Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to address ongoing issues of damp and mould and anti-social behaviour in Miss X's temporary accommodation. The Council was also at fault for poor communication, delay acting on actions identified by its complaint process, and failure to keep the suitability of the accommodation under review. As a result, Miss X spent 19 months in unsuitable accommodation. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make payments to Miss X, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council's failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation. In particular, she says the Council failed to:
1. address ongoing damp and mould and anti-social behaviour;
2. consider her personal circumstances when placing her so far from her support networks;
3. carry out a suitability review when she asked for one;
4. communicate with her; and
5. carry out the actions it agreed to do in response to her complaint.
2. As a result, Miss X says she remains living in unsuitable accommodation which is affecting the mental and physical health of her and her child.

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 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)
4. 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

5. I considered the complaint and the information Miss X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Miss X and the organisation 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

Homelessness and temporary accommodation

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. 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. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
11. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main housing duty.
12. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
13. Councils must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.4 & 17.9)
14. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified. (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601)
15. Certain decisions councils make about homelessness carry a statutory right of review. The review decision then carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law. Homeless applicants have a right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, s202)
16. Homeless applicants must request a review within 21 days of the decision. However, applicants can ask a council to reconsider its decision about the suitability of temporary accommodation at any time. This might be necessary, for example, if there is a change in the applicant’s circumstances. This new decision is open to review under s202, with a new 21 day timescale. R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin)

What happened

17. Miss X lives in temporary accommodation provided under the Council's main housing duty. The property is in a borough in East London. The Council leases the property from a managing agent. The Council issued a licence to Miss X to occupy the property.
18. In November 2022, Miss X complained to the Council about ongoing issues of disrepair in her property. She said the property was affected by damp and mould and that this was affecting her and her child's physical and mental health.
19. The Council responded to the complaint at the end of November. It said:
• it accepted its communication with Miss X was poor
• Miss X could contact the Council if she had issues with the managing agent of the property dealing with repairs
• the managing agent had treated the damp the previous week, which it hoped was successful.
20. Miss X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its complaint process in early December.
21. In February 2023, the managing agents told Miss X that it was her responsibility to deal with the cause of the damp and mould. It said she was not ventilating the property properly.
22. The Council responded to the complaint in April 2023. The Council's response said:
• it apologised for the delay responding to the complaint
• it had a "large level of staff absence" in its temporary accommodation team
• a new officer would contact her "as a matter of urgency" to re-assess her circumstances and "carry out an updated assessment to ascertain the suitability of your current home"
• its repairs team had been in contact with Miss X in March to discuss the disrepair
• it would ensure its repairs team "liaise with the managing agents to find a resolution which is satisfactory or that a decision is made as to whether you should be moved on the basis of the disrepair"
• Miss X could make a claim to the Council's insurers about the property she said was damaged by the mould.
23. In early January 2024, in response to further contact from Miss X about the ongoing disrepair issues, the Council told her to contact the managing agent. In reply, Miss X reminded the Council that she had been reporting the matter to both the managing agent and the Council for well over a year.
24. In February 2024, the environmental health team of the borough where Miss X lives inspected the property and identified works needed, including treating mould, installing appropriate ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom, and replacing the kitchen door, which did not meet required fire safety standards.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided a copy of a suitability re-assessment from July 2024. This recorded Miss X's reports that:
• her child has special needs;
• the extent of the damp and mould was affecting Miss X's asthma;
• there was ongoing anti-social behaviour from other residents in the block;
• her ex-partner knows where they live, and she is in the process of taking out a non-molestation order, because he has attempted to kidnap the child previously; and
• they were far away from their support networks, which made it harder for Miss X to care for her child and meant she could not work.
26. The assessment recorded that the information provided meant Miss X needed "local temporary accommodation". The other options being "greater London" or "out of London".
27. The form is not authorised and the final section, about the suitability of current temporary accommodation, is blank.
28. At the time of writing, Miss X remains living in the property.

My findings

29. The Council has a duty to keep the suitability of temporary accommodation under review. The records show Miss X has been reporting problems with damp and mould to both the Council and the managing agent of the property since at least 2022. There is no evidence that the Council considered whether this meant the property remained suitable for Miss X and her child. This was fault.
30. The complaint response said the Council would decide whether she needed to move because of the disrepair. There is no evidence it did so. This was fault.
31. In response to her complaint, the Council also committed to ensuring an officer reviewed the suitability of Miss X's temporary accommodation "as a matter of urgency". It did not do so for another 15 months. This was fault.
32. The suitability form the Council provided from July 2024 is incomplete. It is therefore not clear whether the Council has decided the property is unsuitable. There is no evidence the Council shared the outcome of its assessment with Miss X or set out her right to a review. This was fault.
33. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted it had not acted on Miss X's reports of ASB or her concerns about domestic abuse. This was fault.
34. The records show the Council has liaised with the managing agents at various points. However, the records also show this was inconsistent and sporadic. The matter drifted for months at a time and it appears it is only because Miss X was persistent in following up that the Council has acted. Despite telling Miss X in response to her stage one complaint that she could contact the Council if she had issues with the managing agents, when she did just that, the Council directed her back to the managing agents. This was fault.
35. As it accepted in response to her complaint, the Council's communication with Miss X was poor. This was fault. This did not, however, improve after the Council upheld the complaint. This was further fault.

Managing agents

36. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
37. The Council has a licence agreement with the property provider. This includes a service agreement which sets expectations about property condition and timescales for repairs. The Council did not do enough to monitor the provider's performance and chase progress. This was fault.
38. The Council's service agreement with the managing agents says the managing agent must send a repair report to the Council within five working days of a report of disrepair, setting out the works required and how long it will take. The agreement says the managing agents should complete repairs within 28 days of a report. There is no evidence the Council received such reports. It was therefore only because Miss X complained to the Council that it knew about the issues. Nevertheless, it is responsible for the actions of the managing agents and their contractors when they act on the Council’s behalf to manage temporary accommodation. The delay completing the repairs was fault.
39. Government guidance on addressing damp and mould says: "[t]enant management of condensation and small amounts of mould should not be a substitute for assessing and addressing the underlying issue, which should always be the priority." Instead of responding to Miss X reports of damp and mould as a repair, the managing agents told Miss X this was a problem she was responsible for. This is not in line with the government guidance and was fault. The environmental health inspection identified that the property did not have adequate ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom. In failing to identify the underlying cause, the managing agents left Miss X living with damp and mould. This was fault.
40. One of the conditions in the service agreement is that the property must meet current fire regulations. This includes ensuring kitchen doors are "half-hour fire check doors". The report from the environmental health officer showed the kitchen door did not meet this standard. According to the agreement, the managing agent should complete a checklist before letting confirming the property meets the required standards. The property let to Miss X did not meet the required standards. This was fault.
41. In October 2023, we made findings of fault and injustice in another case (reference 23002418) involving this council and the same managing agent. Our findings included delay completing repairs and poor communication between the Council and the managing agents. The Council agreed to our recommendation to discuss our findings in that case with the managing agents, identify improvements, and monitor performance.
42. The faults in this case bear a striking resemblance to those in our previous investigation. There does not appear to be any improvement by either the Council or the managing agents. I have, therefore, recommended a review of all properties currently used by the Council as temporary accommodation with this managing agent to ensure they are safe and meet minimum standards.

Injustice

43. Miss X has experienced significant and avoidable distress and frustration as a result of the Council's poor communication. This is an injustice.
44. Miss X has lived with extensive damp and mould for too long because the Council has not acted to address it with the managing agents. This is an injustice.
45. The failure to ensure the property's doors met fire regulations left Miss X at avoidable risk of harm. This is an injustice.
46. The Council should have reviewed the suitability of the accommodation, at the latest, by April 2023. Had it done so, it is likely it would have decided that the property was unsuitable because of the combination of:
• Disrepair, damp and mould and its impact on Miss X's physical health
• ASB
• Risk of domestic abuse
• Distance from support networks Miss X relies on to help care for her child, who has special needs.
47. This means Miss X has lived in unsuitable accommodation since April 2023. This is a significant injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. To remedy the injustice to Miss X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• look for alternative temporary accommodation for Miss X within the Council's area, or as close as possible to the borough;
• pay Miss X £200 a month for the 19 months she has lived in unsuitable accommodation; and
• continue to pay Miss X £200 a month until the Council provides suitable accommodation or otherwise ends its duty to Miss X.
49. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
50. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Ensure the Council considers the suitability of temporary accommodation in response to complaints of disrepair, including damp and mould, and issues a written decision setting out the applicant's right to ask for a suitability review. Provide training or guidance as needed.
• Ensure officers completing suitability assessments complete the form in full and share the outcome with the applicant. And where the decision is that a property remains suitable, tell the applicant about their right to ask for a review of the decision.
• Identify and implement a way of ensuring that the Council keeps track of actions agreed in response to complaints and follows up to ensure completion.
• Complete a review of all properties currently managed by the managing agents on behalf of the Council as temporary accommodation to ensure they are safe and meet the minimum standards set out in the service agreement. It is up to the Council how it chooses to conduct this review. If the Council decides not to physically inspect all the properties, it should consider identifying and inspecting properties with repeated reports of disrepair from occupants.
51. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman