Summary: Miss B complains the Council did not properly address concerns about mould in her temporary accommodation. She also complains the Council tried to move her to accommodation that was not suitable. I find fault in the Council delaying in responding to the concerns about mould. However, I do not find fault in how it considered the suitability of accommodation it offered.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Miss B, complains the Council did not deal with her concerns about damp and mould in her temporary accommodation. She says the Council then tried to move her on two occasions to accommodation that was not safe due to the proximity to family members.

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. We cannot 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered the information Miss B provided and spoke to her about the complaint, then made enquiries of the Council. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss B and the Council for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Law and Guidance

7. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
8. Homeless applicants may request a review of the suitability of accommodation offered within 21 days. Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
9. If a person is found intentionally homeless, the main housing duty does not apply. However, a council may provide accommodation on a discretionary basis if, for example, the family has children who would be at risk if it did not. In such a case the council may provide accommodation in line with its duty to the children under section 17 of the Children’s Act 1989. The applicant will not have the right to review the suitability of the accommodation, in the same way as if the council owed the main housing duty.

Background

10. Miss B became homeless in 2013. The Council assessed Miss B and found she was intentionally homeless, so it did not owe the main housing duty. However, Miss B had children, so the Council offered her long-term temporary accommodation in Property A, using its discretion under the Children’s Act.
11. Property A was owned by an organisation who leased the property to the Council. The Council managed the property and contracted a company to carry out repairs. Tenants would normally contact that company directly for repairs.
12. At first Miss B had no concerns about Property A. However, she says that from later in 2013 she noticed damp and mould. Miss B says she raised this repeatedly with the Council from 2013 onwards. The Council on the other hand says its temporary accommodation team first logged the issue of mould in February 2018.
13. In the repairs team’s log, it is recorded in mid-2014 that the kitchen wall gets very damp and mouldy. It asks for someone to attend and wash down.
14. Miss B provided an email she received from a Councillor dated April 2015, which says the issues of mould are being dealt with and have not been forgotten. Also, an email from the Head of Tenancy Services to that Councillor, which says she has passed the enquiry about damp to the relevant person.
15. Miss B provided a support letter from a care agency, which she says was sent to the Council in February 2017. The letter says it is in support of Miss B’s request for new accommodation because her current accommodation is unsuitable for reasons including damp and mould. She provided another email from her carer to the Council, dated March 2017, which again says the house is very damp. It says the previous year someone from the Council’s repairs team visited the property and sprayed bleach, which Miss B is allergic to.
16. In February 2018 Miss B’s MP wrote to the Council to raise Miss B’s concerns about mould. In the Council’s response it says it visited Property A in July 2017 and found black spot mould and water penetration via the render of the property. It says Miss B refused an antifungal washdown of the walls. The Council has provided its repairs log, which also says Miss B refused a washdown in July 2017. It does not mention anything about her being allergic to bleach. The log says:
• ‘DAMP – water penetration evidence to side elevation, rear elevation recently re rendered. Condensation is cause of mould to rear bedroom. Raise job for intrusive inspection dr to meet on site. Damp – Project manager attending to assess property.
17. There is no indication in the log that any further action was taken in respect of the damp or mould.
18. In late February 2018, an officer from the temporary accommodation team contacted Miss B, who said she was allergic to bleach. The officer then contacted its repairs team. His email says Property A has severe mould and asked if it had any bleach free products it could use. The repairs team said it did not. It recommended Miss B leave the property while it carried out the treatment.
19. The officer suggested a homemade non-bleach treatment to Miss B’s support worker but said this was something the Council could not get involved with. He said he was sure it would make no difference for her to leave the property due to her severe allergic reaction.
20. In June 2018, the Council received a further enquiry from Miss B’s MP about the mould issues. The Council wrote to its repairs team and asked if it had identified structural damp or mould. The Council then responded to the MP to say that the issue was mould rather than damp ingress. The officer said its repairs team did not have any bleach free products, but he had previously suggested Miss B contact the local discretionary fund to see if they could fund a private contractor who could secure bleach free products.
21. In late October 2018, the officer identified a bleach-free mould remover spray and emailed a separate contractor asking if it could purchase this and wash down the property. It is not clear what the outcome of this was.
22. In early November 2018, the officer visited the property and identified that there was severe mould, encouraged by substantial areas of damp ingress. He asked the repairs team to appoint a damp surveyor. The repair team assessed that the repairs needed to the property were extensive and Miss B needed to move out. It completed reports, which the Council says show the damp ingress was only to one area in the kitchen and this would not have contributed to mould throughout the rest of the property. It found mould in the rest of the property was due to condensation.
23. It offered her another property, Property B, but Miss B was concerned this was close to a family member who she had an injunction against. The Council initially did not consider the move would cause a risk to Miss B. However, following discussion with an agency supporting Miss B it instead offered her a different property, Property C.
24. Miss B made a complaint to the Council about the delays in dealing with the mould. She said many of her belongings were destroyed. The Council did not uphold Miss B’s complaint but passed the matter to its insurance team to consider whether she could make a claim against its insurers.
25. Miss B moved into Property C in January 2019. In May 2019 she contacted the Council again to ask for compensation for her belongings. She also said she had been in hospital with a respiratory problem earlier in the year. The Council did not accept that it was at fault or that disrepair at the property caused mould, other than damp in the kitchen. However, it offered Miss B a £500 payment in recognition of the family circumstances she found herself in.
26. Miss B contests that disrepair was only in the kitchen. She says since moving out she has kept in contact with her neighbours and knows the owner carried out extensive repairs, not only to the kitchen.
27. In August 2019, the owner of Property C served a four-month notice to quit. The Council at this point accepted the main homeless duty for Miss B and offered her Property D, which Miss B viewed in November 2019. Miss B initially accepted the property but then raised concerns about its proximity to family members. The Council asked for more information and a list of areas where Miss B had family. Miss B provided information from the police, so the Council withdrew the offer of Property D on the basis it was not suitable.
28. The Council’s timeline suggests Miss B then stayed in Property C until August 2020, at which point she moved into Property E. The Council says it offered Property E in line with its discretion under the Children’s Act. It is not clear why the Council accepted the main homeless duty in November 2019 but not in August 2020.

Findings

29. We will not normally investigate complaints brought more than 12 months after the issue occurred. In this case there were ongoing issues with Miss B’s accommodation over more than a year, and she complained to us within 12 months of the outcome of her complaint to the Council. I have therefore investigated the issues going back to July 2017. I have also commented on the position as far back as 2014 to give context.
30. I have investigated to main complaints from Miss B:
• The Council did not properly address the issues of damp and mould
• The Council tried to move Miss B into accommodation that was not safe

Damp and Mould

31. I find fault in how the Council responded to Miss B’s concerns about mould.
32. The Council’s response is that it only logged concerns in February 2018. However, the evidence available shows its repairs team were aware of mould in the property from 2014 and the Council itself was aware in 2015. The repairs log suggests the repairs team did a washdown in 2014 but it is clear the problem persisted, and Miss B continued to raise this.
33. The repairs log also notes water penetration in July 2017. Therefore, it is clear there was evidence of a possible disrepair issue as far back as July 2017. The repairs log talks of inspections but there is no record of any taking place. In February 2018, the contractor simply said it did not have any bleach-free products.
34. I understand Miss B being allergic to bleach was an obstacle. I cannot say whether there were any suitable bleach-free products the repairs team should have obtained and can see why the temporary accommodation officer was not certain of the best course of action. However, the Council had recorded that Miss B had severe mould issues. Its repairs team knew there was damp and possible structural problems in the kitchen. It was responsible for the maintenance of the property. It needed to do something to address this and work with Miss B to find a solution.
35. I note in February 2018 the repairs team suggested Miss B temporarily leave the property while any inspections, repairs and a washdown took place. However, the Council did not discuss any such options with Miss B. Instead, it only recommended a potential homemade product then let the matter lie. It was not until November 2018, 18 months after the 2017 visit, that the Council took action to address the issue by moving Miss B out of the property.
36. There is a dispute between Miss B and the Council about whether the cause of the mould throughout the property was due to disrepair or lack of ventilation and upkeep. This is not something I can resolve. It does not affect my findings as it is more relevant to Miss B’s claim for property damage, which is something I cannot make a finding on. I also cannot make any findings about any harm the mould caused to Miss B’s physical health.
37. However, the evidence shows there was a delay of at least 18 months in properly addressing the issue. The fact the Council was aware of the problems as far back as 2014 and 2015 should have added to the need to act in 2017/18. The delay is fault and caused significant distress to Miss B.

Unsafe Accommodation

38. I do not find fault in how the Council went about offering Miss B new accommodation, either in November 2018 or November 2019. On both occasions the Council offered Miss B a property and, when she raised concerns, removed that offer within a matter of days. I understand Miss B is concerned the Council did not immediately accept her concerns on either occasion. However, the Council is entitled to ask for evidence of the unsuitability of the property before it makes a decision. It properly considered the evidence and withdrew the offers.
39. It is not clear why the Council accepted the main housing duty in November 2019 but says it did not do so at any other time before or after. However, this does not impact on my findings as the Council removed the offer and found alternative accommodation. If Miss B has any concerns about her current property and considers she should have had a right to review its suitability, she would need to raise that as a new complaint.

Consideration of Remedy

40. I have found fault in the delays addressing the issue of damp in the kitchen and mould throughout the rest of the property. I recommend the Council apologise to Miss B for the delays.
41. Miss B says the mould caused harm to her health and damaged her belongings. She asks that the Council pay compensation for this and suggests the belongings were worth around £9,000.
42. I cannot make a finding on what, if any, link there was between the mould and Miss B’s health problems. Providing compensation for personal injury is not within the Ombudsman’s role or powers as only a court could make that decision.
43. I also cannot make a finding on the property damage. This is because I cannot say what the cause of the mould was throughout the property, other than the kitchen. As already outlined, there is a dispute between Miss B and the Council that I cannot resolve. For that reason, any claim for property damage would again need to be decided by a court, or through an insurance claim.
44. I can recommend a financial remedy for the distress caused to Miss B. As already outlined, it is my view the delays caused significant distress. I note the Council offered Miss B £500 as a goodwill gesture. Normally we will recommend between £100 and £300 for distress, or more if we consider that distress is particularly significant. In this case, the £500 the Council has offered is not out of line with what I would have recommended. My understanding is the Council has not yet paid this amount to Miss B as the complaint was ongoing. I therefore recommend the Council pay Miss B the £500 in recognition of the distress caused.

Agreed action

45. The Council has agreed to, within a month of this decision:
• Apologise to Miss B for the delays in dealing with the damp and mould
• Pay Miss B £500 to recognise the distress caused

Back to top

Final decision

46. The Council is at fault in the delays resolving the issues of damp and mould.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman