improving conditions in private rented properties. It uses the HHSRS and government guidance on the applying this is clear that vulnerabilities beyond those defined in the guidance are to be disregarded under any HHSRS assessment. It says that vulnerability is restricted to age groups only. So, the environmental health officer would not have assessed Mx X’s disability when carrying out inspections. Mx X would have been able to use other legal provisions available to them to assess the suitability of a home due to disability. This included an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment or a Disabled Facilities Grant assessment.

My assessment

29. The evidence I have seen shows the Council responded to the concerns Mx X raised about damp at their flat. Officers visited and assessed the property. Under the terms of the HHRS the issues were not considered to be an immediate acute threat to life or health. The Council’s PSHSS also had no requirement to consider the impact of the disrepair on Mx X’s health under the terms of the legislation on the standards of privately rented properties. However, the Council moved Mx X into emergency accommodation during the repair work as it recognised they could not live there during the works.
30. The documents provided show officers liaised with the landlord and agent to ensure repairs were carried out. It is unfortunate the issues were not resolved after the first survey and works. But the qualified surveyor considered the remedial works enough to resolve the issues Mx X complained about. The Council was also satisfied the works were reasonable and been completed.
31. I recognise the matter may have taken longer than Mx X wanted. But it can take time to resolve property issues when disrepair is found to be more than first anticipated and further work is needed. The Council’s PSHSS was satisfied the landlord was responding about the condition of the property. And it was still pursuing the issues when Mx X moved out of the accommodation in October 2022. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with the concerns of disrepair at Mx X’s privately rented property.

Homelessness application

32. In March 2022 Mx X made a homeless application to the Council as they considered the basement flat unfit and affecting their health conditions. Mx X included the damp report and information on their medical conditions. Mx X said they had received an offer from a friend of alternative accommodation and moved into a rented room.
33. Mx X sent more information about the impact on them when building works started. An officer from the HPAS contacted Mx X and carried out a detailed housing needs assessment. The officer said the Council could provide emergency/temporary accommodation while the building works took place. It was likely to be a hotel with no cooking facilities due to the severe shortage of temporary accommodation. Mx X accepted the offer of a hotel.
34. The officer sent Mx X a medical assessment form to complete and provide supporting medical information. The emergency accommodation team offered Mx X a furnished flat as emergency accommodation in April 2022.
35. The Council issued a relief notice to Mx X in April 2022, and it would send a personalised housing plan (PHP) within seven days. It noted Mx X rented a flat having works done to it, so they were temporarily unable to live there for two to three weeks. The Council told Mx X not to surrender the tenancy and to tell it once works finished.
36. The Council noted Mx X was currently renting a room and having difficulty accessing the bathroom and kitchenette on a different floor due to Mx X’s medical condition. So, the property was unsuitable for Mx X. The Council accepted Mx X may have a ‘priority need’ due to medical vulnerability. And it had a duty to provide them with interim temporary accommodation whilst looking at options to relieve their homelessness. The Council confirmed it found them interim accommodation at the furnished flat.
37. The HPAS contacted Mx X’s landlord about the building works, who confirmed the works were nearly completed. But the flat needing cleaning and would be ready by the end of May 2022.
38. The HPAS officer spoke to Mx X who referred to the challenges they faced there and unhappy to return as the landlord did not carry out all the recommendations. Mx X advised they may need to use a wheelchair in future although Mr Y provided support. The officer advised Mx X that as they had accommodation and not currently using a wheelchair they should consider returning to the property.
39. Mx X sent the medical assessment form and said she was now a wheelchair user contrary to the information the Council held. Mx X’s OT contacted the officer and explained Mx X’s medical condition had declined and so would need a wheelchair, making the flat unsuitable for them. The OT said Ms X preferred to stay at the interim accommodation. Mx X confirmed they could access the basement flat, so the officer advised them to return and cancelled the interim accommodation. The Council confirms it was cancelled as Mx X was accessing the private rented accommodation.
40. The HPAS officer sought medical information from Mx X’s GP so the Council could determine what duty it owed them. In June 2022 Mx X complained the Council had failed to send a personalised housing plan (PHP) after accepting the relief duty in April 2022. The Council accepted the error in not completing the PHP, but Mx X had been advised in the relief letter it was only providing emergency/interim accommodation during the repairs. The Council’s medical adviser recommended Mx X be awarded priority for housing on medical grounds due to mobility issues. This should be either ground floor or lifted accommodation with a level wide access.
41. The Council issued a PHP for Mx X in June 2022. Mx X complained to the Council about its handling of the damp issue and their homelessness application. Mx X said the Council had failed to provide them with temporary accommodation and to update the PHP. Mx X said the basement flat was unsuitable and no longer reasonable to occupy.
42. The Council responded to Mx X’s complaint. It said it had carried out a medical assessment and agreed the current accommodation was medically unsuitable for them. But it was difficult to source accommodation within the Borough where Mx X wanted to remain. The Council said it could not guarantee it would make an offer of accommodation within the borough. If Mx X needed emergency accommodation it could only offer commercial hotels outside of the area.
43. The Council advised Mx X they had the opportunity to search for their own accommodation which suited their needs. The Council confirmed it would help with costs to secure accommodation. It could provide aids to Mx X at the basement flat subject to an occupational therapy assessment. The Council referred Mx X to its private sector rental service to help match them to any suitable and available private rented accommodation. But explained there was a huge demand for this.
44. Mx X provided further medical reports in support of their mental health. The emergency accommodation team advised the HPAS officer they had no wheelchair accessible properties available and offered a hotel outside of the borough. Mx X declined the offer as they wanted to remain living within the borough.
45. In August 2022 the officer looked again for accommodation. But was advised the most suitable accommodation available was at a wheelchair accessible hotel. Mx X refused the offer as not suitable for their needs.
46. The Council accepted a homeless duty towards Mx X in August 2022 as it considered their accommodation not suitable for their medical needs. It sent Mx X letters with decisions to end the relief duty and accept the main duty. It also sent a landlord introduction letter if they wished to seek private sector accommodation.
47. The Council offered Mx X temporary accommodation at a hotel on October 2022 which Mx X accepted. The Council made removal and storage arrangements for Mx X’s belongings. Mx X and Mr Y remain in temporary accommodation at the hotel and will be moved once suitable accommodation been found.
48. Mx X is eligible to bid for 1 bedroom property. The medical assessment assessed Mx X as needing a property which is a Lifetime home with easy access. The Council advised Mx X to bid for a ground floor or lifted property which has a level access shower or an adaptable bathroom.
49. Mx X complained again in September 2022 as they were unhappy about an officer’s views about the medical assessment. Mx X complained there had been no contact from the HPAS nor from housing services. Mx X said the Council had an immediate responsibility to provide reasonable housing for them. And they were left living in accommodation not accessible for their disability as well as damp and mouldy. Mx X said they needed to stay within the borough due to attending hospital appointments.
50. The Council responded to Mx X’s complaint. It accepted some mistakes in its communications such as assuming about Mx X’s wheelchair use. There were also delays in dealing with Mx X’s case. These included taking a month from the date of the homelessness application to having an appointment with an officer. The Council accepted there had been sporadic communications with Mx X on occasions and they had to chase up officers. The Council apologised and offered Mx X £250 in compensation.
51. The Council confirms it has carried out service improvements to its HPAS. This includes a service restructure to ensure more frontline officers to triage cases and provide general advice and assistance. The restructure includes an officer training programme.

My assessment

52. The evidence provided show the Council dealt with Mx X’s application according to the Homelessness Code of Guidance as it assessed the application and accepted a relief duty. The Council secured Mx X interim/emergency accommodation at the furnished flat in April 2022. Once Mx X moved back to the basement flat the Council continued to assess the application and Mx X’s situation. The Council determined it had a main duty to secure accommodation for Mx X and moved them into temporary accommodation.
53. The documents provided show the Council investigated Mx X’s concerns about handling the homelessness application. It accepted there were issues with communications and delays. It offered Mx X a payment of £250 in recognition of these issues. I also find there was fault by the Council in its communications with Mx X and there were periods of delay in dealing with the application. These were especially at the start of the application in March 2022 until making an appointment with an officer and from August to October 2022 before offering Mx X interim accommodation.
54. I consider the Council’s offer of £250, and its apology is a suitable action for it to take. This is because Mx X was in emergency/interim accommodation during April and May 2022. Mx X was also offered temporary accommodation in July and August 2022. But declined the offer of a hotel as unsuitable which would have given them an opportunity to move from the flat sooner had they accepted. Mx X later accepted the offer of a hotel.
55. I am satisfied the Council’s investigation into Mx X’s concerns has been thorough and it accepts there were issues. The Council moved Mx X into temporary accommodation in October 2022 and advised them to bid for suitable properties. The Council has confirmed it carried out service improvements to its HPAS which is action we would recommend to prevent similar issues arising in other cases. I do not consider I can add anything further to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome for Mx X.
56. Mx X considers the Council’s delay in moving them to emergency/interim accommodation has impacted onto their medical condition and affected their health. While there are documents saying Mx X’s medical condition has declined over time I cannot say whether the decline in health is due to the impact of the accommodation or not. This is not a link we can make.

Final decision

57. I am completing my investigation. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Mx X’s concerns about disrepair at their privately rented property. There was fault by the Council when dealing with Mx X’s homelessness application as it delayed dealing with Mx X’s case. The Council’s apology and offer of £250 is a suitable remedy in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman