Summary: Ms X complained about the condition and security of her property and the way the Council dealt with her requests for rehousing. She also complained about the Council’s failure to consider her reports of homelessness and her safeguarding needs. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) has found maladministration by the Council in its complaint handling. It has also found service failure in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s reports of damp, mould and silverfish infestation and her concerns about the security of the block. The Council should remedy this injustice by apologising and making payments to reflect the distress caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant has been represented by her daughter during much of the contact with the Council. For ease of reading and brevity, both the complainant and her daughter are referred to in this report as Ms X.
2. Ms X complains that the Council failed to:

• Properly consider Ms X’s request for a management transfer.
• Communicate the plans to rehouse Ms X in relation to the regeneration programme.
• Deal effectively with Ms X’s reports of damp, mould and an infestation of silverfish.
• Consider Ms X’s reports of being homeless due to her fear of returning to the property.
• Consider Ms X’s safeguarding needs.
• Properly respond to Ms X’s concerns about the presence of asbestos in the property.
• Properly respond to Ms X’s concerns about the security of the block.
• Ensure its environmental protection team responded appropriately.
• Deal with Ms X’s complaints properly.

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.
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. The 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 or failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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(1), as amended)
9. 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

What we have and have not investigated

10. We may not 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 and Paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme).
11. Ms X contacted the HOS on 31 March 2025. Therefore, we consider it fair and reasonable for the period of our investigation to begin from 1 April 2024, which is 12 months prior to the date Ms X contacted the HOS.

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

12. Ms X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the HOS. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction. This decision statement covers both investigations.
13. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. We considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What we found

What happened

14. We have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on our review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.
15. At the time of making her complaint, Ms X lived in a flat in a purpose-built block and had a secure tenancy which began in October 2003. She was rehoused in July 2025.
16. On 25 February 2025, Ms X made a stage 1 complaint because she said the Council had not provided her with support or acted to safeguard her following an attempted break-in on 21 February 2025. She added that she was unhappy with the Council’s communication. She said she was unable to return to the property as the property was unsafe and the estate was derelict. She asked the Council to rehouse her immediately.
17. The Council replied on the same day (25 February 2025) and sent her a management transfer form, which it asked her to complete and return. Ms X returned the completed form to the Council on 26 February 2025.
18. The Council’s records show that on 10 March 2025 it wrote to Ms X to advise her that its panel had met on 5 March 2025 to consider her management transfer application. The panel had refused the application as it said her situation did not meet the management transfer criteria. The letter set out her right to appeal the decision.
19. The Council sent its stage 1 reply on 20 March 2025 in which it confirmed its decision to refuse the application.
20. On 29 March 2025, Ms X wrote to the Council to say she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response as it had not resolved the matter satisfactorily. The Council replied on 31 March 2025 regarding the management transfer and said it had sent a letter explaining the panel’s decision and the appeals process. It said she would need to submit her appeal within 10 days.
21. On 31 March 2025, Ms X submitted an appeal regarding the management transfer decision. She said the attempted break-in had not been an isolated incident as she had experienced other examples of trauma, danger and neglect by living on the estate. She also said that the property had a long history of damp, mould and silverfish infestation. She mentioned that her car had been broken into a few months earlier and the estate had high levels of vandalism, drug activity, fly-tipping and theft.
22. On 7 April 2025, the Council wrote to Ms X to say it did not uphold her appeal. The Council then sent its stage 2 reply on 15 May 2025 in which it said:

• It had declined her request for a management transfer and her appeal. However, it partially upheld the complaint about its handling of the appeal. It said Ms X’s daughter, who was acting on her behalf, had not been sent a copy of the original management transfer decision letter before submitting the appeal.
• It accepted that there had been communication issues and apologised.
• It accepted that its communication in terms of when residents would be rehoused due to the regeneration works had been “sparse”. The Council was actively considering rehousing all residents affected by the regeneration programme. However, it said some families had a higher priority for rehousing.
• In relation to the reported damp and mould, the Council said it had previously completed works as part of a legal disrepair case. Since then, it had not received any notification of damp and mould from Ms X.
• Although Ms X had said she was effectively homeless, she had not approached the council for a homelessness assessment. The Council said she could refer herself for assessment at any stage.
• The Council said it would not rehear the management transfer appeal unless Ms X provided further evidence to support a new application.
• It said it was currently gathering information from all residents affected by the regeneration through visits and would make decisions about rehousing following these visits.
• It said the safeguarding team had confirmed that the attempted break-in did not meet the threshold for safeguarding.
• It offered compensation of £200 as it said its communication could have been better.

23. Ms X wrote to the Council’s environmental protection team on 28 May 2025 to report her concerns about asbestos, damp, disrepair and safety risks in the property. The environmental protection team replied the next day to say it did not have the powers to investigate the issues raised by Ms X.
24. On 29 May 2025 Ms X wrote to the Council and said she wanted to escalate the safeguarding and housing issues. She said she had recently found out through a letter from her MP to the Council that there was asbestos present. She asked the Council to formally investigate the failure by the environmental protection team to act on her concerns and the failure of the Council to notify residents about the asbestos.
25. On 6 June 2025, the Council wrote to Ms X’s MP to explain that it was writing to the remaining residents on the estate to confirm that its programme to rehouse residents still living on the estate was now active. It said it would be visiting residents so it could prioritise their rehousing according to their housing needs. During the remainder of June 2025, the Council and Ms X spoke and corresponded about her rehousing needs and she was rehoused on 28 July 2025.
26. Ms X made a further stage 1 complaint on 11 July 2025 and said she was seeking full and fair compensation for the prolonged risks, stress and severe impact on the family due to the Council’s failure to meet its statutory duties. She said the Council had left her for years in unsafe and derelict conditions. She requested £8,100 for a home loss payment and £6,000 for the distress, anxiety, disruption and period of homelessness.
27. On 22 July 2025, Ms X asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 as she said the Council had not acknowledged her stage 1 complaint.
28. The Council sent its stage 2 response on 29 August 2025 in which it said:

• Housebuilders had previously widely used asbestos in construction and it was only a risk to health if it was disturbed. It had checked its repairs log and could not see any repairs that would have presented a risk to the family due to asbestos.
• Ms X had made one report of damp and mould in the past 12 months. This had been in April 2025 and Ms X had refused mould treatment as she said she was being rehoused.
• Ms X had reported 4 other repairs in the last 12 months and the Council had completed all of them.
• In terms of the security of the block, it had outlined measures it was taking in a letter to Ms X’s MP.
• It said its environmental protection team had correctly advised Ms X that they could not investigate damp, mould and asbestos in the Council’s properties as they came under the remit of the housing department.
• It accepted that there had been a negative impact on the family in waiting for updates about being rehoused due to the regeneration works. It offered further compensation of £250.

Back to top

Our Decisions

The HOS findings

29. The HOS has investigated complaints (a), (b), (c), (f), (g) and (i).

Complaint (a): Ms X’s request for a management transfer

30. The Council’s management transfer policy says there are 3 circumstances in which a management transfer would apply:

• Threats to life and limb where the tenant or a member of their family is the victim of a threat or physical harm.
• Escalating threats to a person when there is a continuous pattern of more severe threats to the applicant.
• Properties in need of major work where the work cannot be carried out with the tenant in occupation.

31. The policy also says:

• The management transfer procedure should not be used if a tenant requires immediate accommodation due to an emergency. In these circumstances, the tenant should make a homeless persons application.
• If an application for a management transfer is refused, the Council will write to the applicant and give them the reasons why and outline other courses of action they may wish to consider.
• If an application for a management transfer is rejected, the applicant will be able to request an appeal. The appeal must be submitted within 14 days of the original decision.
• The Council will provide the appeal decision within 14 days (although this may be extended to 28 days if more details are needed).

32. The role of the HOS is not to decide whether the Council should have agreed Ms X’s management transfer application as this was a judgement for the Council to make based on Ms X’s circumstances and its policy criteria. The HOS has, however, assessed whether the Council’s response to the request for a management transfer was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
33. As part of her complaint on 25 February 2025, Ms X said she was requesting a management transfer due to an attempted break-in and her concerns about safety on the estate. The Council sent her a management transfer application form on the same day. As Ms X had expressed concerns about her safety, it was appropriate that the Council had sent her a management transfer application form as this was in line with its policy.
34. Ms X said in her complaint that the Council had agreed to ring her on 24 February 2025 regarding her safety concerns. Based on the evidence seen, we have not been able to confirm this. However, the evidence shows that the Council had responded promptly in sending the form following her complaint.
35. Ms X returned the completed form on 26 February 2025 and the Council arranged for a panel to consider the application on 5 March 2025, which was 5 working days after receiving the completed form. Although the Council’s policy does not show how quickly it will consider an application, the time taken by the Council was reasonable given that it had to convene the panel.
36. The Council advised Ms X by phone on 5 March 2025 that the panel had refused her application. Its records show that it sent the decision letter, along with information about the appeals process to Ms X on 10 March 2025. However, Ms X said she had not received the letter either by post or email. The Council said in its stage 2 reply dated 15 May 2025 that it had posted the letter to the property address twice. As there is conflicting information and a lack of evidence to show whether the letter was posted, it has not been possible to confirm whether the Council posted the letter.
37. Ms X submitted her appeal on 31 March 2025 and the Council wrote to her 5 working days later on 7 April 2025 with the result of her appeal. The Council therefore advised her of its decision within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
38. In summary, the HOS finds there was no maladministration in the Council’s response to Ms X’s request for a management transfer. The Council was timely in sending her the application form and in considering her application. It also acted promptly in considering her appeal and notifying her of the decision.

Complaint (b): Communicating the plans to rehouse Ms X in relation to the regeneration programme

39. Ms X wrote to the Council on 31 March 2025 to appeal its decision not to grant a management transfer. As part of her appeal, Ms X said she had not been contacted for 13 years regarding her rehousing status in relation to the regeneration programme. The Council’s records show that it visited Ms X on 1 April 2025 to gather information so it could decide on her priority for rehousing. Its notes show that it intended to obtain information such as medical needs and any disrepair issues. Given that Ms X had expressed concerns about the lack of information regarding her rehousing status, it was reasonable for the Council to visit her so that it could review her rehousing priority.
40. The Council said in its stage 2 reply on 15 May 2025 that it was actively considering the rehousing arrangements for the remaining residents on the estate by visiting them. It confirmed that it had shared the information it obtained from its recent visit to Ms X with its regeneration team. However, it said that as it was still gathering information from visits to other residents, it was unable to give a definite timescale for rehousing her. This was reasonable as it would need to assess all of the remaining residents before it could decide which residents should be prioritised for rehousing.
41. On 9 June 2025, the Council phoned Ms X to discuss her housing situation. It confirmed that it had resumed its rehousing programme and it wanted to check her preferences for the type of housing she would be interested in. It also said it wanted to check on her medical needs. In June 2025, the Council nominated Ms X to a housing association and she was rehoused in July 2025.
42. It was positive that the Council had acted to nominate Ms X for rehousing less than 3 months after visiting her on 1 April 2025. However, we have not seen any evidence that the Council had contacted her about this during the 12-month period from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025. This was inappropriate as the Council’s records confirm that the regeneration of the estate had been ongoing since 2011. After such a long period, Ms X would understandably be anxious to know about the Council’s plans to rehouse her. It was therefore incumbent on the Council to provide regular information about the decant programme, which it failed to do. The lack of information and uncertainty added to Ms X’s distress and uncertainty regarding her housing situation.
43. The Council accepted in its stage 2 responses dated 15 May and 29 August 2025 that there had been communication issues and the family had experienced a negative impact while waiting for updates about the decanting arrangements. It offered total compensation of £450 and apologised for its failings.
44. In the Housing Ombudsman’s opinion:

• The Council’s offer was proportionate to reflect the impact caused by its poor communication in relation to its rehousing plans during the period investigated.
• Its offer was in line with the HOS Remedies Guidance for instances where there has been a failure which adversely affected a resident but where there has been no permanent impact.

45. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made for this element of the complaint.

Complaint (c): Reports of damp, mould and an infestation of silverfish

46. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
47. As part of her management transfer appeal on 31 March 2025, Ms X said the property had a long history of damp, mould and infestations. In response, the Council raised an order on 1 April 2025 for an engineer to inspect the property for damp and mould. As Ms X had mentioned issues with damp and mould, it was appropriate that the Council had promptly raised an order for an inspection.
48. An engineer inspected the property on 7 April 2025, which was an appropriate timescale as the Council had recorded a target of 20 days to complete the inspection. The notes in the Council’s repairs log say that Ms X advised the engineer during the inspection that she did not want the Council to carry out any mould treatment as she was cleaning the mould herself and was awaiting rehousing. The Council closed the job on its system and noted that Ms X had declined the mould treatment.
49. The Council explained in its stage 2 reply dated 15 May 2025 that Ms X had declined the mould treatment and we have not seen any evidence showing that she disputed the Council’s account of events. As Ms X had declined the mould treatment, it was reasonable for the Council to have closed the job on its system.
50. Ms X said in her management transfer appeal that she had not been able to sleep in her bedroom due to its condition and the presence of insects. Although the Council had not noted any issues with insects during its inspections in March and April 2025, we have not seen evidence that the Council took any follow up action regarding the reports of an insect infestation. This was a failing on the Council’s part. Its website says that if a resident has a pest control problem in their home, its team of certified pest control technicians can offer advice and provide treatment. The HOS would therefore expect the landlord to have referred the matter to a pest control technician to advise Ms X or arrange for treatment. It was a failing that the Council did not follow up her concerns about the insects, despite the distress she had reported experiencing.
51. In summary, we have found there was service failure in the Council’s response to Ms X’s reports of damp, mould and silverfish. Although it dealt with the reports of damp and mould reasonably, it did not respond to her reports about the insect infestations. We have ordered the Council to pay compensation of £100 to put things right for the distress in not responding to Ms X’s report of a silverfish infestation. The amount is within the range of sums recommended in the HOS Remedies Guidance for service failures and reflects the impact of the Council’s failure on Ms X.

Complaint (f): Concerns about the presence of asbestos in the property

52. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) lists asbestos as a potential hazard. It says: “Damaged or likely to be damaged or disturbed asbestos should be assessed for repair, sealing, enclosure or removal by licensed Health and Safety Executive contractors”.
53. In May 2025, Ms X’s MP and Ms X wrote to the Council to raise concerns about the presence of asbestos in properties on the estate. In response, the Council wrote to the MP on 6 June 2025 and said:

• All communal areas of blocks on Ms X’s estate were listed in its asbestos register and it inspected these areas annually in line with regulatory guidance.
• Individual properties are surveyed for asbestos when they become empty.
• Where works are required in occupied homes, risk assessments are carried out by specialist contractors as needed.
• Where residents are concerned about asbestos, the Council will provide written updates following an inspection.

54. The code of practice produced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in relation to the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 states that landlords have a duty to manage asbestos in communal areas, but not in individual domestic properties. The duty to manage asbestos involves carrying out inspections and risk assessments. Therefore, it was appropriate for the Council to advise the MP that it carried out annual inspections of asbestos in communal areas of its blocks.
55. The Council’s document entitled ‘Our Housing Offer to You’, which is available on its website says: “We will maintain an asbestos register and conduct annual surveys of all communal areas”. Therefore, its advice to the MP was also consistent with its published commitment in relation to the management of asbestos.
56. The Council reiterated its advice about asbestos in its stage 2 reply dated 29 August 2025 and said that asbestos only poses a risk when it is disturbed. This advice was consistent with advice on the Government’s website which says: “People may come into contact with asbestos from existing asbestos-containing materials in buildings and products. If they are intact, they pose very little risk”. 
57. The Council also said in its stage 2 reply that it had checked its repairs log and confirmed there were no repairs listed in Ms X’s property that would have involved a risk to the family. As Ms X had expressed concerns about the health risks associated with asbestos, it was reasonable that the Council had checked its repairs log to see whether it had carried out any repairs that might have disturbed the asbestos.
58. The HOS has not seen any evidence that Ms X reported any concerns about damaged asbestos in the property. Overall, the HOS has found there was no maladministration in its handling of Ms X’s concerns about the presence of asbestos in the property. The Council gave appropriate advice regarding its management of asbestos and there were no failings in its response to her concerns.

g) Concerns about the security of the block

59. In her stage 1 complaint dated 25 February 2025, Ms X reported feeling unsafe due to the attempted break-in but also due to wider safety concerns about the estate. She then said in her management transfer appeal on 31 March 2025 that the estate was unsafe because of drug activity, vandalism, fly tipping and theft. She mentioned that her car had previously been broken into. Her MP also wrote to the Council in May 2025 and highlighted security concerns on the estate.
60. In its response on 6 June 2025 to the MP, the Council said that there were a number of empty properties on the estate and it was reviewing its safeguarding protocols for the remaining residents on the estate, including:

• Increased frequency of estate inspections.
• Liaison with local police to address anti-social behaviour (ASB).
• Assignment of dedicated housing officers to affected households.
• A review of temporary accommodation options where appropriate.

61. Given the concerns expressed by Ms X and her MP, it was reasonable that the Council had proposed enhanced arrangements to improve security. We have, however, found a failing because of the delay in the Council addressing Ms X’s concerns about security.
62. Despite Ms X raising these concerns in February 2025, it took almost 4 months for the Council to advise that it was looking to enhance security on the estate. The delay in the Council advising Ms X of its plans to improve security added to her distress about her safety on the estate.
63. In its stage 2 reply dated 29 August 2025, the Council said it had checked its ASB records and had not found any record of Ms X reporting ASB, apart from the attempted break-in in February 2025. It was reasonable for the Council to check whether Ms X and made previous reports of ASB as this would help inform its response.
64. Overall, we have found there was service failure in the Council’s response to Ms X’s concerns about the security of her block. Although she had not reported any specific incidents of ASB (apart from the attempted break-in), she had raised general concerns about security on the estate. Given that many of the residents had left the estate, it was a failing that the Council had not provided the remaining residents with earlier assurances about ways it intended to improve security. We have ordered the Council to pay compensation of £100 for the distress caused by the delay in the Council advising Ms X about the additional security measures it was planning to take. The amount ordered is within the range of sums recommended in the HOS Remedies Guidance to put things right where there has been service failure and the Council did not appropriately acknowledge this or put things right.

Complaint (i): The complaint handling

65. The Council operates a 2-stage complaints process.
66. The HOS Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. It says that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days. A response to stage 1 complaints must then be sent within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and a response to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
67. Ms X made a stage 1 complaint on 25 February 2025 and the Council appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 28 February 2025. It then responded to the complaint on 17 March 2025, which was 11 working days after sending the acknowledgement. It was a shortcoming on the part of the Council that it did not meet the 10-working day timescale stipulated in the Code. However, HOS has not identified any specific detriment caused to Ms X by the delay.
68. Ms X wrote to the Council on 29 March 2025 and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The Council sent a stage 2 acknowledgement on 31 March 2025, which was appropriate as it was in line with the Code.
69. The Council sent its stage 2 reply on 15 May 2025, which was 31 working days after it had sent its stage 2 acknowledgement. The Council took longer than the 20-working day timescale required by the Code and this was therefore a failing.
70. Ms X had also written to the Council on 25 March 2025 and said she wanted to make a further complaint about its failure to provide her with details of the management transfer appeals process. The HOS has not seen any evidence that the Council acknowledged this complaint and therefore this was a further failing. As a result, Ms X wrote to the Council on 14 April 2025 to ask why it had not acknowledged her complaint.
71. The Council addressed the substance of Ms X’s complaint in its stage 2 reply dated 15 May 2025. However, it was inappropriate that it had not advised Ms X it would be addressing the complaint as part of its stage 2 response. The lack of communication meant Ms X was unaware of whether the Council was dealing with the complaint. The Council’s failure to log a separate stage 1 complaint also meant that Ms X had to wait much longer for a response than the 10 working days set out in the Code.
72. Ms X submitted a further stage 1 complaint on 11 July 2025. However, the Council did not acknowledge the complaint, which was a further failing. Ms X wrote to the Council on 18 July 2025 to question why it had not sent an acknowledgement. She then wrote again on 22 July to ask for the Council to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
73. The Council sent its stage 2 response on 29 August 2025, which was 28 working days after Ms X’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The time taken was inappropriate as it was longer than the 20 working days set out in the Code.
74. In summary, the HOS has have found the following failings in the Council’s complaint handling:

• There was a delay in the Council sending its stage 2 reply on 15 May 2025.
• It did not acknowledge Ms X’s complaint sent on 25 March 2025 and delayed responding to the complaint until 15 May 2025.
• It did not acknowledge Ms X’s complaint sent on 11 July 2025 and, although it had escalated the complaint to stage 2, it did not reply within the 20-working day timescale in the Code.

75. The evidence shows that the Council’s failings led to Ms X experiencing additional time and trouble in pursuing her complaints. We have therefore found there was maladministration in the Council’s complaint handling. We have ordered the Council to pay compensation of £150 to put things right in relation to the time and trouble experienced by Ms X. This award is within the sums recommended in the HOS Remedies Guidance for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the Council has not put things right.

Back to top

Conclusion

76. The HOS has found:

• There was no maladministration in the complaint that the Council failed to properly consider Ms X’s request for a management transfer.
• There was reasonable redress offered by the Council in the complaint that it failed to communicate the plans to rehouse Ms X in relation to the regeneration programme.
• There was service failure in the complaint that the Council failed to deal effectively with Ms X’s reports of damp, mould and an infestation of silverfish.
• There was no maladministration in the complaint that the Council failed to properly respond to Ms X’s concerns about the presence of asbestos in the property.
• There was service failure in the complaint that the Council failed to properly respond to Ms X’s concerns about the security of the block.
• There was maladministration in the complaint that the Council failed to deal with Ms X’s complaints properly.

LGSCO Findings

77. LGSCO has investigated complaints (d), (e) and (h).

Complaint (d): Reports of being homeless due to her fear of returning to the property

78. The Council told Ms X on 15 May 2025 about the process for referring herself to its homelessness service for help if she felt she could not continue to live safely in her current home.
79. The Council says it has no records of any contact by Ms X with its homelessness service after 15 May.
80. Ms X’s representative told us they had not approached the homelessness service for help as they felt the Council (in its role as landlord) should be taking action to move her.
81. My view is the Council properly advised Ms X about process she should follow for assistance from its homelessness team. She then decided not to pursue this. I have not found fault by Council in its response to Ms X’s reports about being homeless.

Complaint (e): Safeguarding needs

82. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean they cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)
83. In its complaint response of 15 May 2025, the Council told Ms X it had spoken to its safeguarding team about the break-in and her situation. It explained the threshold for a safeguarding investigation is the referral of a concern about an adult with care and support needs who is experiencing or at risk of abuse or neglect, and unable to protect themselves from this because of their needs. The Council told Ms X its safeguarding team considered her situation did not meet this threshold.
84. My view is the Council properly considered and responded to Ms X concern about her need for safeguarding. I have not found fault on this part of her complaint.

Complaint (h): The response of the environmental protection team

85. The Council said in its complaint response of 29 August 2025 its environmental protection team had correctly advised Ms X it could not investigate damp, mould and asbestos in the Council’s properties as they came under the remit of the housing department.
86. One of the principles of public law is that a local authority cannot take enforcement action against itself. This means that the environmental protection team could not take enforcement action in relation to a council-owned property. Therefore, it was appropriate for the environmental protection team to advise Ms X it did not have powers to investigate. It also told her it had forwarded her concerns to the Council’s housing team, which was helpful. It was then the Council’s responsibility, in its role as Ms X’s landlord, to investigate her reports of disrepair.
87. My view is the Council’s environmental protection team properly explained to Ms X why it could not investigate these issues, and that they were the responsibility of the Council’s housing department.
88. I have not found fault by the Council on this part of Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Conclusion

89. LGSCO has not found fault with the Council.

Back to top

Action required

HOS orders and recommendations

90. Within 4 weeks of our final decision the Council must:

Apologise to Ms X for the faults identified in this report.

Pay Ms X additional compensation of £350 comprised of:

• £100 for the distress caused to her by the failures in dealing with her reports of damp, mould and an infestation of silverfish.
• £100 for the distress caused to her by the failures in responding to her concerns about the security of the block.
• £150 for the time and trouble caused by the failures in dealing with her complaints.

91. The Council must provide the HOS with evidence it has complied with the above orders.
92. The HOS recommends that the Council reoffers Ms X the £450 offered during the complaints process for the impact of its communication failings if this has not already been paid.
93. The HOS finding of reasonable redress for the Council’s failures in its communication of the plans to rehouse Ms X in relation to the regeneration programme is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.

Back to top

Final decision

94. The HOS has found the above maladministration set out in paragraph 76. The Council must complete the above orders. LGSCO has not found fault by the Council.

Investigators’ decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman