Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure that Temporary Accommodation it provided was suitable for her and her children to occupy. We found there was fault by the Council that warranted a remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X has three young children, one of whom has special needs. She complains the Council placed her in unsuitable Temporary Accommodation which had damp and mould and where there was evidence of rats. She complained that she only used the property to sleep in because of its condition and risks to her children. She stated this limited the activities she could do with her children and affected her son, who thrives on routine. She stated the situation was stressful to her also.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the complaint she made to the Council. I considered the Council’s response to the complaint and some additional information it provided.
5. Miss X 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

Housing Act 1996/Homelessness Code of Guidance

6. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to ensure accommodation is available for their occupation.
7. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
8. Homelessness applicants have a right to request a review of certain decisions. This includes the right to challenge the suitability of accommodation offered to them applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted.

Council Policy/Practice

9. The Council stated its practice was normally for officers to visit and inspect properties prior to letting them out. This was to ensure that the property was suitable.

What Happened

10. I understand the Council accepted a duty to house Miss X and in November 2022 it provided her with Temporary Accommodation (TA).
11. Miss X moved into the property on 15 November 2023. The Council could not provide any evidence that it sent Miss X a letter explaining that she had the right to request a review, and ultimately to appeal if she considered the property was unsuitable.
12. Miss X complained about the standard of the property. She complained there was damp and mould and that rats were present.
13. On 16 November, the Council carried out an inspection of the property. It says an officer found there was damp, but not mould. It stated the officer considered the property was not ‘uninhabitable’. It noted there were some rat droppings.
14. The Council arranged alternative TA for Miss X which she moved to on 7 December 2023.
15. Miss X raised a formal complaint about the standard of the TA the Council had provided, and that she lived in for three weeks. In its initial response to the complaint the Council stated someone from the Council’s Housing Department had inspected the property prior to making it available to her. The Council stated the Landlord of the property had stated the wall would be dried before a tenant moved in.
16. In a later response to her complaint, the Council accepted it had got its initial response wrong. The Council stated its usual practice was to inspect a property before someone moved in. However, in this instance officers were unable to do this because of competing demands on their time. So, there was no inspection prior to Miss X moving in. The Council explained its findings when it inspected the property on 16 November. It did not conclude the property was uninhabitable. However, it arranged for her to move to another property to allow works to be done.
17. Miss X provided us with photographs of the property showing damp and mould and a significant amount of rat droppings. She told us rats were active in the property.

Was there fault by the Council

18. We found the Council was at fault. The Council did not write to Miss X to explain that she had the right of review and appeal to challenge the suitability of the TA it placed her in. While this was fault, it did not in itself cause injustice to Miss X. This is because when she raised a concern informally, the Council moved her to another property. She did not need to use the formal review process.
19. However, there was other fault and this did cause injustice to Miss X. The Council has a duty to ensure that properties it provides to homelessness applicants with Priority need are suitable for them to occupy. Its practice is to carry out inspection visits before placing people in properties to ensure that this duty is met. In Miss X’s case, no visit was carried out, so the Council did not identify the disrepair and evidence of rats that was evident at the property. This was fault.
20. Evidence provided by Miss X indicates there was damp and mould at the property. Suitable accommodation must be free from disrepair such as damp and mould. Damp and mould growth is one of 29 hazards identified in the Housing Act 2004. Based on the information Miss X and the Council provided, I found that the Council had not taken reasonable steps to ensure the accommodation provided to Miss X was suitable. On balance, I found Miss X remained in an unsuitable property for three weeks. This would most likely have been avoided had the Council carried out the checks it should have prior to Miss X moving in.
21. Miss X had three young children, one of whom has special needs. During this time, she was caused stress and concern about the issues at the property. This led her to spend as little time in it as possible. She was also put to the inconvenience of moving to the alternative accommodation the Council found. I note the Council apologised to Miss X. However, the time spent in unsuitable accommodation and the impact to Miss X and her children was avoidable and warrants a remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. Within four weeks of our final decision:
23. To recognise the three weeks Miss X spent in unsuitable accommodation, I recommend the Council makes a payment to Miss X of £200.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. There was fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman