Birmingham City Council (19 005 757)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Ms X complained about disrepair in the temporary accommodation provided by the Council. The Council was not at fault.
The complaint
- Ms X said she told the Council it needed to carry out repairs to her temporary accommodation but it did not do so. This included repairs to her boiler. She says she and her child were without hot water and heating for 11 months.
- Ms X also complains a Council officer defamed her character and inappropriately made a referral to children’s social care.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
- We can consider complaints about disrepair in temporary accommodation provided to a person under its homeless duties under the Housing Act 1996.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered:
- the information provided by Ms X;
- the Council’s replies to my enquiries; and
- relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
- Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance
- Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
- A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This becomes known as temporary accommodation once the council accepts a full housing duty.
- Temporary accommodation that councils arrange must be suitable for the applicant and their household. It should be in a reasonable physical condition and satisfy relevant health and safety requirements.
What happened
- Ms X made a homelessness application in May 2016. The Council provided interim accommodation for her and her family in June 2016. It initially decided she was intentionally homeless but later, on review, accepted a housing duty. Ms X remained in the same property but this was technically temporary accommodation from November 2016. The Ombudsman has jurisdiction in this case because the complaint is about disrepair in temporary accommodation.
- In August 2017 the Council requested an inspection of the property. Council records show it could not carry out the inspection in August 2017 because Ms X was not at the property at the agreed time. It arranged a further appointment in February 2018 but said Ms X would not open the door. It carried out the inspection in late March and the report, which it sent to Ms X in early May 2018, set out some action she needed to take and some repairs the Council needed to carry out. Ms X said the Council did not do the repairs. Council records show the management company acting on its behalf could not get access to the property to carry out the repairs. Ms X disputes the Council’s version of events and says its records are inaccurate.
- In early May 2018 the management company reported that Ms X had called them to say she had pulled the boiler off the wall. She asked it to take action to ensure it was safe. The management company attended the property and produced an incident report. The report said the damage seen was consistent with Ms X’s initial account. It called British Gas who capped the supply to ensure it was safe. Ms X says she did not contact the management company and that it was she who arranged for British Gas to cap the supply.
- The Council said the damage to the boiler was deliberate and therefore it would not carry out repairs unless Ms X paid for this. Ms X said this was slanderous. She said she believed someone from the management company had entered the property without her permission and caused the damage.
- The Council also said Ms X would need to move out of the property whilst repairs were carried out because she had been verbally aggressive. Ms X denies she was verbally aggressive.
- The Council offered Ms X electric heaters and said it would deliver them the following afternoon. Ms X said two officers made an unannounced visit to drop off the electric heaters. Ms X said the men did not leave immediately afterwards but remained in their car, which she found intimidating. She reported her concerns to the Council. Council records show it reminded the management company to make arrangements for visits in advance, and asked it to explain if more than one person was attending and to make a point of driving away immediately afterwards to avoid Ms X feeling harassed.
- Ms X consulted her MP. The Council wrote to the MP to explain the situation in November 2018. After further communication with the MP the Council agreed to carry out repairs provided Ms X moved into temporary accommodation for 48 hours whilst the work was done. A date in December 2018 was agreed. The Council offered temporary accommodation in bed and breakfast accommodation but Ms X declined this.
- When the engineers called at the property a person they believed to be Ms X was still there. She was verbally aggressive towards them so they left. Council records state the engineers returned later but Ms X was still in the property so the work could not be carried out. The engineers said they could not return until after Christmas. Ms X says she was not at her property and the woman who was there was her sister. She says she did not believe the engineers were appropriate as they did not produce “gas-safe” identification, which is why her sister would not let them in. She says they did not call again later in the day.
- The day after the attempt to carry out repairs, the housing officer made a referral to children’s social care on the basis of neglect. I understand this was because Ms X was without heating. Ms X says the housing officer acted maliciously.
- The Council offered Ms X alternative accommodation in April 2019, which she accepted.
My findings
- Ms X says the Council’s records are inaccurate. She disputes she did not allow access for the inspection report or for repairs to be carried out. She disputes she was verbally aggressive. She also disputes the Council’s account of what happened in early May 2018 about the boiler. Where there are two versions of events, I cannot say which one is correct. I have considered all the evidence provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave more weight to records written at the time of the event, such as the Council’s daily records and emails between the parties. Having considered all the information provided by both parties I am satisfied the Council was not at fault.
- Council records show the delay in carrying out the property inspection was because it could not gain access to the property. The inspection was carried out in late March 2018. Ms X said it delayed sending her the report. Council records show it sent this in early May 2018. This was not an undue delay. Ms X has provided an email dated 18 May asking for a further copy of the inspection report because she had not received it.
- Council records show it could not complete repairs because it could not gain access to the property to carry out the work.
- The Council said Ms X reported the problem with the boiler to its management company and she is recorded as having said she had pulled it off the wall. I have seen a photograph of the damaged boiler and the management company’s incident report, which confirms this is the nature of the damage found. Whilst I cannot confirm how the damage occurred, I do not consider the Council was at fault for suggesting it was deliberate damage. Nor was it fault for the Council to ask Ms X to pay for the cost of repairs due to deliberate damage.
- The Council offered electric heaters and arranged for these to be delivered. In its complaint response it said it had told Ms X they would be delivered the following day. I have not seen evidence of this. Ms X said the visit was unannounced. Even if the visit was unannounced I do not think this was fault. I note the Council did confirm it would agree all future visits with Ms X in advance to avoid her feeling harassed.
- The Council did attempt to carry out repairs just before Christmas following the MP’s involvement in the case. It asked Ms X to leave the property whilst it carried out the repairs. Ms X said she did leave and it was her sister who was at the property when engineers arrived. The Council was not at fault for asking Ms X to leave the property whilst repairs were carried out. It was also not at fault for advising the engineers to leave when faced with someone believed to be Ms X, who was being verbally aggressive.
- The housing officer made a referral to children’s social care the day after the engineers called to carry out the repairs. The officer was entitled to make the referral if she believed a child was at risk of harm. There is no evidence the referral was made maliciously. The Council was not at fault.
Final decision
- I have completed my investigation. I have not found evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman