Summary: Mr T complains the Council failed to address issues of disrepair in the accommodation it provided him, whilst deciding if it owed him and his family a homeless duty. The housing provider did not tell the Council about the disrepair, and the Council did not inform Mr T that he should escalate issues of disrepair to it if unresolved, which was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr T and make a payment to him for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The complaint

1. Mr T complains the Council has failed to address issues of disrepair in the property it placed him and his family in whilst considering whether it owed them a homeless duty. Mr T says parts of the property are no longer usable.
2. Mr T says this has caused him and his family distress and inconvenience. He says this was already a stressful time whilst he was waiting to see if the Council would accept a homeless duty towards his family. Mr T wants the Council to conduct the necessary repairs.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr T’s complaint about disrepair in the temporary accommodation
4. I have investigated the period between when Mr T and his family were placed in temporary accommodation in February 2019 until March 2021. This is the point at which the Council accepted it owed a housing duty to Mr T and his family.
5. Parts of the complaint I did not investigate are explained later in this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I read the complaint and information provided by Mr T and the Council. I spoke with Mr T on the telephone and made further enquiries of the Council.
10. I invited Mr T and the Council to comment on a draft decision and considered any comments made in response.

Back to top

What I found

11. 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.
12. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 
13. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
14. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
15. Homeless applicants may request a review of the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
16. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:

• eligibility for assistance
• not in priority need
• intentionally homeless
• suitability of accommodation
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.

These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

The council must advise applicant of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the Council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204

What happened

17. Mr T lives with his mother and two younger siblings, both of which are of school age.
18. In February 2019, Mr T and his family were placed in temporary accommodation provided by the Council. This was whilst the Council made enquiries about their application to provide them a homeless duty under the Housing Act 1996. The accommodation was operated by a management company and had a landlord, neither of which were part of the Council.
19. Mr T’s mother contacted the management company via email in June 2019, complaining that the kitchen faucet was not working in the accommodation and that water was leaking from a pipe connected to the toilet. Two further emails were sent in August 2019 asking for an update and said that hygiene was a problem. Mr T said no response was received to these emails.
20. In October 2019, the landlord of the property Mr T was staying in sent him a message that said they have asked for maintenance to repair the bathroom tiles and shower room floor. The landlord said hopefully maintenance will contact Mr T soon to arrange this.
21. Mr T sent a message to the landlord in January 2020 and said the repairs had not been completed and there were further issues in the bathroom. Mr T also said there was a problem with the thermometer and that a plumber had attended. He said the management company had said it would change it, but nothing has been done. He also said the washing machine had stopped working and again the management company had said it would send someone, but had not done so.
22. A further message was sent in February 2020 asking for an update. The landlord responded that they too would chase up the management company and they had been assured something would be done.
23. In March 2020, Mr T contacted the landlord and said a plumber had attended from the management company. Mr T said the plumber had told him the repairs required need to be carried out by the landlord.
24. In November 2020 Mr T’s Solicitor sent a letter to the Council using the Pre-Action Protocol for housing conditions claims. The letter listed four issues in the bathroom and shower room. Also included were issues with the heating, fire alarm and electrics. The letter said the Council was already aware of some of the issues but listed the landlord of the property as being the person who was notified when evidencing the Council’s knowledge of the problem.
25. All previous communications sent by Mr T about the condition of the property had been sent to the landlord or the housing management company.
26. The Council contacted the housing management company who said it was aware of some of the issues but not all of those contained in the Pre-Action Protocol letter.
27. In December 2020, Mr T was informed by the Council that the landlord of the temporary accommodation he was staying in required the property back within a week, and it arranged alternative local accommodation for his family.
28. The Council asked for updates and followed up regarding inspection dates with the housing management company, who arranged two appointments, one of which was at short notice, but Mr T cancelled them. It also said it was expecting Mr T to vacate the property imminently as it was to be returned to the landlord.
29. Shortly after Mr T was notified by the Council that an independent review officer had upheld an earlier decision that he and his family were not in priority need of homeless assistance and the Council had arranged for the family to remain in the existing property until the temporary accommodation ended on 10 January 2021.
30. On 6 January 2021, Mr T’s solicitor requested the Council continue to provide temporary accommodation pending an appeal to Court. The Council was also notified a member of Mr T’s household had tested positive for Covid-19.
31. The following day the Council agreed to the request for temporary accommodation pending appeal. The landlord still wanted Mr T and his family to vacate the property. Due to the positive Covid-19 case, the move to new temporary accommodation which was initially planned was rescheduled to 25 January 2021.
32. Mr T requested extra time so there would be an opportunity to move the family’s belongings over an extended period rather than all at once. After some discussion between the Council and Mr T’s solicitor, it was agreed there would be a weekend for Mr T and his family to move their belongings to the new property.
33. Mr T also said the new property would be unsuitable for him as it is on the first floor, as he has a disability that means he would have trouble with the stairs and there was no lift. Further he raised the issue that internet access would not be available at the time of moving and this would have a negative impact on the two children of school age in Mr T’s family, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic as they were receiving education online.
34. The Council asked for evidence of the medical condition and advised internet access was something for Mr T to resolve. It also provided alternative options for accessing the internet and advised the children could attend school if there was no internet access.
35. Information was provided to the Council about Mr T’s medical condition, and it was assessed by a housing operations manager, who advised the move should still go ahead.
36. Mr T did not move when scheduled to do so. He said the Council withdrew the offer of alternative accommodation but later also said he did not move as the new property was unsuitable.
37. The Council arranged to further extend the temporary accommodation until 2 February 2021 after a further case of Covid-19 in Mr T’s household.
38. The Council continued to ask the housing management company for progress with regards inspections of Mr T’s temporary accommodation, but it advised it would be unable to continue to provide updates due to legal complexities being dealt with between solicitors.
39. In February 2021, Mr T began legal action against the landlord of his temporary accommodation to prevent eviction from his existing temporary accommodation.
40. In March 2021, the Council agreed to accept a housing duty to Mr T and his family. It said it would continue to provide housing benefit and additional accommodation subsidy for Mr T until he is moved into other accommodation or is evicted from the current property. It said if Mr T is evicted prior to the offer of longer-term accommodation, it would again offer suitable alternative accommodation.
41. Since then, Mr T has still not moved from the property, and had been pursuing the landlord and housing management company through the Courts for disrepair of the property, although this has been discontinued. No eviction has taken place.
42. The service level agreement between the Council and the housing management company says at section 9.1 “The Provider and Council agree to liaise regularly regarding the running of the Properties and to discuss any issues”.
43. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it liaised with the housing management company regularly, but it had not raised any issues about Mr T’s disrepair complaints. It says the first time the Council was aware was when it received the pre-action protocol letter in November 2020.
44. The Council also said its view is the housing management company is responsible for addressing issues of disrepair in Mr T’s accommodation, as detailed in the service level agreement.
45. The Council conducted an inspection at Mr T’s accommodation in November 2021 following an earlier draft decision from the Ombudsman. The report found no serious defects and said there was nothing it would enforce on. The Council said it was of the view that at the point of placement the accommodation offered to Mr T would have been suitable for his needs.
46. The inspection report also listed 12 items which it says should have been repaired.
47. In response to a further enquiry letter from the Ombudsman, the Council said whilst the temporary accommodation placement letter Mr T was provided with did not make mention of the repairs process, its opinion is that Mr T would have been reasonably expected to bring matters of disrepair to the Council as he had done so in a range of other matters relating to his homeless application. It also said Mr T had a solicitor involved from the early stages of his homeless application and the PAP was served on the Council in November 2020.

Analysis

48. The Council became aware of issues about disrepair with the temporary accommodation provided to Mr T in November 2020. All previous complaints about the issues had been made to the landlord or housing management company.
49. Less than a month later, the Landlord wanted the property back and the Council arranged alternative accommodation for Mr T and his family. It agreed to assist in this by arranging the move to take place over a weekend. The Council also advised on how Mr T could overcome issues with education for the two school age children in the family.
50. In our telephone conversation, Mr T told me he did not move because he did not feel the new property was suitable. The Council considered the reasons provided and advised the property was suitable.
51. Mr T has fought eviction from his existing temporary accommodation. The Council has agreed to continue to contribute to funding the accommodation and to provide further accommodation if he is evicted prior to being offered longer-term accommodation.
52. The housing management company should have informed the Council of the complaints Mr T had made about the disrepair in the accommodation from June 2019 until November 2020, in line with the service level agreement. It was fault not to inform the Council, and whilst I accept the Council was not aware of the issues during that time period, it did not inform Mr T how to escalate issues of disrepair to the Council.
53. I note the Council’s view that Mr T could have been reasonably expected to bring the matter of disrepair to the Council sooner, however I do not agree with this view. Mr T was not provided with any information about the repairs process when entering temporary accommodation, and at which points to escalate to the Council. To not include this detail was fault.
54. It is clear once the Council did become aware that it quickly acted which could have been done sooner had the repairs process been included in its documentation provided to Mr T when entering temporary accommodation.
55. This meant Mr T and his family had to live in accommodation which had issues of disrepair and caused distress and inconvenience. This was already a stressful time for Mr T as he was waiting to find out if the Council would accept a homeless duty to his family.
56. I do not find fault in the actions of the Council after it became aware of the problems in November 2020. It has tried to address the issues of disrepair promptly via the housing management company. Around the same time Mr T was advised he would have to move as the Landlord wanted their property back. The Council quickly found new temporary accommodation for Mr T and his family and made allowances for them to move over a weekend. It was Mr T’s decision not to move because he felt the new property was unsuitable.
57. The Council does not own the property Mr T complains about being in disrepair. If the housing management company is not addressing issues raised, the Council could consider moving Mr T and his family to alternative accommodation. However, in this case, Mr T has declined to move and has fought eviction from the property and pursued legal action against the landlord and the housing management company.

Back to top

Agreed action

58. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr T and his family between June 2019 and November 2020, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of a final decision;

• Apologise to Mr T for failing to inform Mr T how to complain about issues of disrepair in his temporary accommodation between June 2019 and November 2020.
• Pay Mr T £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the disrepair problems in the temporary accommodation between June 2019 and November 2020.
• Write to the housing management company and remind it that it must report issues of disrepair to the Council, as per the service level agreement.
• Include the repairs process in temporary accommodation placement letters provided to people when entering temporary accommodation.

59. Evidence of completing these remedies should be provided to the Ombudsman.

Final decision

60. I close this investigation with a finding of fault against the Council for the reasons mentioned in this statement. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr T and his family.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

61. I have not investigated how the Council has dealt with complaints about disrepair since it accepted a homeless duty to Mr T and his family in March 2021. It is open to Mr T to ask the Council for a review of his accommodation and if he is dissatisfied with the response, he can take the matter to Court.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman