Summary: The Council was at fault for how it handled Ms X’s reports of repairs, anti-social behaviour and for delaying assessing her homelessness situation. This meant Ms X had to wait longer for the Council to owe her a homelessness duty and has outstanding repair and anti-social behaviour issues at her property. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X for the distress caused and take steps to investigate the repair and anti-social behaviour issues which are ongoing.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:
1. Did not properly respond to her concerns about repairs at her property.
2. Did not address her reports of anti-social behaviour she experienced from other residents.
3. Reduced her housing banding on the housing register in 2021 and has since not taken account of her medical conditions when deciding her housing register banding.
4. Mishandled her application for homelessness assistance.
5. Mishandled her stage two complaint.
2. Ms X says this has caused her physical and mental health to worsen.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We 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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have considered events up until October 2025. This is when the Council started to assess whether it owed Ms X any homelessness duties. For events after this including how the Council has dealt with her homelessness case since, Ms X should make a complaint to the Council in the first instance.
9. I have also not investigated parts of complaint c, namely the reasons for reducing Ms X’s banding on the housing register. This is because too much time has passed since this happened and I can see no good reasons why Ms X could not have complained sooner about this.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. This is called the prevention duty. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
13. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. 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)
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, has a priority need and is homeless unintentionally, the council has a duty to make accommodation available. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
15. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair. Local authorities have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System HHRSR (introduced by the Housing Act 2004, Part 1) to take enforcement action against private landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. If a council considers a category 1 hazard exists in residential premises they must take appropriate enforcement action in accordance with section 5 of the Act.  Councils have discretion to take enforcement action if a category 2 hazard is identified.

Background

16. There has been extensive correspondence between Ms X and the Council. In this section of the statement I summarise key events but I do not refer to every single contact and communication.
17. Ms X lives in private rented accommodation with her children. The building is a block of flats and the freeholder of the block is the Council. The other remaining properties house Council tenants.

Complaint a) The Council did not properly respond to concerns about repairs

What happened

18. In June 2024, Ms X reported repair issues to the Council about her property. This included issues with the internal property such as electrics, mould and dampness. Ms X also said there were issues with guttering leaking and the roof leaking.
19. In October 2024, the Council contacted Ms X and arranged to inspect the property. In late October 2024, a surveyor for the Housing Services Team along with someone from the Private Sector team visited Ms X property. The Council carried out a HHSRS assessment and decided there was a category two hazard for mould. The surveyor also said there was a possible defect to a section of the roof and external wall at the back of the property.
20. In November 2024, the Private Sector enforcement team told Ms X it was working with the housing team and would provide her with a timeline of any repairs. If these were not completed the Council said it would proceed formally against Ms X’s landlord.
21. In December 2024, the Council obtained quotes for works to clear the guttering at Ms X’s property and carried this out. The surveyor recommended increasing the size of the radiators in a bedroom and putting in thermal board insulation, however this was the responsibility of Ms X’s landlord.
22. In March and April 2025, Ms X emailed the Council. This included information that the electrical issues in her property were not fixed and there was issues with the roof leaking.
23. In response to Ms X’s formal complaint about this the Council said the outstanding issues such as the mould and damp were the responsibility of the leaseholder.

Findings

24. Initially Ms X reported issues with her property in June 2024, however it took until October 2024 to arrange to view her property. This was fault.
25. When the Council came to inspect Ms X’s property in October 2024, it decided as the freeholder it would carry out repairs to the guttering and did so. In relation to the other issues causing mould and dampness the Council said these were internal and the responsibility of the leaseholder.
26. Ms X also made reports about issues with the electrics. I cannot see what the Council did in October 2024 to consider these issues. This was fault. While the Council did not find a category one hazard, it was not clear what it decided to do about the internal issues. In November 2024 the Council told Ms X it would provide a timeline for any works her landlord needed to carry out. I cannot see that the Council did this.
27. In March and April 2025, Ms X reported further issues with the property, namely a leak from the roof and said the previous issues had not been rectified. It is not clear what the Council did except to tell her it was her landlord’s responsibility to repair these. This was fault. Given Ms X’s reports, the Council should have taken some action to investigate her concerns and see whether it should take enforcement action. Further as repairs to the roof were the Council’s responsibility as the freeholder of the building, it should have taken steps to investigate this.
28. Had the Council acted without fault it could have dealt with Ms X’s concerns much quicker. It could have decided on whether it needed to carry out repairs to the roof, and whether to follow up with or take action against Ms X’s landlord for the internal repairs. This has caused Ms X distress.

Complaint b) The Council did not address her reports of anti-social behaviour from other residents

What happened

29. In January 2025, Ms X reported anti-social behaviour to the Council Housing Services team. This involved her children getting threatened and issues in the communal areas of the building. The Council told her she needed to report this to a different team.
30. In March 2025, when Ms X made a formal complaint, she again mentioned issues of anti-social behaviour in her building.
31. The Council’s position is that Ms X did not make any other reports of anti-social behaviour after January 2025. In its complaint response to Ms X it told her she needed to report this behaviour to the police or the Council’s anti-social behaviour team.
32. In July 2025, Ms X made further reports of anti-social behaviour through her MP. This included knife threats, verbal threats at her front door, her child being aggressively approached in the communal areas and break ins.

Findings

33. When Ms X reported concerns in January 2025, the Council should have passed these onto the relevant team to investigate. Failure to do so was fault.
34. Following this Ms X raised further concerns about anti-social behaviour in her complaint to the Council in March 2025 and then through her MP in July 2025. I cannot see what the Council did to look into these concerns and decide whether it could or should take any steps to address the issues. Given the severity of some of the behaviour I would have expected the Council to have at least contacted Ms X to find out more information and decide whether it could take any steps to address this.
35. I cannot say on balance what the Council would have done had it investigated Ms X’s concerns, however failure to do this has caused her uncertainty.

Complaint c) housing register banding

What happened

36. The Council reduced Ms X’s banding on the housing register from B to C in 2021.
37. Since March 2024, Ms X has asked the Council to consider whether she can have medical priority based on her medical issues. Ms X argued the property was not suitable for her due to her medical issues and having to walk up steps to access the property.
38. Between September 2024 and May 2025, Ms X asked the Council to consider whether she qualified for medical priority several times and on two occasions asked the Council to review its decision. Each time the Council decided she was entitled to medical priority band C. Each decision set out what information had been considered.
39. In May 2025, the Council decided to place Ms X into medical priority band B based on the evidence she provided.

Findings

40. The Council considered Ms X’s requests and issued her with a decision based on the information it had. Each decision set out what information the Council considered when coming to the decision on Ms X’s medical priority. Ms X had review rights to challenge these decisions which she exercised on two occasions. If she was unhappy with the outcome of the review she had to option to appeal in the County Court.

Complaint d) The Council mishandled her application for homelessness assistance

What happened

41. In March 2025, following her complaint, the Council assessed Ms X with a view to decide whether it owed her any homelessness duties. This was based on the condition of her property and reports about her ex-partner threatening her.
42. The Council decided it owed her the prevention duty, however there is no record Ms X was sent a decision telling her this. The Council has since confirmed this decision was made in error by the officer involved and it should have told her she was not homeless at this stage.
43. In May 2025, the Council received some new information regarding concerns about her ex-partner. The Council in response to my enquiries acknowledged it did not act on this information.
44. In October 2025, the Council re-assigned Ms X’s case to an officer and decided it owed her the relief duty.

Findings

45. In March 2025, the Council should have issued Ms X a decision she was not threatened with homelessness. This was fault. As a result Ms X did not know what had happened with her case and could not ask for a review of this decision.
46. When the Council received further concerns about Ms X’s ex-partner it should have carried out a homelessness assessment then. Failure to do so was fault. As a result Ms X had to wait until October 2025, for this process to start. If the Council had carried out this sooner it would have decided to owe her the relief duty sooner.

Complaint e) How the Council handled her complaint

What happened

47. Ms X complained to the Council in mid-January 2025. The Council provided its stage one response in early March 2025. Ms X asked the Council, the following day, to consider her complaint at stage two.
48. The Council provided its stage two response on 9 April 2025 but then issued an amended version after Ms X responded to the stage two response.

Findings

49. There was a delay responding to Ms X’s complaint at stage one. The Council should have responded within 20 working days according to its complaints policy, however it took longer than this. This was fault.
50. At stage two the Council told Ms X to contact the Housing Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied. This was the incorrect Ombudsman for her complaint. I do not consider this caused Ms X injustice as she had already approached the Housing Ombudsman previously, however it could have an impact on others who complaint.
51. In relation to providing a second stage two response, this was after Ms X had sent the Council further information. The Council provided this in response to that. I do not consider it at fault for this.

Back to top

Agreed Action

52. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the above faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Pay Ms X £500 to recognise the distress and uncertainty she suffered as a result of the delays assessing her homelessness situation and handling of her reports of repairs and anti-social behaviour.
3. Contact Ms X to see whether the anti-social behaviour issues she experienced are still ongoing. If so the Council should consider whether it can investigate these and whether it can take any action. The Council should write to Ms X setting out its position on this.
4. Contact Ms X to find out what repair issues are still outstanding at her property. The Council should then decide who is responsible to carry out the repairs and whether it should take any action in relation to her landlord. The Council should write to Ms X setting out the steps it will take.
5. Take steps to ensure staff know which Ombudsman they should signpost different complainants to.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

54. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman