Summary: Ms B complained that the Council has failed to ensure her temporary accommodation is kept in good repair and has failed to move her to alternative accommodation. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault because it delayed in completing pest control treatment in September 2020 and delayed in completing proofing works to Ms B’s flat. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and make a payment to her.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that the Council has failed to:
• ensure her temporary accommodation is kept in good repair; and
• move her to alternative temporary or permanent accommodation.
2. Ms B says the accommodation is not suitable for her and her young child and the living conditions have caused them distress and affected their health. She says that, because of mice infestations, they were forced to stay with her mother for a lengthy period, sleeping on the floor. She also says she has been put to expense and inconvenience in trying to resolve the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 all the information provided by Ms B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
6. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

7. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation.
8. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
9. There is a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
10. Councils have an ongoing duty to ensure the accommodation it provided a suitable, and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability, until such time as the accommodation duty ends.

Background

11. Ms B and her young son have been living in temporary accommodation provided by the Council in October 2017 in the form of a one-bedroom flat. The Council later accepted a main homeless duty to them and Ms B was placed on the Council’s housing register and became eligible to bid for two-bedroom properties through the choice-based lettings scheme.

Suitability

12. In December 2018 Ms B requested a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation. The Council completed a review in February 2019. As part of the process, a medical assessment was completed. It decided the accommodation was suitable for Ms B’s temporary housing needs and continued occupation. It wrote to her explaining this and informed her that she had a right to pursue the matter through the court. Ms B did not do so.
13. In July 2020 Ms B made a Housing Disrepair claim because of damp and mould in the property. The works were completed in February 2021 and the claim was closed.
14. The Ombudsman cannot usually investigate matters where someone could take the matter to court. In this case, some of Ms B’s concerns about the repair issues were covered in the Council’s statutory suitability review and, if she disagreed with the Council’s decision, she could have appealed to the court. In addition, the damp and mould issues were dealt with by the legal disrepair claim.
15. Accordingly, I cannot investigate these issues. However, I will consider the other issues raised by Ms B below.

Mice infestations

Key facts

16. Ms B reported a mice infestation to the Council on 9 September 2020. She says she found mice and droppings in the bedroom, kitchen, living room and in her and her son’s clothing. At night mice were scratching the walls keeping them awake, there was a horrible smell and there were dead mice everywhere. They had to stay at her mother’s home, sleeping on the living room floor while the matter was resolved. Ms B says she had to hire a cleaner to help her clean the flat, pay for her clothes to be dry-cleaned and buy extra storage to keep her food safe from the mice. She says the infestation was caused by the fact that her neighbour moved out and the balcony door was left open for weeks until the Council secured it.
17. The Council’s Hygiene Services officer visited on 18 September and 6 October 2020 to complete pest control treatment.
18. On 8 October 2020 the Estate Officer advised the Regeneration of Voids team that the neighbour’s balcony door was open.
19. On 11 October 2020 the Council’s computer systems were subject to a criminal cyber-attack.
20. On 16 October 2020 a contractor forced entry to the neighbour’s flat and secured it. The contractor advised there was no evidence of mice.
21. On 31 October 2020 Ms B complained that there were still mice in the flat and the Council had not taken the matter seriously.
22. On 3 November 2020 a Hygiene Service officer completed a further treatment.
23. On 5 November 2020 the Hygiene Service manager sent an email to the complaints officer saying, “I have spoken to the officer who attended. He confirmed that the bait has been taken and the resident has not seen any mice for quite some time. This would indicate that the poison has worked and has broken the reproductive cycle. There is now a proofing issue in the boiler cupboard which can now be addressed by [Hackney Housing] now the infestation has ceased”. He sent another email saying, “although the bait has been taken and the sightings have decreased there is a proofing issue mainly in the boiler cupboard”.
24. On 12 November 2020 the complaints officer wrote to Ms B explaining the treatment had been effective but the Hygiene Service officer had “identified areas in your property where proofing is required in order to prevent mice from gaining further access, he went on to say that this rectification is essential to eradicate the infestation fully. The main problematic area identified was the boiler cupboard”. She said the issue had been reported to the repairs team.
25. The Council says it cannot confirm whether the job was raised because, at the time, the housing repairs database was not available because of the cyber-attack.
26. The same day Ms B asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 stating that the mice were still active.
27. The Environmental Operations Team sent a further request to the Housing Repairs Team on 15 December 2020 regarding the proofing works to the boiler cupboard.
28. On 7 January 2021 Ms B sent an email to the council saying she had not received a stage 2 response. A complaints officer responded stating that, to escalate her complaint, it needed to establish whether the repairs team were aware of the proofing works requested by environmental services. The officer explained that the Council was having problems with its IT systems because of the recent cyber at and this had resulted in delays in responding to complaints because of the team’s inability to access a number of systems. She explained that a further response would be provided once the team had established whether a repair had been booked to complete the proofing works. She said that, once the works had been completed, Ms B was able to request that her complaint be escalated if she remained dissatisfied.
29. On 22 January 2021 the Council wrote to Ms B explaining it was only able to complete emergency repairs because of the lockdown restrictions in place because of COVID-19. But, as soon as the restrictions eased, it would advise her of an appointment date.
30. On 25 February 2021 a contractor visited to complete proofing work to the boiler cupboard but, by this time, Ms B had arranged for a private contractor to complete the work. She was under the impression the contractor would also complete proofing work to the rest of the kitchen as she had been told this was required, but he did not do so.
31. In August 2021 Ms B reported another mice infestation. She said the Hygiene Service officer had told her proofing works needed to be done, but the Repairs Team were now saying there was no need for proofing. She said she and her son had again been forced to stay at her mother’s property which was causing them significant distress. They had no stability, having to move out every time there was a mice infestation.
32. As a result, the Head of Building Maintenance and Estate Environment sent an email to officers on 29 August 2021 saying, “could you arrange for a follow-on job to seal around pipes and skirting”.
33. A job order was raised on 31 August 2021 to “multi-seal around pipes and skirting in the kitchen”. The work was completed 14 September 2021.

Analysis

34. In the absence of evidence to prove the mice infestation was caused by the balcony door being left open, I cannot recommend the Council reimburses Ms B’s expenses for cleaning and replacing items damaged by the mice. It is, however, open to her to make a claim against the Council’s insurance and, ultimately, take the matter to court. The courts are better placed than the Ombudsman to reach a view on issues of liability and quantum.
35. I find the Council delayed in treating the mice infestation. The Council’s website states that the pest control service “will usually be able to give you an appointment within two working days”. In this case, the Council did not attend until nine days after Ms B reported the problem.
36. The Council says treatments are generally carried out over three visits with visits being 3 to 4 weeks apart depending on how heavy the infestation is. In this case, the three visits were completed within seven weeks. This is in accordance with the Council’s procedures.
37. I find there was a significant delay in completing the proofing works to Ms B’s flat. The Council’s website says ‘normal’ repairs should be completed within 21 working days. The works should therefore have been completed by the end of November 2020.
38. The Council attended on 25 February 2021 but did not complete any works because the work to the boiler cupboard had already been completed by Ms B’s own contractor. However, in November 2020, the Hygiene Service officer raised a job order for “essential” proofing work. Although the boiler cupboard was identified as the “main area”, the fact it is referred to as such suggests there were also other areas that required proofing work. In September 2021, in an email to Ms B’s local councillor, Hygiene Service accepted proofing works were necessary, including behind the washing machine in the kitchen and holes in the boiler/metre cupboard and under the bath and in the lounge cupboard. I find the Council was at fault in failing to complete these works by the end of November 2020.
39. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that if the Council had completed all the required proofing work within the appropriate timescale, the second mice infestation would not have happened. The lengthy delay in completing the works therefore caused Ms B and her son a significant injustice. They suffered the distress and inconvenience of another mice infestation and had to stay with Ms B’s mother for a month, sleeping on the floor. Ms B was also put to time and trouble and expense in having to arrange her own contractor to complete some of the required works because she was worried that a further infestation would take place if the work was not done.

Handling of Ms B’s complaint

40. In the Council’s stage 2 response to Ms B’s complaint, it referred her to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) if she remained dissatisfied and wished to pursue the matter further. In reliance on this advice, Ms B complained to the HOS in July 2021. It explained that her complaint was outside its jurisdiction and she should, instead, have complained to us.
41. I find the Council’s failure to signpost Ms B to the correct ombudsman service was fault and put her to time and trouble in complaining to the HOS as advised but then having to complain to us as well.

Ms B’s request for a medical assessment

42. Ms B complained to the Council saying she had been requesting a medical assessment for herself and her son but had not received the requested forms. She said she had contacted the temporary accommodation team on 21 January 2021 about a medical assessment and the officer said that, once she received Ms B’s medical evidence, she would send her a form to complete. She had spoken to the officer again on 15 March 2021 but had still received no forms.
43. The Council sent medical forms to Ms B on 21 May 2021. Ms B returned her medical form together with supporting evidence for herself and her son the same day but she did not include a completed medical form for her son. The Council acknowledged receipt of the documents Ms B had submitted and asked her to submit a health form for her son via a web link which was included in the email. It said that, on receipt of the form, an independent doctor would consider the latest information to see if any medical recommendations were applicable. The Council explained that, as Ms B was a homeless band applicant, medical conditions would not attract any additional housing priority on the waiting list. But medical conditions may influence the type of property that was suitable for her to bid on.
44. Once Ms B returned her son’s medical form, the Council completed a medical assessment. The outcome was that there was no specific medical reason why her current accommodation was unsuitable. The assessment also recommended no specific requirements for rehousing. So, Ms B remained in the same band and remained eligible to bid for two-bedroom properties.
45. The Council accepts there was a delay in sending Ms B medical forms. But says this was because of the cyber-attack which affected the systems used by the medical team. I accept this was outside the Council’s control. In any event, the delay did not cause Ms B an injustice because she did not miss out on an increase in banding and she was able to continue bidding for suitable properties in the meantime.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• apologise to Ms B for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the first pest control treatment in September 2020 and in completing the proofing works to her flat;
• pay Ms B £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience she and her son suffered;
• apologise to Ms B for the time and trouble she was put to in having to complain to both the HOS and to us; and
• issue a reminder to staff clarifying the circumstances in which a complainant should be referred to the HOS or to us.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I find the Council was at fault in that it delayed in completing the first pest control treatment in September 2020 and in completing proofing works to Ms B’s flat.
48. I find the Council was also at fault in wrongly referring Ms B to the HOS.
49. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman