London Borough of Redbridge (24 010 577)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 19 May 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X, on behalf of her mother Mrs Y, complained the Council failed to provide suitable alternative accommodation following a suitability review in July 2024. Mrs Y and her family have been in unsuitable accommodation longer than they should have because the Council has failed to offer alternative accommodation. A symbolic payment to recognise the distress caused is agreed.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, that the Council failed to provide suitable alternative accommodation following a suitability review in July 2024.
  2. Miss X says the instability of the family’s living situation has caused emotional and financial stress and severe health problems.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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

What I have and have not investigated

  1. Miss X wants to complain about matters since the family was made homeless in 2003. She says they have lived in unsuitable temporary accommodation since that time which has caused distress. As explained at paragraph three above, the 1974 Local Government Act states the Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons the complaint was not made sooner.
  2. Miss X says her mother Mrs Y, lacked the knowledge, support and confidence to challenge the Council’s decisions at the time and she was unaware of the Ombudsman’s existence. I am not persuaded this amounts to continuous good reason to have not raised any of the issues with the Ombudsman over the past 22 years. The further away in time an investigation takes place from the events to be investigated, the more difficult it is to establish facts with confidence. I do not consider there are clear and compelling reasons to consider matters from 2003. Even if I were persuaded Mrs Y had good reasons for not complaining sooner, I do not consider I could reasonably expect to now reach a clear enough view, on the balance of probabilities, about events so long ago.
  3. As complaints about disrepair in the current accommodation were made from May 2024, I have decided to investigate matters from that date onwards.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. As part of the investigation, I have:
    • considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
    • made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
    • considered the relevant law, policy and guidance.
    • discussed the issues with the complainant;
    • sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

The main housing duty

  1. 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitability of accommodation

  1. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)

Key facts

  1. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
  2. In May 2024 Miss X contacted the Council to report disrepair at the current temporary accommodation her family lives in. The issues were:
    • A burst drainage pipe outside the property
    • Toilet flush not working and broken light string in the bathroom
    • Defective floorboards on the stairs
    • Leaking ceiling when it rains
    • Damp and mould
    • Intercom not working
  3. The following day Miss X requested a suitability review of the temporary accommodation and the Council requested to carry out a joint inspection of the property. The inspection took place on 6 June. Miss X commissioned a independent surveyor who completed an inspection on 30 May. A copy of his report was forwarded to the Council.
  4. The Council forwarded a copy of the disrepair report to the agents managing the temporary accommodation on 13 June. It then followed up to find out if there had been any updates from the agents on 9 July. As the Council had not received any updates, it put a payment freeze on the rental account for that property. On 12 July the property agent notified the Council that contractors had been arranged to visit the property.
  5. The Council has not provided any further information to indicate the repairs have been completed.
  6. The Council completed the suitability review on 12 July. It took the view the current property Mrs Y’s family were living in was unsuitable. On 15 July the Council offered Mrs Y alternative accommodation. Mrs Y refused the offer saying it was not a council property, was too small, had no garden and no private parking. The property offered was a three-bedroom house and Mrs Y’s family requires a 4-5 bedroom property. The Council subsequently withdrew the offer. The family have remained in the same unsuitable property. However, in response to my enquiries the Council told me that it had found another property which it would offer by the end of February 2025. I have not received any communication from either Miss X or the Council to confirm this happened.

Analysis

  1. Mrs Y and her family are homeless and the Council has accepted it owes her the main housing duty. This means the Council must offer accommodation that is suitable for her family to occupy. Any temporary accommodation must meet needs as long as someone lives there.
  2. Miss X reported disrepair issues to the Council as the managing agents had not taken action. The information provided indicates the Council responded promptly to inspect the property and contact the managing agents. When this failed to result in action, the Council suspended the rent payments to the agents. I am satisfied the Council took appropriate action following Miss X’s contact about the disrepair.
  3. At the same time the Council considered the suitability review and determined the property was unsuitable. It offered alternative property the next day but this was subsequently determined not to be a suitable offer. There is no evidence to suggest a further offer of alternative accommodation has been made to Mrs Y despite the Council indicating a property had been found and would be offered. This means the family has been living in unsuitable accommodation for seven months after it was deemed unsuitable. This is fault.
  4. I note that in response to their complaint about the housing situation, the Council offered a payment of £800. This was not accepted by the family. Our guidance on remedies suggests a payment in the range of £150 to £350 per month where someone is deprived of suitable accommodation. Therefore, the offer made by the Council in September 2024 would be an amount at the top end of this range. However, as the family has continued to live in this unsuitable accommodation, I consider a higher amount is now appropriate.

Back to top

Action

  1. To remedy the injustice caused to Mrs Y as a result of the fault identified above, the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:
    • Apolgise to Mrs Y. 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;
    • Offer Mrs Y the property it says it has identified as suitable if this has not already happened;
    • Make Mrs Y a symbolic payment of £2,450 to acknowledge the distress experienced by living for seven months from July 2024 in accommodation the Council has deemed to be unsuitable; and
    • Make Mrs Y a symbolic payment of £350 per month for every further month (up to a maximum of six months) the Council does not make an offer of suitable alternative accommodation. In the event Mrs Y refuses an offer of temporary accommodation and seeks a review of the suitability, the payment will only be applicable if the review request is upheld.
  2. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

  1. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings