Summary: We found fault by the Council on the complaint made by Ms B on behalf of her daughter about it failing to ensure her accommodation was mould free, review its suitability, and deal with her complaint properly. It failed to send its decision on its suitability in writing, consider whether it needed to assess hazards, keep suitability under review, and delayed dealing with her complaint. This caused anxiety, frustration, and a lost opportunity for an early resolution. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment, and remind staff about action required on cases.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains on behalf of Ms C about the Council failing to:
1. ensure her temporary accommodation was free from mould;
2. consider whether the accommodation was suitable;
3. tell her of her right to ask for a review of its suitability;
4. move her despite saying it would consider offering her alternative accommodation; and
5. act on her reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. As a result, she and her family were caused a great deal of stress, worry, frustration and inconvenience, and remained in unsuitable accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
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. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
8. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have not investigated the following:

• Damage to personal belongings/health: Claims about damaged property are for the courts to consider, not the Ombudsman.
• Temporary accommodation: Usually, we cannot investigate the suitability of temporary accommodation given once a council has accepted it owes a housing duty. This is because the law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right.

I have investigated whether the Council should have kept the suitability of the temporary accommodation under review.

• Housing benefit overpayment: This was because there was a right of appeal to a statutory tribunal about it.
• As we received Ms C’s complaint in May 2024, we would usually only investigate the Council’s actions from May 2023. This is because we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. I exercised discretion to investigate this complaint from September 2022 when she moved in to the property. In doing so, I considered all the circumstances of the case, including: the time taken by the Council to deal with the complaint; her making a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service; her children and their health issues.
• I investigated Ms C’s complaint to May 2024 when she complained to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered all the information Ms B sent, including the notes I made of the telephone conversation we had, as well as the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms B and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Homeless law and guidance

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
13. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
14. Examples of applicants with priority need include those with children, who are pregnant, or who are vulnerable due to age or disability.
15. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

Interim and temporary accommodation

16. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
17. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
18. 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 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)
19. 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 paragraph 17.2)
20. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.
21. Housing authorities have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review, and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which might affect suitability, until such time as the accommodation duty ends. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 17.8)

Review Rights

22. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of various decisions, including:
1. their eligibility for assistance; and,
2. the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193).
23. Councils must tell applicants in writing about their review rights.

Council Housing Allocation Policy (September 2022)

24. The policy uses a banding system to prioritise applications for housing. These are:

• Gold: This includes applicants with group one medical or welfare needs or high disrepair needs. This would include the housebound due to medical and housing conditions, for example.
• Silver: This includes those with group two medical or welfare needs or are homeless with a local connection. This would include those who have severe and enduring mental illness which cannot be managed, and a move would substantially improve their wellbeing.
• Bronze: This includes those who committed unacceptable behaviour.

25. Those with an exceptional housing need are placed in an Emergency Band and offered accommodation directly based on their specific needs. This is for those whose housing circumstances could deteriorate to such an extent to place household members at risk. It includes those who have a need for Extra Care and those where one or more members of the household have significant medical needs that can only be met through an offer of a property which meets their specific needs.
26. When assessing an applicant’s bedroom need, an adult single person with three children under 16 is entitled to a three-bedroom property. A child over the age of 18 is included in an applicant’s household for bedroom entitlement where there are continuing care responsibilities due to medical or disability needs. Children over 18 not needing such care are excluded from the household for this purpose.

What happened

27. Ms B explained her daughter, Ms C, has three children. They are now aged 19, 17, and 4. All three have either physical and/or mental health problems with the youngest also having sleeping issues.
28. In April 2022, Ms C made a homeless application to the Council. She was placed in bed and breakfast accommodation in June. The Council awarded her Silver Homeless banding with an effective date of 13 June. The same month it accepted a prevention duty to her.
29. Ms C moved into her current housing association accommodation in September. The accommodation was a flat in a block and had two small bedrooms. The older children shared a bedroom and the youngest slept with Ms C in her room, in a small double bed. She said she was told by the Council it was for six months, but there was no evidence of this. There was no evidence of the Council writing to her to explain why she had been offered this accommodation.
30. In September 2023, the Council placed her in band ‘EC Exceptional Operational Reasons’ with an effective date of 18 September. The Council told her the accommodation was offered as interim accommodation. There was no explanation about why it had told her this at this point in time when she had been living in it for 12 months.
31. Several weeks later, the Council offered her the property as temporary accommodation as it accepted a full homeless duty to her. It also told her of her right to review and appeal this decision.
32. Ms C now needed a four-bedroom house.

Complaint a): ensure her temporary accommodation was free from mould

33. Ms C was unhappy the Council failed to act on her reports of severe mould in the accommodation. She said she suffered mould for a long time, and it was so bad she replaced beds and clothing, for example, along with other possessions.
34. The Council confirmed an officer visited Ms C in November 2022. The notes recorded the mould in her flat was ‘bad’ and she had told the landlord.
35. The Council’s records showed an officer next visited her in June 2023. The officer recorded there was a ‘Slight issue with mould’ which Ms C had raised with the landlord. The officer offered to liaise with the landlord about it but, Ms C said she was dealing with the landlord and did not need help.
36. In August, Ms C emailed the Council about the risk to her children’s health from the mould. She said the accommodation was ‘covered in mould’.
37. In November, Ms C sent the Council photographs of mould in both bedrooms. An officer visited the following month and noted the mould ‘present in her accommodation is bad’. In its complaints response, the Council accepted the officer recognised she had done everything to ventilate it, and no washing dried inside because of communal driers. The officer saw recurring mould spread to clothing, some of which were covered front and back in it. The officer noted Ms C ventilated rooms, had the heating on, as well as the dehumidifier. She cleaned the walls each day.
38. The Council explained the landlord’s contractors thought it was because of moss on the roof and blockages round the guttering. Trees and foliage at the side of the property may also have been a factor. Jobs were again raised with the contractors to do the works after the landlord accepted jobs were not previously raised following recommendations. The landlord told the Council this issue was now resolved and jobs raised.
39. In its stage 2 response to her complaint in May 2024, the Council noted Ms C confirmed in April that mould issues were now resolved. The landlord paid her £1,300 compensation (delays, not responding to her complaint within timescales, and distress/inconvenience).

My findings

40. I found fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. The Council was aware of the mould in the accommodation following a visit in November 2022 when an officer recorded it as being bad. Although the evidence showed it was aware Ms C had contacted the landlord about it, there was nothing to show the Council took any action itself in response. There was no contact with the landlord, for example, to check what, if any, action it was taking to resolve the problem. Nor was there anything showing the Council checked with Ms C to see if the problem was resolved. This was a property the landlord provided on behalf of the Council.
2. In August 2023, Ms C contacted the Council again. There was no evidence the Council acted on this report about the accommodation being covered in mould.
3. The works the landlord said would be done were not done through its failure to raise jobs on the recommendations of contractors it used. Had the Council contacted Ms C, or the landlord, about whether the issue was resolved, she may well not have been in the position in November of still living with mould. The evidence showed there was a serious problem of damp and mould at this point. This satisfied me that but for the identified fault, Ms C might have had the works to solve the problem done sooner. This lost opportunity meant she and her family suffered from damp and mould in the accommodation for longer than needed. She also suffered anxiety and frustration.

Complaint b): consider whether the accommodation was suitable

41. Ms C argued the accommodation was not suitable for her and her family. This was because of the recurrent, extensive mould problem, along with high raised concrete shower tray causing a tripping hazard for the youngest child, and the bathroom having no working extractor fan or even a window.
42. The Council carried out an initial suitability assessment of the accommodation in August 2022, a month before she accepted it. This was completed over the telephone and not provided in writing at the time of the offer. I have seen a copy of the assessment done on the telephone.
43. In August 2023, she told the Council the family was overcrowded in the accommodation and the bathroom was a health hazard. She referred to the risk from mould to her children’s health. Ms C sent medical evidence about mould and mentioned disturbance from neighbours. She explained all these issues affected the health of her children.
44. At this point, the accommodation was likely interim accommodation even though there was no evidence it had told her this formally in writing until September, a year after she first moved in. The same month, it told her the accommodation was now offered as temporary accommodation as it accepted it owed her the full housing duty. This explained it considered the accommodation was suitable. It set out what it had considered which included size. The letter told her she had the right to ask for a review of the decision.
45. In October, she made a formal complaint which included her concern the property was a health hazard. The following month she also complained to the landlord. She sent a letter of support to the Council from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS).
46. In its stage 2 response, the Council said it was for Ms C to speak to the landlord about her concerns with the bathroom. It explained as it decided these did not make the accommodation unsuitable, it was unnecessary for it to deal with it. The Council later explained it was under severe pressure with limited resources. The concern with the shower was seen as a housing ‘want’ not a need. This meant it was appropriate for Ms C to deal with the landlord about it.
47. Ms C claimed the Council told her the eldest was no longer considered a member of her household when she turned 18. In October 2024, the Council confirmed it was satisfied she still had caring responsibilities for her daughter which meant she was assessed as needing a four-bedroom property. The Council confirmed her bedroom need for most of her stay there was three, although this changed to four when her middle child turned 16.

My findings

48. I found the following:
1. As I have seen no evidence saying otherwise, I found Ms C was in interim accommodation from September 2022 until it was formally confirmed 12 months later. I consider the failure to tell her the basis on which she was occupying the accommodation in September 2022 was fault. It was also fault not to explain to her in writing why it considered the property was suitable for her and her family.
2. I am satisfied as interim accommodation, and as there was no right of review against its decision about suitability, we could look at how the Council considered its suitability. I note the Council carried out a suitability assessment in August which briefly noted this was a two-bedroom property for a family with a three-bedroom need. It noted Ms C had raised no concerns about its layout, location, or size, and the medical needs were all mental health.
3. I consider the Council should have liaised with the landlord about the possible hazard the raised concrete shower tray presented to Ms C’s youngest child. This was because this was a potential hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (Housing Act 2004). In its Operating Guidance (para 19) it considered the potential for harm from falls associated with a ‘bath, shower or similar facility’. It specifically mentioned children under 5 being most likely to fall in a bath or shower. The main cause being slipping when getting in and out of the bath or shower.
4. I am also satisfied the Council had notice from November 2022 to September 23 that there was an ongoing problem with mould which its own officers recorded as serious and not of Ms C’s making. This was also a potential hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
5. I am satisfied, therefore, that when alerted to these problems, along with the impact the accommodation was having on her children and their health, the Council could have considered whether it needed to review the suitability of the property in all the circumstances and consider whether it had hazards. The failure not to do so was fault.
6. When the Council told Ms C of her right to challenge the suitability of the property in September 2023, she was told of her right to ask for a review of the decision. This meant we could not consider issues about the suitability of the accommodation from this date because she had the right to challenge the decision through the courts. It also meant we could only consider whether the Council needed to keep the suitability of the accommodation under review from this date. For the same reasons set out above, I consider the Council should have considered carrying out a review of the suitability of this accommodation.
7. I am satisfied the failures identified caused Ms C an injustice. She lost the opportunity to have the suitability of the accommodation reviewed again by the Council. I also took account of the fact she could have challenged the suitability of the property when told about it was now temporary accommodation, but did not do so.

Complaint c): tell her of her right to ask for a review of its suitability

49. Ms C complained the Council failed to tell her of her right to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation. As a result, she could not challenge its decisions.

My findings

50. I found no fault on this complaint. This was because she was told of the right to ask for a review when the Council accepted it owed her the full housing duty.

Complaint d): failing to move her

51. Ms C was unhappy about the Council failing to move her despite telling her initially she would only be in the temporary accommodation for six months.
52. The Council had no record of any officer saying this to her. It said it would ‘remain open to a move to alternative temporary accommodation’ for Ms C in its stage 1 response. She was in the Silver Band under its housing allocation policy, but Ms C considered she should be in the Gold Band because of previous domestic abuse. The Council explained she was not homeless through domestic abuse. The evidence Ms C provided when she made her homeless application confirmed the reason for moving was the landlord wanting the property back.
53. The Council confirmed it had not decided the accommodation was unsuitable for her but recognised her desire to move. Due to her restricted area preferences, wanting to remain in social housing, and the size of accommodation needed, this could take a long time. This was why the Council agreed to move her to an alternative three-bedroom temporary accommodation as and when it became available.
54. Ms C was unhappy the Council told her she no longer needed to bid for accommodation as she was in an emergency band and would eventually receive a direct offer of alternative accommodation. It explained before a property was advertised, an assessment was done to see if it would be suitable for the applicant or household in that band. Direct offers were approved by a senior officer and had to meet an applicant’s assessed needs. Where there are multiple households for which the property was suitable, it was allocated to the one with the oldest effective date.
55. As a result of this investigation, officers again spoke to Ms C about widening her preferred areas and after considering another area, she was nominated for a suitable four-bedroom social housing property. She accepted the property which was having works completed.
56. At stage 1 of the complaint procedure, the Council told her it expected to see a sharp decrease in the amount of time a household like hers would remain in the Emergency Band before a suitable offer of permanent accommodation was made. It ended by stating there was a reasonable prospect, without making promises, she would have an offer of suitable and affordable housing within the next few months.
57. At stage 2, the Council accepted while it was understandable to want to reassure homelessness families that there would be a timely resolution, what was said at stage 1 was inappropriate as it suggested it was likely. This was arguably misleading given the lack of suitably sized social housing in her preferred locality. The Council apologised for this and acknowledged it when it offered her £200 for failings.

My findings

58. I found no fault on this complaint causing unremedied injustice because:
1. There was no evidence of the Council saying her stay at the accommodation would be only for six months.
2. The bids she made were unsuccessful. This was because she was not highly ranked enough in her banding to succeed.
3. She had to wait for alternative accommodation through a direct let but, had limited her preferred areas to just one, as was evidenced on her application form.
4. I saw no fault in her banding. She was placed in the correct banding for her and her family’s needs.

Complaint e): act on her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

59. Ms C was unhappy about the lack of action on her reports of antisocial problems with several families in the block which scared the children who moved from their home to avoid domestic abuse.
60. In August 2023, the records show she contacted the Council about the neighbour’s screaming and shouting in the corridors through the night.
61. When she made a formal complaint shortly afterwards, the Council responded at stage 1 confirming a new antisocial behaviour officer was appointed to lead investigations of ASB by the landlord in the block. The landlord would liaise directly with residents.
62. The landlord confirmed it had not received any reports from Ms C about problems. It could only find an anonymous report she made about the smell of cigarette smoke, loud talking, children playing, and a domestic incident in another flat. It had no report of ASB from her.

My findings

63. I found no fault on this complaint as I have seen no evidence of the Council failing to act on her reports about neighbours. It told her the landlord had appointed an ASB officer and action was being taken alongside the landlord and the police to address general problems in the area. I also note the landlord had no record of reports from Ms C and the only evidence I have seen of her contacting the Council was about neighbours shouting in the corridors.

Complaint handling

64. I have also considered Ms C’s additional complaint about the Council failing to deal with her formal complaint properly.

My findings

65. She complained towards the end of October 2023 and the Council acknowledged it 13 days later. This was outside its target of 3 working days.
66. An officer visited and spoke to Ms B in November and wrote with his response on 15 December. It partially upheld the complaint. The target was to respond within 20 working days, but it would let her know if more time was needed. While a little late, it was clear that as there was a need to visit and see the accommodation, more time was needed than the target 20 working days.
67. On 6 March 2024, Ms B complained again on behalf of Ms C saying they had responded to the stage 1 reply and asked for it to go to stage 2 but had heard nothing. The Council acknowledged her letter six days later. While the complaint review was due on 27 March, it missed the deadline. The Council provided its stage 2 response on 10 May.
68. I am satisfied there was fault handling Ms C’s complaint as the target date of March was missed by two months. This is fault and caused injustice to Ms C in the form of frustration and inconvenience when she had to chase the Council for its response.

Back to top

Agreed action

69. I considered our guidance on remedies. I also considered the offer the Council made at stage 2 of the complaints procedure which included: £200 for the distress caused; an apology; asking an officer to discuss areas of preference with her and explain how direct lets worked; prepare income/expenditure form so affordability was robust and clearly evidenced; training for officers on affordability assessments and inclusion of contributions from non-dependent children in homeless households; regular review of available temporary accommodation units for her; discussion with staff about honest and realistic communications about time it may take to secure accommodation.
70. The Council agreed to carry out the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send a written apology to Ms B and Ms C for failing to: be more proactive with the landlord when alerted to potential hazards with the property; provide her with a written record of its August 2022 suitability decision; consider whether her reports needed assessing as hazards; keep the suitability of the accommodation under review when alerted to potential hazards and changes; ensure there were no delays with her formal complaint.
2. Pay £500 to Ms C for the distress caused from the identified fault.
3. Remind relevant officers of the need to:

• liaise with landlords about homeless accommodation being provided where a tenant raises potential property hazards.
• promptly confirm decisions and offers of accommodation, including suitability, in writing.
• consider whether problems raised need assessing under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
• keep the suitability of interim and temporary accommodation under review when information is received about its condition or the household’s health.
4. Remind complaint officers of the need to follow the complaints procedure when dealing with a complaint.

71. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

72. We found the following on the complaint made by Ms B on behalf of her daughter Ms C against the Council:

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman