Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to remedy damp and mould disrepair issues with his temporary accommodation, despite him regularly reporting his concerns to it for over a year. The Council was at fault for its delays in carrying out the repairs, carrying out an inspection, and making a new suitability decision; not treating Mr B’s repeated contacts as a trigger for a review of suitability; and not moving Mr B to a different property when the service co-ordinator decided he needed to be urgently rehoused. Because of the fault, Mr B suffered distress and frustration, and he remained living in poor conditions with his family for longer than they should have. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, make a symbolic payment, and issue staff briefings.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the temporary accommodation he lived in has damp, mould and disrepair issues caused by water entering from the outside of the property. He says the Council failed to remedy the problem, despite him reporting problems to it regularly for over a year.
2. Mr B remained living in poor conditions which impacted his family, particularly his children with health conditions.
3. Mr B would like the Council to move him out of the property, close to his children’s school. He would also like the Council to give him a financial remedy for the hardship of living in poor conditions for over a year.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Mr B’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the telephone.
7. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. 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 that 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)
10. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.

Suitability of 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)

Review rights

13. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions made by the Council, including 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). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Back to top

What happened

14. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not cover everything that has happened in this case.
15. Mr B moved into the temporary accommodation in mid-October 2023.
16. In late November 2023, Mr B told the Council there was damp and mould in the property and he would like to move out of it. Mr B says he reported the issues to the Council again in early 2024.
17. In July 2024, Mr B told the Council his young child had been hospitalised due to the damp and mould in the property. He contacted the Council a couple of weeks later and told it water from outside was entering the property. The Council’s contractor attended the property and noted two of the bedrooms in the property had black mould on the walls, which it washed and treated. A further visit was booked for mid-September 2024 for additional work to be completed by the Council’s contractor.
18. In early August 2024, Mr B raised a complaint with the Council. He told it damp and mould remained throughout the property and it was causing his children to be unwell. He explained there was a blocked drain outside of the property which was causing the problems, and the Council’s contractor had not been able to resolve the problem no matter how many times he raised repair jobs with it. The contractors visited the property a few days later to unblock the drain.
19. In mid-August 2024, Mr B’s MP emailed the Council. They told it the Council had made over 21 repairs but the issues with the property remained, and the inner wall had since started to move and was at risk of collapse. The Council sent Mr B its stage one complaint response the next day. It told him his complaint was unjustified as there was no mention of the drains being the source of the damp and mould throughout the home prior to Mr B submitting the complaint.
20. In late September 2024, Mr B asked the Council for a suitability review of the property. He raised a stage two complaint with the Council around the same time and told it the issues with the property were continuing.
21. In early October 2024, the Council sent its decision to Mr B declining his request for a suitability review. It told him he made the request out of time. But as Mr B told the Council the property is unsuitable due to disrepair, the Council would provide him with a fresh decision on the suitability of the accommodation for his household.
22. In mid-October 2024, Mr B told the Council his situation was getting worse. The Council’s service co-ordinator emailed the temporary accommodation team and told it Mr B’s family needed urgent rehousing.
23. The Council sent Mr B its stage two complaint response a week later. It told him the drainage issue had been attended to, and it had treated the damp and mould inside the property. The Council also told Mr B the damp and mould was caused by a lack of ventilation and many items being stored in the property. It told him he would need to contact the repairs team if the damp and mould issues resurfaced.
24. In early November 2024, Mr B’s MP contacted the Council again. They told it the issues with the property remained and there was water in the walls. A councillor also contacted the Council at the end of the month on behalf of Mr B to advise the same.
25. In mid-February 2025, the Council carried out an inspection of the property.
26. In April 2025, the Council carried out a suitability assessment. It decided the property was unsuitable. It offered Mr B a different property, but he refused as the location was too far from his children’s school.
27. In June 2025, the Council offered Mr B a different property, which Mr B accepted.

Back to top

Analysis

28. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me it accepts it was at fault for:
• Its delay in carrying out a suitability assessment and making a new decision about the suitability of Mr B’s property after it declined his request for a suitability review in October 2024 and told him a new suitability decision would be made.
• Its delay in completing the reported repairs.
• Not treating Mr B’s repeated contacts about the damp and mould issues in the property as a trigger for a review of suitability.
• Not moving Mr B to a different property when the service co-ordinator requested Mr B and his family to be urgently rehoused.
29. There were also delays by the Council in carrying out an inspection of Mr B’s property. The Council confirmed to me it first properly inspected the property in February 2025. The Council has a duty to inspect the property when a service user raises concerns with it. Mr B first told the Council about the damp and mould issues in November 2023, and Mr B also asked the Council for an inspection in August 2024. So, the Council should have properly inspected the property sooner than it did. The Council’s failure to do this was fault. This caused Mr B distress and frustration.
30. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me it offered Mr B £1,500 in recognition of the delays in it completing repairs and its poor complaint-handling. In the circumstances of this complaint, this amount is not sufficient to acknowledge the injustice caused to Mr B. Since November 2023, Mr B has repeatedly reported concerns about the property to the Council, and the Council’s delay in acting caused distress and frustration to Mr B. It also meant Mr B and his family remained living in unsuitable conditions for longer than they should have been.
31. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
32. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if fault by the council had not occurred.
33. Our guidance on remedies takes the view that where someone has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we will usually recommend a payment between £150 to £350 a month. We consider each complaint on its merits and consider the impact the fault had on the person making the complaint and their family. In the circumstances of this case, I consider £200 a month to be appropriate. This has been calculated from when Mr B began reporting the concerns to the Council in November 2023 which should have triggered a review of suitability, to June 2025 when Mr B was due to move to a new property offered by the Council.

Back to top

Action

34. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr B by the fault I have identified, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr B for the distress and frustration caused to him by the identified fault, and for the time spent living in unsuitable conditions. This apology should be in accordance with our guidance Making an effective apology.
• Pay Mr B £3,800 to acknowledge the injustice caused by the identified fault and time spent living in unsuitable conditions.
35. The Council will take the following action within three months of my final decision:
• Identify and implement learning from this complaint to improve the time taken by the Council to address significant repairs.
• Remind relevant staff of the Council’s duty to carry out an inspection when concerns about a property are raised by a service user.
• Remind relevant staff of the Council’s duty to keep suitability under review, and recognise the types of communications from service users which should trigger the Council to carry out a review of suitability.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I uphold Mr B’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman