• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in awarding her the correct priority on the housing allocations register. She also says the Council allocated her unsuitable accommodation and failed to make adaptations to meet her family’s needs. Based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in awarding the correct priority and Mrs X and her family were left in unsuitable accommodation. These faults caused Mrs X and her family an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council has placed her and her family in unsuitable temporary accommodation since October 2017. She says this has affected the health and well-being of her family, particularly her mother and her daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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

4. As part of the investigation, I have

• considered the complaint and information received on behalf of Mrs X; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council;

5. I provided Mrs X and the Council with a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments. I considered the comments I received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that explains how it prioritises applicants and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme (Housing Act, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. The law says the following categories of persons must be given ‘reasonable preference’ through the council’s allocations scheme:

• Homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on welfare medical grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

8. The Council uses the following banding scheme to give reasonable preference:

• Band A+ Emergency and Top Priority
• Band A Emergency and High Priority
• Band B Standard Priority
• Band C Non-Urgent Priority
• Band C- Initial Preference

9. The Council’s policy explains that those with a priority need will be placed into one of the above bands.

What happened in this case

10. Mrs X and her family were evicted from their property in September 2017. Mrs X’s mother (Mrs Y) lived with her. Mrs Y suffered from ill health and mobility problems. Mrs X’s three children also lived with her. Her daughter (B) was sixteen years old at the time and had been diagnosed with autism and eczema.
11. The Council accepted a full housing duty to the family in October 2017 and registered Mrs X in Band C. On 13 October 2017, the Council offered Mrs X a two-bedroom ground floor flat (Property A) as temporary accommodation. Mrs X initially refused the offer because she said they needed a three-bedroom property as Mrs Y required her own bedroom. On 17 October 2017 the family accepted the offer at Property A.
12. On 1 January 2018, Mrs X told the Council that the property was damp and plagued with rodents. She also requested a review of the Council’s assessment of her banding. On 15 January 2018, the Council wrote to Mrs X and acknowledged her request for a review. The Council asked Mrs X to explain why she felt the assessment was wrong and to provide any new information in support of the review. The Council asked Mrs X to provide this information by 29 January 2018.
13. On 15 January 2018 the Council’s accommodation officer visited Property A. The next day the officer sent an email to the occupational therapy team and confirmed that damp and mould were evident in all rooms and there was evidence of mice infestation, as well as leak on the bathroom ceiling. The officer requested pest control treatment be carried out and for a surveyor to investigate the cause of damp and mould at the property.
14. The Council wrote to Mrs X four days later. It said it had instructed the landlord to carry out a survey of the property. It said that it had a made a referral for an occupational therapist to assess Mrs Y’s housing needs. The Council told Mrs X that the living room was expected to be used as a bedroom and having three young children in one bedroom may have contributed to the condensation.
15. On 2 February 2018 the accommodation officer visited Property A again. She contacted the landlord and stated that the mould in the property had not been treated. She also asked if a structural survey of the property had been completed.
16. On 12 February 2018 the accommodation officer referred the case to a medical advisor and asked her to consider whether Property A was considered suitable for the family. She attached copies of a letter from Mrs Y’s GP and B’s hospital consultant. The GP wrote that Mrs Y had poor mobility which restricted her from having a bath. The GP went on to say that Mrs Y felt weak and achy and attempts of using the bath led to falls and injury. The hospital consultant wrote that B had an allergy to mould and that “it would be beneficial if she was provided with an environment where there is no mould”. The medical advisor considered the information and recommended a bathboard and seat for Mrs Y and that the damp should be treated as soon a practicable.
17. On 3 March 2018 Mrs X contacted the Council and requested an update on her banding review. She said she had submitted medical documents for Mrs Y and B to the housing team. She said the condition of the house was getting worse and her mother was “essentially bedbound”. The Council responded to Mrs X by email the next day. It said the review was ongoing and once completed she would be informed of the decision in writing.
18. On 7 March 2018 the accommodation officer contacted the landlord of Property A and asked for the mould to be repaired. The Council inspected the property on 20 March 2018 and found that the walls in the affected area were clean and free from black mould. However, on 25 April 2018, the Council found that the mould had resurfaced and asked the landlord to treat the walls with anti-fungal solution and paint.
19. On the same day the Council’s occupational therapist visited Property A and carried out a special needs housing assessment for Mrs Y. The occupational therapist noted that Mrs Y could manoeuvre around the property without difficulty and recommended a bathboard to enable her to use the shower and a shower curtain. She also recommended a property with level or lift access and level access washing facilities.
20. On 8 May 2018 the Council wrote to Mrs X with the outcome of her banding review. The Council said it had considered the occupational therapy report and medical information provided by Mrs X. The Council said that Mrs X had been correctly assessed at Band C.
21. On 19 November 2018 the Council found that the mould at Property A had resurfaced again and asked the landlord to carry out repair works. On 21 November 2018, the Council asked the landlord to fit a shower rail with a curtain. The Council said that Mrs Y required a showerboard, but this could not be provided until the shower rail was fitted.
22. On 16 January 2019 Mrs Y requested a review of the Council’s decision that Property A was considered suitable. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 28 January 2019 and accepted that Mrs X’s current accommodation was not suitable. It said that it had placed Mrs X on an urgent list to move to more suitable accommodation. The Council went on to say that Mrs X’s housing banding would be increased from C to A with a priority date of 10 January 2018, as this was the date Mrs X first informed the council that there was an issue with damp and mould at the property.
23. On 23 January 2019 the Council offered Mrs X another temporary accommodation, Property B, a two-bedroom ground floor flat. On 30 January 2019 an occupational therapist was asked to assess the suitability of the property. The occupational therapist said that the property was suitable and would meet Mrs Y’s needs. The occupational therapist recommended a bath lift or showerboard depending on Mrs Y’s preference.
24. On 20 February Mrs X and her family moved into Property B. On 4 March 2019 the occupational therapist visited Mrs Y to see how she was getting on in the new accommodation. The occupational therapist recommended grab rails at the front door and above the bath, four inch raised toilet seat, toilet surround and 27-inch showerboard.

Analysis – was there fault leading to injustice?

25. The Council has acknowledged that in October 2017 Mrs X and her family should have been placed in Band A. The Council identified this in January 2019 following Mrs X’s request for a second review of the suitability of Property A. It backdated the priority to January 2018 as this was when Mrs X requested a review of the suitability of the property A and subsequently provided the Council with medical information. In January 2019, the Council offered Mrs X and her family another temporary accommodation, Property B. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries the Council confirmed that it did not consider Property B to be ideal, however said it was “suitable as temporary accommodation”. The Council confirmed that in August 2019 Mrs X and her family moved into a suitable property which they viewed and accepted.
26. The unsuitability of the temporary accommodation has caused Mrs X and her family an injustice. Mrs X and her family lived in unsuitable accommodation for 22 months. This was a difficult period for them with the size, and standards of accommodation.
27. It appears likely that the delay in awarding Band A resulted in the loss of opportunity to bid for properties Mrs X would have been successful in obtaining had she been in a position to make such a bid. The Council agrees that  “had the appropriate banding been given at the onset, the family could have been successful, depending on their willingness to accept all types of properties that are adapted or that the potential to be adapted." I do consider the injustice to Mrs X and her family amounts to the lost opportunity to live in a suitable property between January 2018 and August 2019. I cannot definitely say that Mrs X would have moved to a property that better met the family’s needs during this period as I cannot definitely say that a bid would have been made but it is likely that if a bid had been made it would have been successful.
28. In March 2018 the occupational therapist carried out an assessment of Mrs Y in Property A. As this was a temporary property, she recommended interim adaptations to the accommodation. She recommended level access accommodation with level access facilities for a permanent property. However, the Council failed to complete the adaptations at Property A, because of a mistake between Mrs X’s family and another family. Furthermore, following the recommendations, the Council carried out three property inspections but failed to identify the adaptations had not been completed.
29. In total Mrs X and her family lived in unsuitable temporary accommodation for 22 months. The Council has awarded a Band A priority in line with its policy and backdated this to January 2018. However, this does not remedy the prolonged, avoidable injustice it caused Mrs X and her family. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends a financial remedy for the distress, hardship and inconvenient that can arise where a council has not provided suitable accommodation. In this case I recommend £250 per month, for the period October 2017 to August 2019.
30. Mrs X has had to pursue the Council regarding this matter for 18 months and despite completing a suitability review in May 2018, the Council only accepted fault in January 2019.

Agreed actions

31. Within one month of the date of the final decsion the Council will:
    • 1. Apologise to Mrs X and her family for the significant delay in awarding a Band A priority in line with its housing allocations policy;
      2. Pay Mrs X and her family £5500 to remedy the prolonged and unnecessary injustice they experienced;
      3. Pay Mrs X £250 for the time and trouble she experienced in pursuing her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have found evidence of fault causing injustice for which I have recommended a remedy. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page