Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to resolve disrepair at her temporary accommodation and queries decisions made by the Council about her housing priority. I have found evidence of fault because the Council delayed progressing repairs. The Council has agreed to pay Ms D redress for the delay.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council has failed to resolve disrepair issues at their current temporary accommodation. In addition, they question whether the Council followed the correct process assessing the household’s housing register priority and whether they should have been offered Group D decant status and a direct offer of permanent housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, 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)
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 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. Where housing applicants have statutory review and appeal rights about the suitability of whatever accommodation (temporary or permanent) is provided after the main housing duty is accepted, there is a right to progress to the County Court about suitability issues. The Ombudsman would expect a complainant to use that right.
7. I am looking at what happened from July 2023, when the family moved into their current temporary accommodation, through to October 2024 when the final complaint response was issued by the Council.
8. I am not looking at events relating to Ms D’s previous accommodation which go back several years. We would have expected that complaint to have been raised with the Ombudsman within 12 months of the problems arising. Furthermore, the issue of suitability had a right of statutory review which I understand Ms D exercised. I have only considered whether the redress offered by the Council in 2024, which falls within the investigation timeframe, was correct.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms D’s Representative and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I shared a draft decision with the Council and Ms D. After comments from Ms D’s Representatives I made some additional checks with the Council and issued a revised draft decision to both parties. I shared the revised draft decision with the Representative and the Council and considered comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

2023

10. Ms D was scheduled to move into new temporary accommodation on 26 June 2023. The energy provider for the property visited the site on 23 June and found there was no gas supply because the meter had, apparently, been tampered with. This delayed the move-in date for Ms D by two weeks. On 10 July 2023 Ms D and her family moved into the temporary accommodation (a four bedroom property) owned by the Council. I understand that in August a member of the household moved out and took up a tenancy elsewhere. That meant the household consisted of Ms D, her husband and two children of the same sex. On 12 July Ms D bid for a social housing property via the Council’s website. Her household had Priority Homeseeker housing status. It appears Ms D was one of the highest priority applicants for the property. The Council says that on 1 August a Housing Officer making checks on eligibility wrongly assessed Ms D as adequately housed and said Ms D was not eligible to receive an offer on the property. They wrote to Ms D advising she had been bypassed for the property and her housing priority had been reduced to Homeseeker status. Later that same day the error by the Housing Officer was amended and Ms D’s status returned to Priority Homeseeker, but the Council did not inform her.
11. At the end of July and 2 and 6 August Ms D says she smelt gas in the property and the carbon monoxide alarm went off. Contractors attended and replaced the carbon monoxide alarm. On 21 August Ms D’s Representative asked the Council to review its decision on the household’s housing register priority because it was now in the Homeseeker category and classed as adequately housed. The Representative said the family should have a higher priority. They had lost the chance to secure permanent accommodation because of the change in their housing register status. They asked the Council to exercise discretion and award Additional Preference. The Representative asked the Council to also review the suitability of the accommodation. On 22 August the Council raised a work order for issues with windows in the property.
12. Ms D says on 7 September she contacted contractors because the carbon monoxide alarm went off again. They attended on 14 September. The Council says a plume kit (which is installed to direct boiler exhaust fumes away from adjacent openings) was replaced as a precautionary measure. No faults were found with the original plume kit or boiler installation. I have limited supporting evidence on this matter. The Representative sent in additional evidence about the review request to the Council at the end of September. The Council then sought information on some of the points raised including whether there were disrepair problems.
13. In October the Council’s Medical Assessor recommended one of Ms D’s sons have his own bedroom. On 17 October the Council stated Ms D’s housing status (Priority Homeseeker) was correct. The property she had bid for had been unsuitable because it had an upstairs bathroom and did not accord with Mr D’s medical needs. On 24 October a Council Officer reported various repair issues for the property to the Repairs Team including an external pipe leaking into a bedroom, damp in the living room, window hinges not fixed, front and rear doors not locking and subsidence. The Council says the work order for the front and rear doors was cancelled ‘in error’ in October. On 26 October the work order for window issues was marked as complete. On 12 November the Medical Assessor considered the needs of the household. They listed the evidence they had evaluated. They found the family needed a property no higher than 2 floors with a lift, one child needed their own room, and they were eligible for a three bedroom property.
14. On 2 December the Council Officer asked the Repairs Team if the property had been inspected and when would repairs be carried out. The Repairs Team inspected the soil stack pipe on 4 December and noted scaffolding was needed for works. On 5 December the Representative told the Council the bedroom leak was fixed but the interior wall was damaged. Leaks around the house including the living room, kitchen and a bedroom had been inspected. There were faults with the exterior doors and a leaking soil pipe had not been inspected. On 14 December the Council Officer chased up the Repairs Team. They also asked the Damp and Mould Team for an urgent inspection of the house and an update a few days later. The Council says an appointment was booked to inspect the window hinges at the property on 1 March 2024.

2024

15. On 12 January 2024 the Council received additional information from the Representative. On 19 January the Repairs Team noted repairs to the soil stack required scaffolding and it had been referred to a Contractor. On 24 January the Council Officer asked the Damp and Mould Team to reply to the earlier email. On 25 January the Council extended the timeframe to issue a review decision, this was to allow the submission of medical evidence. At the end of the month the Council had medical evidence from the Representative and sent this to the Medical Assessor to consider. Also the Council inspected the property and found there was subsidence requiring remedial action.
16. On 6 February the Medical Assessor reported to the Council. They had looked at all the evidence provided. The family needed a property that was on the first floor at most with a lift and should be commutable to the children’s school. In February the Representative corresponded with the Property Management Officer about bedroom entitlement for the family and said a family member stayed over at the property as a carer. On 18 February the Property Management Officer confirmed the family needed three bedrooms and the living room could be utilised as a sleeping space for an occasional overnight carer. The assessment by the Council had not found an additional bed space was medically essential. On 26 February the Council’s Repairs Project Manager told the Council Officer the subsidence at the property required work in three stages. First, boreholes in the garden to establish the ground condition, then a procurement process taking six months followed by the actual works. The works in around six months’ time would require a decant and take up to 10 weeks.
17. At the start of March the Council says windows in the property were ‘overhauled’ and in working condition. On 3 March the Council says repairs to the soil stack were completed. On 15 March the Council sent the Representative a ‘minded to’ update letter setting out their current view on the review request and allowing the Representative to make additional comments. The Representative had said the property was unsuitable because of disrepair but the Council said it was safe to occupy at present. A decant would be needed in around six months’ time. Medical evidence had been considered and there was no evidence to show the property was unsuitable on medical grounds. The Council also said the household composition had changed since the family occupied the property because a member had moved elsewhere, this meant the family were eligible for two and three bedroom properties.
18. On 3 April a new work order was raised including to inspect two incorrectly fitted windows. On 8 April the Representative replied to the Council. They wanted the household’s priority status changed. The family did not want to be decanted to other temporary accommodation and wanted an offer of permanent housing. They also said the Housing Benefit Team had accepted the family needed an additional bedroom (so were entitled to a four bedroom home) for a family member to act as an overnight carer. In April the Council Officer checked with the Housing Benefit Team who said they had allowed an extra bedroom for the family for Housing Benefit claim purposes. On 23 April the Council issued another ‘minded to’ letter to the Representative. They had considered additional evidence from the Representative but there remained no evidence of the property being unsuitable because of medical need. They confirmed the family member was not part of the household. The decision by Housing Benefit did not mean the Council had to provide an additional bedroom for that family member. She had her own tenancy elsewhere in the country. Also in April the Council says it fitted new locks to external doors.
19. On 8 May the Representative told the Council that disrepair was ongoing. That included issues with exterior doors, leaking pipes, mould in the bathroom and missing garden slabs. On 20 May the Repairs Project Manager told the Council Officer works would be scheduled. Immediate repairs would include mould in the bathroom, extractor fans and garden slabs. Further investigation was needed to the leaks in the property and the exterior door problems. On 23 May the Council issued its review decision to the Representative. The Council did not find the property was medically unsuitable. It detailed how the case had been considered and did not find other factors, including repairs, caused the property to be unsuitable.
20. On 5 June the Council raised a work order to inspect leaks at the front and rear of the property. Also on 5 June the Representative sent a formal complaint to the Council. They said the accommodation was unsuitable because of ongoing repair issues. They also said the Council had delayed issuing a decision on the suitability review. On 18 June the incorrectly fitted windows were marked as complete for remedial works. On 25 June a roofer attended the property regarding the exterior leaks. They needed scaffolding and no repairs were carried out.
21. The Council replied to the complaint on 16 July. It upheld the complaint about delay carrying out repairs and said some works were scheduled for 17 July including fixing garden slabs, extractor fans and loose panels on windows. It said Ms D would need to decant from the property in around six months’ time for major works and she had been placed on the transfer list. It offered £150 for time and trouble and £150 for delay. The Representative wrote back to the Council asking the Council to avoid a temporary decant as it would adversely impact on the family and requested, they be permanently moved. They also said the family needed a four bedroom property because one family member stayed over as a carer. On 19 August a new work order was raised by the Council for the front and rear leaks at the property, it requested works to the roof. It is unclear when this was completed.
22. On 7 October the Council issued its final complaint response. It said the previous complaint reply should have considered whether to prioritize the family for a transfer before subsidence works started at the property to remove any uncertainty about the works that were needed. The Council had now decided to prioritise the family for a transfer to suitable alternative accommodation and they were now on the transfer list. The Council had considered whether it should make an offer of permanent accommodation to Ms D. However it had previously looked at the suitability of the accommodation and found it to be suitable. It did not see there was a basis to make a direct offer of permanent accommodation. It said Ms D should fill out a medical assessment form to have medical priority assessed. In respect of concerns about the carbon monoxide alarms the Council said the alarms were replaced by contractors and a new plume kit installed as a precautionary measure. There was no evidence of a fault with the boiler installation or parts. The Council offered £200 for not resolving the case in the initial complaint reply plus £300 for distress. It also looked at the disrepair of Ms D’s previous temporary accommodation and the delay moving her family from an unsuitable property. It offered £200 plus £150 per month for 22 months.
23. The Representative asked the Council about decant banding and was told on 11 October the Council would consider the request and reply. On 17 October the Head of Allocations wrote a response to the Representative, but this was not shared with her or Ms D. The Head of Allocations stated Ms D was in temporary accommodation and would be dealt with by the Temporary Accommodation Team. They would assess if it was necessary to decant the family and check the suitability of alternative accommodation. Health issues had been considered, and Ms D had been advised to submit a medical assessment form. The Lettings Service would then review the case to see if additional medical priority should be awarded to the housing register application. They also said they had considered whether there were exceptional reasons to handle the request outside of the usual process but did not find there were grounds to do so.

Events outside my investigation timeframe

24. The Damp and Mould Team inspected the property in December and detailed the repairs needed. Works were carried out in 2025.
25. After contact from the Ombudsman a new work order was raised in July 2025 to check all the windows in the property by September.

What should have happened

Disrepair in temporary accommodation

26. Where the temporary accommodation is a property owned by the Council the resident should report disrepair using the online reporting form. The Council should then contact the resident to confirm the repairs requested has been processed. The Council will raise a work order with a completion target date.
27. At the time of this complaint the Council did not have a process to identify repeat work orders (which indicate a repair is not being resolved). The Council says it is now piloting a scheme to spot repeat issues.

Housing allocations

28. The Council’s Allocation Policy sets out how the Council deals with applications for social housing. Applicants are assessed to determine their level of housing need and the type of housing they are eligible to bid for under the Choice Based Lettings system.
29. The Council places applicants in a housing need group based on the assessment of their needs. Priority Homeseeker status is awarded to applicants who meet one or more of the reasonable preference criteria including those who are homeless or need to move on medical grounds. Homeseeker status is awarded to applicants who do not have any reasonable preference.
30. The Council can make direct offers of housing to various groups including those with Additional Preference. This is awarded to applicants who need to move urgently including for medical need where a severe medical condition makes it virtually impossible to live in the current home. Direct offers can also be made to households that need to be moved because of major repair work by the Council (a decant). Rehousing can be temporary or permanent but “in all cases temporary rehousing is considered as the first option”. Permanent rehousing may be considered where “the tenant is unable to manage two moves on medical grounds”.

Bedroom entitlement

31. The Council’s Housing Teams decide on the bedroom entitlement for applicants based on the Allocations Policy. A household is eligible to bid for three bedroom properties where there are two parents and up to three children in the household. If the members of a household change the Council can revise the bedroom entitlement.

Medical assessments

32. Where a member of the household has a medical condition that may affect their housing application, they can ask the Council to assess their medical need for housing. They fill out a medical application form and submit any supporting evidence. The Council’s Independent Medical Assessor will consider the evidence and advise the Council. The Council will then decide if the household’s housing priority should change. The Council can award Reasonable Preference where an applicant’s home is unsuitable and impacts on their health and they need rehoused on medical grounds.
33. If an applicant says they need an additional bed space to accommodate a carer they should provide supporting medical evidence and complete a medical application form. They Council will assess whether an additional bed space is medically essential. The decision on whether an applicant requires a larger property/ change in bedroom entitlement is for the Housing Teams to decide in line with the Allocations Policy. This is separate to any decisions made about Housing Benefit entitlement.
34. Where the Council identifies an applicant has medical need restricting the type of accommodation it should offer it should not make offers of unsuitable accommodation. For example, a wheelchair user may be restricted to a level access property.
35. Housing applicants can ask the Council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Was there fault by the Council

36. There is fault buy the Council.
37. There have been delays in the Council attending to disrepair at the property from 2023 onwards. This includes a six month delay attending to front and rear locks where a work order was cancelled by mistake. The works to the rook leak were delayed by at least two months and there was a one month delay attending to the soil stack pipe. The subsidence issue was also subject to delay. The Council stated in February 2024 the works should start within six months, but they had still not commenced by the time my investigation period ends in October. Of concern is the significant delay by the Council regarding damp and mould. This issue was raised at the end of 2023. A Council Officer asked the Damp and Mould Team to look into the issue and chased this up again in January 2024. I have no record of any action being taken until the end of 2024. That is an unacceptable delay by the Council.
38. Ms D has told me there were ongoing issues with windows and hinges at the property. I can see the Council had to carry out additional works to two windows in 2024 because there had been a fault with the original installation. During 2023 and 2024 repeat work orders were raised on the repairs I refer to above. Because the Council did not have a system in place to identify repeat work orders this meant there was a lost opportunity to intervene and check why repairs were not being completed. I understand the Council is now piloting a scheme to resolve this issue which is a positive step forward.
39. The Council incorrectly changed Ms D’s housing status to Homeseeker in August 2023. It recognises this was an error and says the correct Priority Homeseeker status was reinstated the same day. The Council accepts it failed to notify Ms D about the correction at the time.
40. In October 2024 the Council offered redress to Ms D for issues with her previous accommodation. It incorrectly calculated this to be £3300 (for a 22 month period). The correct figure was £4050 (for a 27 month period). I flagged this up to the Council when I started the investigation and it accepted the error and said it would be remedied.
41. Ms D wanted the Council to make an offer of permanent housing rather than provide a temporary decant. 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 the Council followed to make its decision. In this case the Council failed to send a response to Ms D or the Representative in October 2024 as promised. The Head of Allocations did consider the matter at the time and wrote a response on 17 October 2024, but this was not shared with the complainant. That is fault by the Council. In addition I do not consider that response sufficiently explains what factors were considered.
42. Ms D also refers to the bedroom entitlement for the household and wants an additional bed space to accommodate a family member who stays over as a carer. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council. It assessed the evidence provided by Ms D and advised in February 2024 why it had decided an additional bed space was not medically essential. I understand Ms D disagrees with the decision, but it is one the Council is entitled to take. In addition, the decision on what size property the family can bid for is for the Council’s Housing Teams and is separate to any decisions made about Housing Benefit entitlement.
43. Ms D says there was a delay moving into the temporary accommodation. I can see the move-in date had to be pushed back by two weeks to allow works to restore the gas supply. I do not see the delay caused an unremedied injustice to Ms D because the Council paid redress to her for the additional two week stay in unsuitable accommodation caused by the delay. Ms D also says there were electrical issues meaning she had to replace her cooker twice. I have no evidence to show this was due to any fault by the Council and there is no basis to ask the Council to remedy this matter.
44. Ms D states there were problems with the carbon monoxide alarm at the property and possibly issues with the boiler flue in 2023. I have not seen any evidence of fault by the Council. The reports were promptly responded to and no faults identified with the boiler. The Council has also confirmed to me that subsequent services of the boiler have found it to be correctly installed.

Did the fault cause an injustice

45. Ms D had to wait longer than is reasonable to have repairs completed at the property. She was also caused avoidable distress because of the error in August 2023 and the Council’s failure to clarify what happened with her housing status. I do not see that Ms D lost an opportunity to receive an offer of housing in August 2023 because the property had not been clearly listed meaning it would not be suitable for Mr D’s medical needs. Ms D did not receive the 17 October 2024 response from the Council and did not get a sufficiently detailed explanation of how her concerns about the decant process and medical need were considered. It is not for me to say whether Ms D meets the criteria for an offer of permanent housing, that is for the Council to determine, but it should provide a full and clear decision.

Back to top

Action

46. The Council has already agreed to remedy the error I identified in the redress payment offered in October 2024. It has carried out staff training to prevent the error in August 2023, with the incorrect change to housing status, reoccurring. It has now raised a work order to inspect all the windows at the property for any defects.
47. I note the financial redress already offered by the Council in its formal complaint responses. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and will:
• Pay Ms D additional redress of £250 for the delays progressing repairs and carrying out an inspection by the Damp and Mould Team,
• Write to Ms D with a full and clear decision about the issues surrounding a possible decant/ medical need and apologising for the failure to issue the 17 October 2024 decision,
• If the Council finds there are installation faults or issues with the previous repairs to the windows at the property, when it inspects in September, it should also consider offering a redress payment for the delay and time and trouble caused.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action within four weeks of the investigation ending.

Back to top

Decision

49. I find fault causing injustice. I have completed the investigation because the Council agrees to the recommended actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman