Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed repairing or replacing her front door after her son damaged it in October 2022. She said the delays caused her family distress. The Council has now fixed the door and offered Miss X £150 for her distress and putting her family at risk of harm. Miss X was not satisfied with this offer. There was fault in the way the Council did not ensure the contractor replaced the door within a reasonable timescale. This distressed Miss X and placed her family at risk of harm. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed repairing or replacing her front door after her son damaged it in October 2022. She said the delays caused her family distress. The Council has now fixed the door and offered Miss X £150 for her distress and putting her family at risk of harm. Miss X was not satisfied with this offer.

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. 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)
4. 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)
5. I have exercised discretion to consider events in this case back to September 2022 when Miss X’s son damaged the door. I have seen Miss X reported the issues to the Council’s contractor when the damage happened, but the door was not replaced until August 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Miss X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
7. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
8. 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

Background information

9. 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.
10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
11. 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
12. The Council repair responsibilities policy sets out the Council's responsibilities if a tenant has an issue. The Council said it would ensure issues are repaired within:
• 24 hours for emergency repairs;
• 3 working days for urgent repairs; and
• 20 working days for routine repairs.
13. The policy also confirmed changes to locks with a crime reference number or external doors that cannot be secured are classed as emergency repairs.

What happened

14. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
15. Miss X’s son has complex additional needs. He damaged the front door of Miss X’s temporary accommodation in September 2022. Miss X reported the issue to the Council’s contractor when the damage happened. The contractor agreed to repair the front door.
16. The contractor refused to repair the door. It said Miss X’s landlord needed to replace it.
17. Miss X complained to the Council in December 2022. She complained the contractor had not completed the repairs to her property.
18. The Council responded in February 2023. The Council confirmed it visited in January 2023 and saw the damaged front door. The Council apologised and said it escalated the matter with the contractor.
19. Mrs X requested the Council escalate her complaint to stage two in March 2023. She thanked the Council for escalating the matter with the contractor but said she had heard nothing since.
20. The Council responded a week later. It confirmed the stage one response accepted the front door was unsafe and raised the issue with the contractor. The Council accepted it was responsible for the delays. The Council said it raised the matter again with its contractor to arrange an appointment with Miss X.
21. Miss X and the Council continued to chase the contractor. The contractor booked an appointment with Miss X for May 2023.
22. The contractor informed Miss X, as she did not have a crime reference number and it was her son who damaged the door, she was responsible to replace the door. The contractor said it was unaware of Miss X’s sons needs. Miss X challenged this and confirmed she told the Council and the contractor about his needs several times.
23. Miss X asked the Council escalate her complaint to stage three in June 2023. She explained the contractor would not fix the door without a crime reference number and the door was still not safe.
24. The Council responded to her stage three complaint in July 2023. The Council upheld the complaint. It said the contractor should have made an exception to the usual policy of needing a crime reference number because of Miss X’s sons needs. The Council accepted the failings in this case caused Miss X avoidable distress and placed Miss X and her family at risk of harm. The Council said it would arrange for the contractor to complete the works without delay. The Council offered to pay Miss X £150 for the distress and placing the family at risk of harm.
25. The contractor replaced the door in August 2023.
26. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Miss X would like the Council to adequately compensate her.
27. In response to my enquiries the Council accepted the £150 it offered was a suitable remedy for the distress. It also accepted the offer would not be enough for placing the family at risk of harm.

My findings

28. The Council has accepted fault. The Council was responsible for the actions of its contractor. The Council did not ensure the contractor replaced or repaired the door within a reasonable timescale.
29. The Council has ended its agreement with the contractor so I will not make service improvement recommendations regarding this matter.
30. The Council policy confirmed it should have classed this matter as an emergency repair and dealt with it within 24 hours. It took ten months to replace the damaged door. This is fault and distressed Miss X. The fault also put Miss X and her family at risk of harm.
31. The Council has accepted the £150 it offered was not a sufficient remedy for the fault and injustice in this matter and the injustice it caused Miss X.
32. The £150 offer is suitable to remedy Miss X’s distress.
33. I have considered the Council’s actions in this case and the risk it placed Miss X and her family in. I set out the remedy for placing the family at risk of harm below.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Miss X by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X for not ensuring the contractor replaced her door within a reasonable timescale. This apology should be in accordance with the Ombudsman’s new guidance Making an effective apology.
• Pay Miss X the £150 it offered as an acknowledgement of the distress this matter caused her.
• Pay £500 for placing her and her family at risk of harm.
35. The Council should provide evidence of the actions taken to satisfy the recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Miss X.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman