Summary: The Council is at fault as it placed Miss X and her family in unsuitable accommodation which caused distress and inconvenience to her. The Council has agreed to remedy Miss X’s injustice by apologising to her and making a payment of £975 to her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that emergency accommodation provided by the Council was unsuitable as it was in disrepair. In particular, she complains:
1. The Council failed to inspect the property before placing her there
2. The Council delayed in responding to her reports about disrepair.
3. She could not occupy the alternative accommodation provided by the Council as it was in disrepair and the Council had not inspected it prior to offering the property to her.
4. The Council signed off repairs despite the fact that some of the recommended works were not done.
5. Some disrepair issues were still not resolved when she moved to temporary accommodation in April 2019.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. People can challenge the suitability of temporary accommodation offered by the Council by asking for a review of that decision and apply to the court if they are unhappy with the outcome of the Council’s review. 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)
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I have:
• Considered the complaint and the information provided;
• Discussed the issues with Ms X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Ms X and the Council to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

What the Council should do

6. When a council provides interim accommodation it has a duty to ensure it is suitable for the applicant and their household. Councils should have regard to factors such as the space and state of repair and condition of the property. As an absolute minimum it must be free of category 1 hazards. This is a hazard which is a serious risk to a person’s health and safety such as damp, cold and pests. Councils should also have regard to the location and ease of access to established employment and schools.

What happened

7. In June 2018 the Council placed Miss X and her family in interim accommodation as they were evicted from their private rented accommodation. Miss X’s family includes young children. This was a four bedroom property managed by a provider on behalf of the Council. I shall call this property 1.
8. The Council’s records show officer A, Environmental Health, carried out a decent homes inspection of the property 1 earlier in the year. This inspection considers if the property meets the current statutory minimum standards for housing. Officer A identified some remedial works were needed. In early June 2018 the provider confirmed the works had been completed and the property was ready for occupation. The Council did not inspect the property 1 again to confirm the works had been undertaken before offering it to Miss X.
9. In July 2018 Miss X contacted the Council’s emergency accommodation team to complain about a number of repairs required at property 1. The Council initially raised the matter with the provider. Officer A, officer B, housing officer, and the provider then carried out an inspection of the property. They found property 1 required extensive works including blocking holes under windows in a number of rooms, covering exposed electrical wires under sink, fill holes to prevent mice infestation, secure bathroom sink, secure a bannister and treat damp and mould.
10. The provider had concerns about being able to carry out the works in the property with Miss X and her family living there due to concerns about health and safety and the volume of their personal belongings. So the Council arranged for Miss X and her family to move to property 2. Officer A carried out an inspection of property 2 shortly before Miss X was due to move in. He found the property needed a number of repairs so it could not be offered to Miss X.
11. The Council considered it had no alternative but to carry out the repairs at property 1 with the family in situ. The Council asked Miss X to reduce the volume of her belongings to facilitate the work and it offered to provide storage. Miss X declined the offer of storage as she was concerned her belongings would not be insured. The Council asked Miss X to let the provider know when she had arranged storage.
12. Miss X made a further complaint to the Council in September 2018 that no works had been undertaken and the boiler was not working. The provider inspected and sent a report to the Council. They said the boiler was working and raised concerns that the family’s actions had caused the blocked drain and damage to a door. Miss X disputes this. She has said the door handle was not secured and the outside pipes were not in the appropriate place. The contractor also raised concerns that they would be able to carry out the repair works due to the volume of Miss X’s belongings.
13. The Council has said officer B contacted another team to see if they had suitable housing in their stock to move Miss X and her family to. It is not clear what the outcome of this enquiry was but the Council did not move Miss X at this time.
14. In October 2018 the Council made a decision on Miss X’s homelessness application and decided it owed a duty to accommodate her. The Council also explained it will have checked if Miss X’s emergency accommodation remained suitable for her needs and Miss X could request a review of this decision. Miss X did not request a review at this time.
15. I understand the provider carried out some repairs to property 1 but was unable to carry out them all with Miss X and her family in situ. The Council identified property 3 to move Miss X to while the provider carried out the works. This property was a studio flat and one bedroomed flat. Miss X and her family moved to the properties in January 2019 and the Council paid for the removals.
16. Officers A and B inspected property 1 after the provider’s contractors had carried out the works. Officer B sent an email to Miss X advising the majority of the works had been completed to a satisfactory standard with the remainder due for completion in a few days. Officer B said she would arrange for Miss X to be moved to the property. Miss X contacted officer B as she had visited property 1 and considered the works had not been completed and items of post and personal belongings were missing.
17. Officer B responded and advised she considered the repairs had been carried out but items such as clearing the garden could be carried out at a later date. She also advised Miss X to contact the police regarding any missing items. Officer B advised Miss X that she could stay at property 3 if she did not want to return to the property. Miss X declined this offer.
18. Miss X moved back to the property in February 2019. She made further complaints about the boiler not working and other issues. The provider inspected the boiler and reported to the Council that it was working. Miss X has said she later provided a video which caused the provider to call an engineer who said the boiler needed replacing. The provider also identified other repairs required to the kitchen which were not on the previous schedule of works. The provider then gave notice to the Council to move Miss X. Miss X’s solicitor also requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation. It is not clear if the Council considered the review request. However, Miss X could not be moved at this time as she was recovering from an operation.
19. In April 2019 Miss X continued to complain about the disrepair. The landlord also complained to the provider that his contractors were unable to gain access to carry out any repairs. Miss X denies she would not allow access.
20. The Council started to look for alternative accommodation for Miss X. It identified an alternative property and advised Miss X she needed to vacate the property by end of April. The Council has said Miss X did not return the keys to the provider by the end of April and vacated the property on 7 May 2019.
21. In making her complaint Miss X has said the Council should not have placed her in the property as it was unsuitable due to the disrepair. This caused significant stress to her, she had to pay for additional heating due to the boiler not working properly and draughts from the holes under the windows and the property suffered from pest infestations.

My analysis

22. Miss X has made a number of complaints but the key issue for me is whether property 1 was suitable for Miss X and her family. So this is the focus for my investigation.

Suitability of property 1

23. On balance, the Council was at fault in placing Miss X and her family in property 1. It is not clear if the disrepair amounted to category 1 hazards. But this is a minimum standard and councils have to consider the condition of the property when deciding if it is suitable for the applicant and their household. The property required repairs to the extent the provider and Council needed Miss X and her family to move out in order be able to carry out the works. This leads me to conclude, on balance, the property was not of a suitable condition to be let to Miss X and her family.
24. The decent homes inspection in March 2018 identified some repairs needed to property 1. But it is not clear why it did not identify the extensive works identified in July 2018. This suggests the inspection in March 2018 was inadequate.
25. The Council’s records show it started to look for alternative accommodation in October 2018 by contacting another team. This was after property 2 was deemed unsuitable and the provider raised further concerns about doing the works with Miss X and her family in situ. I acknowledge that the size of Miss X’s household would create some difficulty for the Council in finding alternative accommodation. But there is no evidence to show the Council actively tried to find alternative accommodation between October and December 2018. The Council should also have reviewed the suitability of Miss X’s accommodation when it made its decision that it owed a main housing duty to her.
26. As I have found the Council to be at fault, I must consider what injustice those faults caused to Miss X. In doing so, I must take account of Miss X’s own actions. I am mindful Miss X did not move from property 1 until May 2019 and she continued to complain about disrepair when she moved back to property 1. But the Council offered to allow Miss X to stay in property 3 in January 2019 rather than returning to property 1. Miss X chose to move back to property 1 despite being unhappy with the condition and standard of repairs. As the Council offered an alternative property and it was Miss X’s choice to return to property 1, I do not consider Miss X suffered an injustice from February to May 2019 when she moved from the property.
27. I have not come to any view on whether there is fault in how the Council dealt with Miss X’s continued complaints of disrepair at property 1 when she moved back to the property. As I state above, Miss X chose to return to the property despite being concerned about the standard of repairs and its condition. So, there is insufficient injustice to Miss X to warrant pursuing this matter further.
28. In commenting on my draft decision, Miss X has said she declined to stay at property 3 as it was unsuitable. This is because she had to share a bed with her children, it was too far from their nurseries, the kitchen lacked a preparation area, the washing machine had to be booked and paid for and she could not have her furniture there. Miss X has also said it was more expensive than property 1.
29. The Council’s position is that the property was suitable as all members of the household had access to their own bed. The property is located approximately 15 minutes from property 1 so this would not have a significant impact on travel time to the children’s nurseries.
30. The Council has explained why it considered property 3 was suitable for Miss X and her family to stay in. I am mindful of Miss X’s concerns about property 3 and why she considered it to be unsuitable. But Miss X’s concerns about the property do not call into question the Council’s position that property 3 was suitable and she and her family could have stayed there rather than return to property 1.
31. So, I consider the Council’s fault in placing Miss X in property 1 meant she and her family lived in unsuitable accommodation for six and half months. This will have caused distress and inconvenience to Miss X.
32. Our guidance on remedies recommends a financial remedy for the distress and inconvenience that can arise where a council has not provided suitable accommodation. In this case I consider a remedy of £150 per month for the period June 2018 to mid January 2019, when Miss X was moved to property 3, to be appropriate and proportionate.

Right to request a review of the suitability of property 1

33. Miss X had the right to request a review of the suitability of property 1 when the Council made a decision it owed her the main housing duty in October 2018. However, I do not consider it would be reasonable to expect Miss X to have requested a review of the suitability at this time. Miss X thought the matter was in hand as the Council was arranging for the repairs to be undertaken. Miss X’s solicitor submitted a review request in February 2019. I do not know whether the Council considered the request but I will not pursue this matter further as Miss X was unable to move at this time so any failure of the Council to progress the review will not have caused significant injustice to Miss X.

Agreed action

34. That the Council
1. Sends a written apology to Miss X and make a payment of £975 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by placing her and her family in unsuitable accommodation for six and half months. The Council should take this action within one month of my final decision.
2. Reviews its contracts and monitoring arrangements with providers of interim and temporary accommodation to ensure the properties are fit for purpose and of an appropriate standard. The Council should explain to the Ombudsman the action taken to improve its performance in this area. The Council should take this action within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

35. The Council is at fault as it placed Miss X and her family in unsuitable accommodation which caused distress and inconvenience to her. The Council has agreed to remedy Miss X’s injustice as recommended so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

36. Miss X has complained the Council has charged her for Council Tax at property 1 after she left the property. I have not investigated this complaint as it is a new complaint and separate from the issue of the suitability of property 1. The law provides councils must be aware of the complaint and given an opportunity to investigate a complaint before we can consider it. So, Miss X should make a complaint about this matter to the Council in the first instance.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman