Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to properly review whether her temporary accommodation was suitable for her and her family to live in and failed to properly deal with a cockroach infestation within the block of flats in which she lives. There was fault in the Council’s decision-making process. The Council has agreed to apologise, move Miss Y to alternative accommodation as part of an estate regeneration plan and pay her £150 to remedy the uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council failed to properly review whether her temporary accommodation was suitable for her and her family to live in and failed to properly deal with a cockroach infestation within the block of flats in which she lives.
2. Miss Y said while the Council have acted to treat her flat for cockroaches, it failed to treat the building itself. This meant the cockroaches repeatedly returned to her property, despite individual treatments. This led to Miss Y and her young child being bitten by cockroaches.
3. She said the infestation led to severe anxiety, particularly as she has a young family, including a crawling baby. She said the review did not consider all the information she provided fully, which led to uncertainty about whether there would have been a different outcome.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Miss Y to gain further detail about the complaint before making enquiries to the Council. I reviewed the information Miss Y and the Council provided before making a draft decision.
8. I gave the Council and Miss Y the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

9. A council must ensure all accommodation it provides to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206)
10. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is a continuing obligation. The council must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.8)
11. A council is responsible for the state of repair of temporary accommodation it provides to homelessness applicants, even if it does not own or manage the property.

What happened

12. In 2015 the Council accepted it had a homeless duty towards Miss Y, who was pregnant, her partner and young child. The Council provided Miss Y and her family with temporary accommodation in a block of flats in 2015.
13. Between February 2018 and March 2019, the Council’s pest control team visited Miss Y’s property 20 times to investigate and treat a recurring cockroach infestation.
14. Miss Y requested a review of the suitability of the housing for her family in March 2019. She asked for the review based on the impact of the infestation and other issues including mould on her family’s health.
15. Miss Y submitted letters from her GP, her health visitor and her child’s nursery in support of her review. The letters referred to the risk and impact of living in the infested accommodation on the family’s health, including injuries to both Miss Y and her child from cockroach bites. Miss Y also raised concerns about her partner, who was diabetic, living in the property as the family felt unable to cook at home. She said this meant he was struggling to maintain his blood sugar level as he was eating pre-prepared food to reduce the spread of the infestation and hygiene within the property. Miss Y also said she was worried her baby, who was then four months old, would begin to crawl soon and be at risk of eating either the treatment for the cockroaches or a cockroach itself. The letters also indicate that the infestation was impacting on Miss Y and her child’s mental health.
16. The Council visited Miss Y’s property at the end of March 2019 after Miss Y reported finding cockroaches in her kitchen. The Council treated the property but recorded not having seen cockroaches while on site. The Council then treated the entire block of flats for cockroaches including treatment of each flat and communal areas including the rubbish area and chutes.
17. The Council reviewed the suitability of Miss Y’s accommodation in May 2019. It found the property was suitable for Miss Y’s family. The Council’s decision letter explained that Miss Y’s flat had been inspected and no traces of cockroaches were found. It also said the Council had not received reports of cockroaches since March 2018, meaning the infestation had been remedied. It also said there was no need to move on the grounds of health.
18. Four days later the Council again treated Miss Y’s block of flats for cockroaches.
19. In response to enquiries, the Council said its records showed there were other reports of insect activity between January and March 2019 but these records were not available to the officer at the time of the review and were not considered. However, it said the level of activities reported and active treatments would not indicate a different outcome for the review. It said it was unable to establish a link between the infestation and the family’s health that made the property unsuitable, although it accepted the infestation and treatments had an impact on the family. It acknowledged there was no reference in the review to an undated letter from the child’s school.
20. Given that the reviewer did not have access to all the records from the Council’s pest control during the review and did not mention the letter from the child’s school in its decision, the Council offered to carry out a fresh review of the suitability of the accommodation.

Findings

21. I have found the Council was not at fault in its response to Miss Y’s reports about the cockroaches. The Council visited and treated the property several times over a number of months before eventually trying to treat the entire block of flats on two occasions. While it is unfortunate the infestation could not be resolved the Council’s actions were responsive and appropriate at the time.
22. While the Ombudsman cannot say a decision is right or wrong, simply because a complainant disagrees with it. The Ombudsman can consider the process the Council used to make its decision.
23. The Council’s decision letter referred to there being no reports from Miss Y about the pest problem from March 2018 and assumed the issue had been remedied. That was incorrect. The records show the Council had treated the entire block for a cockroach infestation just three weeks before the review decision. This suggests that although the Council may have been actively trying to treat the infestation, the problem had not been resolved.
24. The decision letter also says there was no independent confirmation or specialist report to confirm the reported bites were from cockroaches. However, the letter from Miss Y’s GP specifically refers to a bite from a cockroach. There does not appear to be full consideration of this letter within the Council’s decision.
25. The Council has also acknowledged the letter from the school was not referenced in the decision so it cannot show this was considered by the decision-maker.
26. Consequently, the Council made its decision without potentially relevant information being available to its decision-maker. It has also not demonstrated the available evidence was properly considered. This was fault.
27. This fault caused Miss Y uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different if the review had been carried out without fault and a loss of confidence in the Council’s ability and commitment to ensuring the property she lives in is suitable for her and her young family.
28. The Council agreed to carry out a fresh review and to allow Miss Y to submit further information for it to consider. This was an appropriate remedy.
29. However, in responding to a draft of this decision, the Council explained it had carried out structural surveys of the flats and decided to move all residents to alternative accommodation.
30. Consequently, Miss Y was offered and accepted an alternative property. A review of the suitability of the original flat is no longer appropriate as a remedy. As the Council are now moving Miss Y to an alternative property, which she has accepted and considers suitable, no further remedy is required.

Agreed action

31. To remedy the injustice caused by the Council’s fault it is recommended the Council, within one month of a final decision in this case, apologise to Miss Y and her family in writing, and pay her £150 to reflect the uncertainty caused.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. I found fault leading to personal injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman