Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his repeated reports about mice issues in his temporary accommodation. He said this significantly affected his children’s health and his family’s general wellbeing. We found the Council at fault for shortcomings in the action it took, failing to carry out any suitability reviews and delay in complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about mice issues in his temporary accommodation since 2022. He is dissatisfied with how the Council has handled the matter and says the Council has neglected his concerns. He says the mice infestation has significantly negatively impacted on his children’s health and has affected his family’s general wellbeing.

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 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. 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. 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

5. Mr X says the issues have been ongoing since 2021. This is too far back for us to investigate (see Paragraph 3) and I have not been provided with good reasons why he could not have complained about this earlier period sooner. He initially complained to us in April 2023. We directed him to complain directly to the Council. The Council issued its final complaint response in October 2023. He returned to us in September 2024.
6. The scope of my investigation is from April 2022 (12 months prior to his first contact with us) to October 2023 (when he received the final complaint response).
7. I am not considering events after October 2023. We expect councils to have the opportunity to formally consider any new or ongoing matters under its complaints procedure first before we investigate. Mr X is entitled to make a new complaint if he is dissatisfied with the Council’s actions after this point.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered his views.
9. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr 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

Law and administrative background

Suitability of homeless accommodation

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. 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)
13. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is an ongoing duty. Councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.8)

Background

14. In early 2022, the Council accepted the main housing duty to Mr X. The property he and his family lived in became temporary accommodation under homelessness legislation.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

15. In early December 2022, Mr X emailed the Council about mice in his flat. He raised safety concerns for his baby as the landlord had not fixed the issue. The Council responded a few weeks later to ask if he had called the landlord to fill the entry points.
16. In late February 2023, Mr X emailed the Council. He said his flat was not suitable for habitation as his child had breathing issues due to the mice. He wanted to move.
17. In March 2023, the Council asked Mr X’s availability for it to inspect his home. The Council contacted Mr X’s landlord asking them to arrange pest control. The landlord responded confirming they carried out treatment the previous summer and also that day. They provided reports of the work done.
18. In early April 2023, Mr X emailed the Council saying the mice caused his child’s health conditions and he needed help.
19. In late April 2023, Mr X came to us. We said he needed to complete the Council’s complaints process. He then made a formal complaint to the Council.
20. In early May 2023, Mr X contacted the Council again. The Council responded to say it received reports from his landlord about past work. It contacted the landlord to fill the entry holes swiftly in the boiler area. Two weeks later, the landlord said they had done this.
21. In mid-June 2023, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at Stage One. It apologised for the delay and appreciated he had waited some time to have the mice infestation issue resolved. It outlined the recent actions it had taken. It noted despite the work the landlord had done, Mr X said mice were still an issue. It sent the photos he provided to the landlord and asked them to do further work.
22. Mr X escalated his complaint, highlighting the effect of the mice on his children’s health. Days later, the landlord emailed the Council stating they filled the holes in the kitchen.
23. In late July 2023, Mr X emailed the Council about the mice issue again.
24. In early August 2023, the Council contacted the landlord again asking them to act swiftly. Days later, the landlord replied saying they had taken action and attached an inspection report. This stated no pests found and the landlord had carried out its previous work recommendations.
25. In mid-October 2023, Mr X contacted the Council again about the mice. A few days later, the Council sent the landlord a formal letter asking them to resolve the issue and warned it could take enforcement action. It said it would inspect to verify the works carried out. Mr X emailed the Council with evidence and said the flat was not suitable for his children. He said as there was no permanent solution, he needed to move.
26. A week later, the landlord contacted the Council stating they did a visit with a pest control inspector and identified new holes. They arranged the work to start soon.
27. In late October 2023, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at Stage Two. It outlined what action it had taken previously with the landlord and understood the landlord had completed further work recently.
28. In December 2023, the Council said it emailed Mr X asking for an update. In January 2024, the Council said it closed his case as it did not receive a response.
29. In September 2024, Mr X returned to us with his original complaint.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

30. The Council said it had no evidence it carried out any suitability assessments or visits since 2022, despite Mr X’s contacts about the mice issues over a substantial period. It accepted it should have kept the suitability of the temporary accommodation under review and provided Mr X his statutory right to a suitability review. It said if Mr X wished to do this now, it would consider this.
31. The Council accepted it could have taken action earlier to ensure work carried out by the landlord was effective. This is due to the fact Mr X had repeatedly made reports the issues remained, even after the work the landlord carried out.
32. The Council said it would like to offer Mr X a goodwill gesture of £250.

Analysis

Mice issues

33. At the end of 2022, the Council did respond to Mr X’s concern. It did not follow up with him, but I also note Mr X did not contact it again until two months later. I do not find significant concerns at this stage amounting to fault.
34. Throughout 2023, on balance, I consider the Council generally responded to Mr X’s concerns. It contacted the landlord directly on a number of occasions asking them to carry out work and notified Mr X of this. However, a pattern emerged where the landlord responded to say they had done work, and within a short time, Mr X would return stating the mice remained. The landlord provided some evidence of works initially, but the issues persisted.
35. With Mr X’s further contacts, the Council accepted this should have prompted more robust action and it did not have records of visiting Mr X’s property. Given the circumstances, this is fault. It placed a lot of reliance on what the landlord said but should have turned its mind to whether it should intervene further and how. The Council missed opportunities to assess his accommodation itself to form its own view on the works later carried out by the landlord. This would have allowed it to satisfy itself whether these were sufficient or for it to consider if any further action was necessary.

Suitability

36. The Council did not consider if Mr X’s reports of the mice issues and his concerns about the impact on his children meant his property was unsuitable. The Council has accepted this fault. It failed to properly consider its ongoing duty to consider this and make a decision about the suitability of his temporary accommodation.

Complaint handling

37. The Council’s policy says at both stages of its complaints process, it will respond to complaints within 20 working days. At Stage One, it delayed its response by two weeks. At Stage Two, it did not respond until four months later. This is notably outside of its policy timelines. This is fault.

Injustice

38. The identified faults above have caused frustration and distress to Mr X. There were missed opportunities to take further action sooner with the mice issues and suitability reviews. I am unable to say what the outcome is likely to have been had these been done at the time, but this creates a significant level of uncertainty about whether this would have made a difference to Mr X’s living situation at the time. This uncertainty is injustice.
39. I recognise Mr X wants the Council to rehouse his family and he strongly believes the mice issues caused his children’s health issues which has impacted on various areas of their lives. He says this is due to the Council’s negligence in dealing with the matter. However, we would not be able to establish a direct causal link with this and fault by the Council. Any claims for negligence or damages are for a court to decide, not us.
40. We do not recommend awards for compensation. Our recommended payments are symbolic; they are not intended to be punitive or purely financial. The Council offered £250 as a remedy to Mr X. While positive, I made a recommendation to increase this amount to recognise his injustice.

Back to top

Agreed Action

41. To remedy the personal injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the faults identified;
• Pay Mr X a symbolic payment of £350 to recognise his injustice; and
• Confirm with Mr X the details of any current mice issues he may have and write to him with a plan and timescales of action it will take itself or with his landlord.
42. It should also:
• Write to Mr X within a month with its offer to carry out a suitability review on his temporary accommodation. If Mr X wishes to pursue this, it should make and communicate its decision to Mr X in writing, setting out his statutory right of review, within eight weeks of his request.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
44. In other decisions since the events of Mr X’s complaint, we have made service improvement recommendations to the Council about making and recording decisions on suitability and responding to complaints in line with its policy. I do not consider it necessary to repeat these here.

Back to top

Decision

45. I found fault causing injustice. I uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman