Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not take appropriate action to resolve reports of disrepair in the temporary accommodation it provided. Mr X also complained the Council declined his request to review its decision to discharge its duty to accommodate him. He says the Council’s actions caused him avoidable stress and worry. We found some fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not take appropriate action to resolve reports of disrepair in the temporary accommodation it provided. He also complained the Council did not respond to his telephone calls and emails regarding this matter. Mr X also complained the Council declined his request to review its decision to discharge its duty to accommodate him. He says the Council’s actions caused him avoidable stress and worry and negatively impacted his health. He would like the Council to provide him with permanent accommodation and provide a financial remedy.
2. Mr X says he has reported issues of disrepair at the property since he moved in several years ago.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated the complaint referred to in paragraph one for the period May 2023, (12 months before Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman), to May 2024.
7. I have not investigated the period before May 2023 because there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate prior to this date.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
9. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
10. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
11. Mr X and the Council provided comments on a previous draft of this decision. I considered their comments and issued an amended draft decision. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the amended draft decision. I considered their further comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

12. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
13. 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 suitable accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193). The accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty is called temporary accommodation. There is no duty on councils to provide a permanent secure or assured tenancy.

Suitability of accommodation

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. In deciding whether accommodation is suitable, councils must have regard to various factors, including the state of repair and condition of the accommodation. Suitable accommodation must be free from disrepair such as damp and mould. Damp and mould growth is identified as a hazard in the Housing Act 2004.
16. Councils have a continuing duty to keep the suitability of accommodation under review. R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin)

Review rights

17. Housing authorities must provide written notifications to applicants when they reach certain decisions about their case, and the reasons behind any decisions that are against the applicant’s interests. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions (Housing Act 1996, section 202). This includes council decisions about the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted. This also includes council decisions about discharging its duty to accommodate an applicant.
18. The courts have held that a homeless applicant should be specific when drafting a review request. The High Court determined an email giving reasons for refusal of an offer of accommodation was held not to be a review request, even though it had been sent to a dedicated email address (R (Bereket) v Waltham Forest LBC (QBD 4 November 2021)).

What happened

19. The amount of information provided as part of this investigation was considerable. In this decision statement, I have not referenced every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not provide details of everything that happened.
20. The Council accepted a main housing duty towards Mr X.
21. Mr X moved into a flat provided as temporary accommodation by the Council. Mr X’s son lives with him. The temporary accommodation is managed by a private company, Company A.
22. In May 2023, Mr X reported several issues of disrepair in his accommodation, including water leaking through the walls. Mr X said he had reported this to his landlord, but the issues remained unresolved.
23. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s concerns and asked one of its teams to investigate and provide an action plan to resolve the issues.
24. Mr X contacted the Council again in June 2023 about the issues with his flat. He said his accommodation was affected by damp and mould. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s concerns and suggested it may consider carrying out a suitability assessment regarding the accommodation.
25. Mr X reported further issues regarding his accommodation to the Council, including the presence of mice and/or rats. In August 2023, Mr X told the Council he considered the flat was not suitable for him and his son to live in.
26. The Council responded and told Mr X it had arranged for a pest control company to visit his flat. A few days later, the pest control company visited.
27. In late August 2023, Mr X complained to the Council about the ongoing issues of disrepair and mould in his flat. Mr X complained the Council had ignored him; he said nobody had contacted him to resolve the issues.
28. In late September 2023, the Council carried out an inspection of Mr X’s accommodation. It identified several issues of disrepair, including water ingress into the property through the plasterwork.
29. In October 2023, the Council provided a copy of its investigation report to Company A. The Council asked Company A to provide a schedule of works to address the matters identified in the report. The Council contacted Company A again two weeks later to chase for a response.
30. The Council provided its complaint response in early November 2023. It acknowledged Mr X’s reports of disrepair and said it had contacted the landlord about these issues. The Council said the landlord had advised it they were liaising with the freeholder of the property to arrange for the repairs to be carried out. The Council also said it considered it had responded to Mr X’s calls and emails but acknowledged it had not resolved the issues of disrepair. The Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint as a result. The Council apologised for the stress this caused and said it was making every effort to ensure the landlord resolved the issues.

What happened next

31. Mr X called the Council in January 2024 and said his landlord had still not carried out the repairs. Mr X asked the Council to carry out a suitability assessment. He also asked if he and his son could be moved to alternative accommodation.
32. Later that same month, the Council told Mr X it would carry out another inspection of the property.
33. Mr X complained to the Council again in January 2024 about the outstanding issues of disrepair. Mr X said the property was not suitable for him and his son; he said the damp and mould in the property was affecting his son’s health.
34. A few days later, on 25 January 2024, the Council carried out an inspection of Mr X’s accommodation. It identified several outstanding issues of disrepair, including water penetration to some of the walls.
35. The Council carried out a suitability assessment of the property on 29 January 2024.
36. On 6 February 2024, the Council provided its complaint response to Mr X. It acknowledged the outstanding issues regarding the disrepair and said that whilst it could not carry out the repairs itself, it was responsible for making sure the landlord and the property manager resolved the issues, so the flat was safe to occupy. The Council apologised that it had not always responded to Mr X’s queries immediately but said it had been in contact with him on a regular basis. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint and apologised that some of the disrepair issues remained outstanding.
37. Mr X escalated his complaint on 22 February 2024 due to the unresolved issues of disrepair.
38. The Council wrote to Mr X on 1 March 2024. It offered him alternative temporary accommodation under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. The letter advised Mr X of his right to request a review of this decision. The letter also stated if Mr X refused the offer, and the Council deemed the accommodation to be suitable, it may discharge its duty to Mr X under Section 193 of the Housing Act 1996.
39. Mr X called the Council on 13 March 2024. He told the Council he declined the offer of alternative temporary accommodation; Mr X said he was not from the area where the alternative accommodation was located, and he needed to remain in the area where he currently lived.
40. The Council wrote to Mr X on 13 March 2024 advising him it had discharged its duty to accommodate him under Section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. The Council said it had carried out a suitability assessment in February 2024 and awarded Mr X an outer London priority in terms of where he could reasonably be offered temporary accommodation. The Council said the alternative temporary accommodation was suitable for Mr X; it said it had discharged its duty to accommodate Mr X due to his refusal of the offer. The Council informed Mr X of his right to request a review of its decision within 21 days of receipt of the letter. It said it assumed receipt to be two days after the date of the letter.
41. On 21 March 2024, the Council provided its complaint response. It said it had recommended a move to alternative temporary accommodation as it could not be sure when the works at Mr X’s current address would be completed. The Council said it had discharged its duty to Mr X because he had refused its offer of alternative temporary accommodation. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint but acknowledged it had taken a long time to address the issues that Mr X had first reported several months before. It said the complexity to resolve the issues and the need for the property to be unoccupied to carry out a full repair meant it had not been possible to complete the repairs. The Council said it was not at fault for this as a resolution would have been for Mr X to move to alternative accommodation.
42. Mr X called the Council on 3 April 2024 to complain nothing had been done since his first complaint. Mr X also discussed the Council’s decision to discharge its duty to him. He said the location of the alternative temporary accommodation was not safe for him and his son because the area was linked to an incident involving his family. Mr X also said his support network was located in the area where he currently lived, and he would struggle to cope if he was separated from that support network.
43. Mr X contacted the Council again on 15 April 2024 to discuss the Council’s decision to discharge its duty to him. The Council told Mr X it had sent its decision letter to him by recorded delivery; Mr X said he had not seen the letter. Mr X says he requested a review of the Council’s decision to discharge its housing duty to him on this date.
44. The Council provided its complaint response to Mr X on 17 April 2024. It apologised that Mr X did not receive the Council’s decision letter, (discharging its duty to him), in advance of its complaint response. The Council acknowledged Mr X had subsequently contacted it to request a review of its decision.
45. The Council wrote to Mr X on 25 April 2024 and said his request for a review of its decision was made out of time. It said the Council had notified Mr X of its decision by letter dated 13 March 2024. The letter stated any request for a review should be made within 21 days of receipt, assuming receipt to be two days after the date of the letter. The Council said Mr X should therefore have made his request for a review by 5 April 2024. The Council said it had however, provided an extension until 11 April 2024. The Council said Mr X did not make his request for a review until 15 April 2024.
46. The Council said it had considered Mr X’s case; it said Mr X had made no submissions and its records showed he had refused an offer of temporary accommodation that the Council considered to be suitable. The Council said in the absence of any evidence of an exceptional reason for failing to request a review within 21 days, and the extended period, it had declined to register Mr X’s review request.
47. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s responses and brought his complaint to us.

Analysis – action taken by the Council

48. Mr X complained the Council did not take appropriate action to resolve reports of disrepair in the temporary accommodation it provided. I have reviewed the Council’s records regarding this matter and acknowledge the Council carried out inspections and liaised with Company A regarding the issues of disrepair.
49. However, Mr X reported the disrepair, including the damp, to the Council in May 2023. The Council’s records show it did not inspect the property until late September 2023, four months later. The Council carried out a further inspection in January 2024, eight months after Mr X’s initial report, and four months after its initial inspection. The Council’s records show Mr X was in regular contact throughout this period, to report the ongoing unresolved issues.
50. The Council did not carry out a suitability assessment until January 2024. This is seven months after it initially considered taking this action and five months after Mr X stated his accommodation was unsuitable. I acknowledge the Council’s complaint response dated 21 March 2024 considered it was not at fault, as it considered a resolution would have been for Mr X to move to alternative accommodation. However, the Council did not offer alternative accommodation until March 2024, 10 months after Mr X reported the disrepair.
51. The Council’s records indicate delay by the Council as set out above; this is acknowledged by the Council’s complaint response of 21 March 2024 which stated the Council had “taken a long time to address these issues that were first reported many months ago”. It is positive the Council has itself recognised the length of time taken to address the issues reported by Mr X. However, the delay incurred is fault.
52. The delays in the Council’s management of the disrepairs caused an injustice to Mr X, namely distress and uncertainty as to when the issues would be resolved.

The Council’s decision to decline Mr X’s request for a review

53. The Council’s letter dated 13 March 2024 stated Mr X had a right to request a review of its decision. The letter stated Mr X must make his request within 21 days of the receipt of the letter, with receipt assumed to be two days after the date of the letter.
54. The Council says 21 days after the date of receipt of the discharge letter was 5 April 2024. The Council said it allowed an extension until 11 April 2024 for Mr X to request a review. It says Mr X did not request a review until 15 April 2024 and his request was therefore made out of time.
55. Although the evidence shows Mr X contacted the Council by telephone on 3 April 2024, within 21 days of the Council’s decision letter, there is no evidence to suggest he made a request for a review of the Council’s decision at that time. During this call, Mr X gave his reasons why he disagreed with the Council’s decision. The Council recorded Mr X’s contact and decided it was an expression of dissatisfaction as opposed to a review request. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make, by reference to relevant case law.
56. The Council’s letter dated 25 April 2024 set out the reasons why it considered Mr X’s request was made out of time. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
57. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding Mr X’s request for a review was made out of time. There is no fault in how it took the decision, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong. For this reason, the Council is not at fault regarding this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

58. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X for the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
2. Make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mr X in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused;
3. Provide guidance to staff on how to handle reports of persistent disrepair issues, including details of when to consider inspecting the property, and
4. Remind staff of the Council’s duty to keep the suitability of temporary accommodation under review and to consider completing suitability reviews in a timely manner.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

60. I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to address the injustice identified. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman