Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to deal with her repeated reports of mice issues and of disrepair in her temporary accommodation. We found the Council at fault for delays, with shortcomings in the action it took, and it did not keep suitability under review. This caused significant distress, uncertainty and frustration to Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, carry out a suitability review, and to take action to prevent recurrence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of various disrepair issues she has raised regarding her temporary accommodation, including a longstanding mouse infestation. This has caused her significant frustration and distress to her mental health, with concerns about her child’s safety.

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 investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), 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. I have investigated events from December 2023 (12 months prior to Miss X’s complaint to us) to December 2024 (when Miss X received the Council’s final response to their formal complaint).
6. We expect councils to have the opportunity to formally consider new or ongoing matters under its formal complaints procedure first before we investigate. Miss X is entitled to make a new complaint direct to the Council if she is dissatisfied with what has happened since December 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss 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 temporary accommodation

10. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) The duty to provide suitable accommodation is an ongoing duty. Councils must keep the issue of suitability under review (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.8)

Background

12. Miss X lives in temporary accommodation provided by the Council. She has lived there for several years with her child. The Managing Agent (“MA”) manages the Council’s temporary accommodation, including repairs.
13. Miss X made a previous complaint to the Ombudsman. This included similar mice issues at the same property. We upheld this in 2023 and found the Council at fault for failing to take effective action to resolve the matter.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

14. In mid-December 2023, the Council emailed the MA asking for an update on repair works, including blocking holes for the mice. It said there needed to be a solution as it had been ongoing and noted a lack of communication from the MA. Two days later, the MA said its contractor would send a quote for the holes.
15. In late December 2023, the MA emailed the Council. It said the landlord refused some work due to concerns for the kitchen units. The MA advised it could spray foam on the visible holes and pest control could carry out a few rounds of treatment. It would do the other repairs. The Council agreed to this but said if the issue was not resolved, it would be an ongoing health hazard.
16. In early January 2024, a Council inspection record note said all works were reported as complete. It said the MA contacted Miss X to arrange pest control visits.
17. In early June 2024, a Council inspection record note said Miss X told it pest control blocked holes and laid traps in January. But she emailed the MA twice in March and May as she heard mice. She then saw mice and had to use force against the front door resulting in damage to it. The Council emailed the MA, noting a lack of response despite numerous emails. Two days later, the MA said it did some repairs, and a roofer would look at the roof leak. It could not repair the front door and gave a cost estimate to replace it.
18. In late June 2024, Miss X sent another email to the MA about mice. A few days later, the Council chased the MA. The MA said it repaired the roof and painted the ceiling and would ask pest control to come again.
19. In early July 2024, the MA contacted the Council. It sent a pest control technician that morning, but they left as they did not feel safe due to the actions of a third party at the property.
20. In early August 2024, Miss X emailed the MA about her balcony door needing repairs. The next month, Miss X emailed the Council as she was still waiting. The next day, the Council emailed the MA for an update. The MA said Miss X needed to pay to replace the front door.
21. In mid-September 2024, Miss X formally complained. She said the mice were back and she just wanted it sorted, rather than wanting to move. She also said the door and roof needed repairs.
22. In early October 2024, the Council emailed the MA about the outstanding repairs and noted the mice issues persisted. The MA said it resolved the roof and would look at the other issues.
23. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at Stage One. It said it would continue to liaise with the MA.
24. In late October 2024 and start of November 2024, the Council emailed the MA. The MA said it booked a pest control visit and would review the balcony door, but Miss X would need to pay for a front door.
25. In early November 2024, pest control visited Miss X’s property. The inspection report said they installed mouse bait stations in affected areas and would do a follow up the next month.
26. In late November 2024, the Council asked the MA for the outcome of the pest control visit, and for an update on the balcony door and roof. In early December 2024, the MA said it fixed the balcony door.
27. In mid-December 2024, pest control inspected Miss X’s property. The report noted activity with one bait station indicating minimal activity. They identified a possible entry point and strongly recommended it be sealed.
28. The Council responded at Stage Two after Miss X escalated her complaint. It apologised for the delay by the MA in carrying out repairs. It outlined the action it had taken, and it had fixed the roof and would paint the ceiling. The front door was in progress. It arranged a further pest control visit. Miss X then complained to us.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

29. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the front door (a fire door) remained outstanding. It repeatedly raised this to be resolved and would use contract levers against the MA to address it.
30. The Council said in late January 2025, the MA said it carried out the recommendation from the recent pest control report and painted Miss X’s ceiling. The Council said Miss X has since reported new mice activity in March 2025.
31. The Council sent a copy of its priority schedule setting out expected timescales for its providers to resolve different types of repairs. Priority A – should be done within 24 hours. Priority B – should be done within five working days. Priority C – should be done within 28 working days.

Analysis

Mice issues

32. In January 2024, the Council noted its MA would arrange for pest control to visit Miss X. It did not follow up with either the MA or Miss X the outcome of this or about other rounds of treatment to monitor the situation. The MA also did not respond to further reports of mice by Miss X in March 2024. This is fault.
33. The Council intervened after it visited Miss X in June 2024. The MA arranged a pest control visit in July 2024 but could not carry it out due to safety concerns. This failed visit is not fault. But the Council did not follow up on this with Miss X or the MA about any further action or rearranged visit for additional treatment. It let the issue drift for three months until October 2024, after Miss X reported further mice issues. This is fault. This caused uncertainty and frustration to Miss X.
34. After a small gap of around three weeks, the MA arranged further pest control visits in November and December 2024. The reports said it did some work with minimal mice activity noted, but made recommendations which the MA said it carried out the next month. I do not specifically criticise these actions.
35. But I am concerned about the Council’s general approach. I recognise the nature, causes and actions to prevent mice entering properties can be complex and measures may be temporary. However, the Council raised concerns itself about the persistence of the issues and it being a health hazard when the landlord would not consent to recommended work in late 2023. While the Council contacted the MA several times and noted pest control outcomes, I do not consider this was enough and could have prompted more robust action. I cannot see if the Council reassessed the continuation of issues and risks, especially given the previous fault found, to turn its mind to whether it needed to intervene further and how. This is fault, causing Miss X frustration.

Suitability

36. The Council has offered a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation, but Miss X has not requested this. I recognise Miss X has said she does not necessarily want to move but wanted the mice issues sorted. The Council said it kept suitability under review throughout by liaising with the MA. However, I cannot see evidence or records of the Council’s decision making in this respect to support this.
37. Considering the past context and Miss X’s ongoing issues with mice, I do not think the onus should now be on Miss X to request this. The Council could have taken positive action itself to formally consider issues of disrepair and mice, and whether Miss X’s property remained suitable for her. I recommend it does this.

Other disrepair issues

38. Front door – the Council says it is in dispute with the MA about this with repeated requests. However, this has been outstanding since May 2024 and the Council said to me it would act against the MA. It has taken a significant amount of time to get to this point, and it should have taken decisive action or some type of dispute resolution much sooner. It has now said it is a fire door which suggests concerns about safety, but I cannot see the Council has assessed any risk with this which could have informed how it approached this with the MA. This is fault.
39. From the evidence seen, the MA resolved the balcony door four months after Miss X reported it. With the roof leak, it appears the MA fixed this on two occasions within two to three weeks after being reported. After the second time, it took three months to repaint the ceiling. I cannot see what priority the Council gave these. In my view from the repairs schedule seen, they would likely fit in Priority B (roof leak) and C (balcony door). The MA exceeded these timescales, most notably for the balcony door. This is fault. The time taken and delays in completing repairs caused Miss X significant distress and frustration.

Back to top

Action

40. When a Council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf, it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them.
41. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
42. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X in writing for the frustration and distress caused by the faults identified and pay her a symbolic payment of £300 to recognise her injustice;
• Send her an update about the front door and clearly outline its decision and actions about how and when it will be replaced; and
• Begin a suitability review of Miss X’s temporary accommodation and seek any evidence from Miss X if she wishes to provide it. It should send her a written decision within two months outlining her review rights should she disagree.
43. Within three months of the final decision:
• The Council should use this decision as a case study to review its processes of how it deals with persistent issues or recurrent disrepair reported by complainants. It should review ways of improving communication with its Managing Agent, how it monitors performance and sets reasonable timeframes for it to complete repairs, and at what point it should consider intervening, enforcing service level agreements or addressing disputes with the Managing Agent. It should share a copy of any steps, guidance document, or action plan it makes from this.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman