Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure adequate repairs were carried out at her temporary accommodation. Miss X also complained the unresolved disrepair issues meant the temporary accommodation provided to her was unsuitable. She said the Council’s actions caused her avoidable distress and negatively impacted her mental health. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to offer suitable alternative accommodation to Miss X and provide her with an apology and a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of disrepair regarding her temporary accommodation. She said the Council failed to ensure adequate repairs were carried out following reports of leaks and flooding. Miss X complained these unresolved disrepair issues meant the temporary accommodation provided to her was unsuitable. She said the Council’s actions negatively impacted her mental health and caused avoidable distress and uncertainty to herself and her family. She would like the Council to acknowledge and be held responsible for its actions.

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. 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. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness and suitability of accommodation

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
9. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. 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)
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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
12. 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.
13. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions. This includes 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.
14. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

What happened

15. The amount of information provided as part of this investigation was considerable. In this decision statement, I have not made reference to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not provide details of everything that happened.
16. Miss X moved into temporary accommodation with her daughter in July 2024. The accommodation provided by the Council was a flat managed by a third-party property management company, Company A.
17. Miss X said that in August 2024, wastewater from the flat above hers, leaked through her ceiling into her accommodation. Miss X reported this to the Council.
18. The Council emailed Company A in early September 2024 regarding the leak.
19. On 1 October 2024, the Council carried out a property inspection of Miss X’s flat in relation to the wastewater leak and the damage caused.
20. The Council sent the inspection report to Company A on 6 October 2024. Company A acknowledged receipt of the report and told the Council it had scheduled works to take place on 9 October 2024. It said it would work with Miss X to arrange for the works to be carried out.
21. On 10 October 2024, Company A told the Council its contractor had waited for 40 minutes at Miss X’s accommodation but could not get access. It said it had rearranged the works to be carried out on 11 October 2024.
22. Miss X contacted the Council on 25 October 2024. She said she had called several times about the wastewater that had flooded into her accommodation from upstairs. The Council emailed Company A to inform it of Miss X’s contact.
23. On 7 November 2024, Miss X contacted the Council to report that sewage had again leaked into her property from the flat upstairs. Miss X asked the Council to fix the leak. The Council emailed Company A and asked it to provide a remedy as soon as possible due to concerns over health and safety.

Miss X’s complaint

24. Miss X complained to the Council on 23 November 2024. She said sewage had leaked into her flat from upstairs via the ceiling light fixtures, and that this was not the first time it had happened. Miss X said she had also reported another leak at the end of October when sewage backed up into her sink and stayed there for several days. Miss X complained the leaks had caused her a lot of stress and made her living conditions unhygienic, as well as leading to a loss of electricity in her flat for several days. Miss X complained the food in her fridge was spoiled as a result. Miss X asked the Council to relocate her and complained the Council’s handling of the situation was unacceptable.
25. The Council replied on 26 November 2024 and said it had asked Company A to address the concerns about the sewage leaks. The Council said it had instructed its temporary accommodation team to monitor the situation and had escalated a request for a suitability assessment of the accommodation. The Council apologised to Miss X and upheld her complaint due to the need to carry out a suitability review.
26. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two on the same day. She said the sewage leaks posed a significant health risk and the situation was severely affecting her mental wellbeing. Miss X said the Council had not provided any timescales for the repairs to be undertaken and the uncertainty this caused had added to her stress. Miss X asked the Council to consider providing immediate alternative accommodation options.

The Council’s suitability review

27. The Council carried out a suitability review of Miss X’s accommodation and on 28 November 2024, it provided Miss X with its decision. It said Miss X’s current temporary accommodation clearly seemed to have an ongoing issue with sewage leakage and as a result, had major disrepair issues. The Council said the accommodation was not suitable for Miss X because of the disrepair and condition of the property.
28. The Council placed Miss X on its transfer list on 9 December 2024.
29. On 13 December 2024, the Council emailed Company A to request an update regarding the repairs.
30. The Council emailed Company A again on 18 December 2024 to chase a response.
31. On 2 January 2025, the Council provided its stage two complaint response. It said Company A had advised that its maintenance team had visited the property and confirmed it needed to address the leaks thoroughly. The Council said Company A had also advised that its maintenance officer had tried to call Miss X on several occasions, but she had hung up on them. The Council said this had made it difficult to address the leakage. It said Company A would contact Miss X again to arrange a suitable date to inspect and fix the leak. The Council told Miss X it did not uphold her complaint because Company A had tried to contact her to resolve the leak, but Miss X had not engaged with it.
32. Company A emailed Miss X on 21 January 2025. It said that following a visit the day before, it had identified the leak was due to a broken pipe in the flat above Miss X’s accommodation. Company A said it had stopped the leak, but it needed to return to replace some broken parts. It also said it would visit Miss X’s property to review the damage caused.
33. The Council’s customer service team emailed the temporary accommodation team on 22 January 2025. It said Miss X had called because she was unhappy with Company A’s response regarding the leaks. The customer service team noted there were lots of emails and calls on Miss X’s account about the ongoing issues, including the sewage-stained flooring. It said Miss X considered Company A was not always truthful about the work it was going to do or had done; she said Company A’s contractors had attended but could not understand what needed to be done and had left after a few minutes. The email said Miss X had tried to get in touch, but she only received a response every few months.
34. Company A emailed Miss X again on 24 January 2025. It said it was still willing to arrange a visit to clean the carpet and decorate the ceiling, and that it wanted to arrange this urgently. Company A said it understood Miss X’s frustrations regarding prior delays and the difficulties of dealing with a leak on more than one occasion. However, it said there was no reason to delay the work any further; it encouraged Miss X to cooperate with it to allow it to schedule the required works.
35. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought the complaint to us.

What happened next

36. Miss X continued to correspond with the Council regarding the sewage leaks. In March 2025, Miss X reported another leak which she says left her without electricity for several days again.
37. The Council continued to correspond with Miss X and Company A but acknowledged that accounts from both parties sometimes conflicted.
38. The Council arranged another property inspection which took place on 7 April 2025. The inspection report made several recommendations, including arranging a camera inspection from the top floor flat to the main sewer to provide a clearer view of the situation and to prevent waste overflow recurring.
39. Company A contacted Miss A in April 2025 to arrange an appointment to carry out the repair works. However, Company A told the Council Miss X was unwilling to engage with it regarding any further communications.
40. The Council contacted Miss X in late April 2025 and said whilst it understood her frustration regarding the time taken to complete the repairs, it had encountered significant delays due to Miss X’s lack of response to its recent correspondence.
41. Company A contacted Miss X in May 2025 to arrange an appointment to carry out the repair works. The Council says Miss X did not cooperate with Company A and refused to confirm dates and times for repair work.
42. Miss X reported another leak to the Council and Company A in late May 2025.
43. On 4 June 2025, the Council told Miss X it had identified a potential alternative address for her. Miss X said she was unable to consider the proposed property because it was located too far from her daughter’s school.

Analysis – Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to ensure adequate repairs were carried out

44. The Council and Company A say that Miss X did not allow contractors into the property and that she was uncooperative when arranging the repairs. The Council’s stage two complaint response says Company A tried to contact Miss X to resolve the leak, but Miss X had not engaged with it.
45. Miss X disputes this and says when the contractors attended, they could not understand what needed to be done and left after a few minutes. Miss X said she contacted the Council and Company A on several occasions about the repairs, but no-one did anything. With regard to this, I acknowledge the Council’s records show its customer service team emailed the temporary accommodation team on 23 January 2025, referring to “many emails” sent to request that the repairs were carried out.
46. The Council’s records show the first report of a leak was recorded on 5 September 2024. The second leak was reported on 7 November 2024. Miss X says this led to a loss of electricity for several days.
47. The Council has a service level agreement (SLA) with Company A as a provider of temporary accommodation. The SLA states repairs should be carried out within a reasonable timeframe, specifically:
• Burst or leaking pipes – this is listed as an ‘emergency repair’ to be carried out within 24 hours
• Check and repair electrical installations – this is listed as an ‘urgent repair’ to be carried out within 48 hours
48. I acknowledge the Council’s explanation that it considers Miss X did not always cooperate with arranging repairs. However, I consider the Council’s records indicate difficulties regarding this issue are recorded from March 2025 onwards; I have seen only one record of an unsuccessful repair attempt prior to this, in October 2024.
49. The evidence shows the repairs to the property were not carried out within the timescales specified by the SLA.
50. I acknowledge the Council’s stage two complaint response says the Council’s temporary accommodation team leader contacted Company A to request an update on the repairs. However, this was not until 13 December 2024. This is three months after the first recorded leak and three weeks after the second leak.
51. Councils are responsible for the actions of providers of interim and temporary accommodation because they are acting on its behalf. Councils also have a legal duty to ensure applicants are placed in suitable accommodation which is free from disrepair or hazards. The evidence shows delay by the Council in following up with Company A to check whether the repairs were fully completed. This delay is fault causing an injustice to Miss X, namely avoidable stress and uncertainty regarding the completion of the repair works.

Miss X’s complaint that the accommodation was unsuitable

52. The Council carried out a suitability assessment in November 2024. Its decision letter dated 28 November 2024 stated the accommodation was not suitable for Miss X because of “major disrepair issues”.
53. The Council was therefore aware from 28 November 2024 that the accommodation was unsuitable. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the steps it took to find alternative accommodation for Miss X consisted of adding her to the transfer list and asking Company A to help find alternative accommodation.
54. If a council agrees that an applicant’s accommodation is unsuitable, it owes an immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified duty to provide suitable accommodation (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601). The Council therefore owed an immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified duty to provide Miss X with suitable accommodation from 28 November 2024.
55. The Council told Miss X on 4 June 2025 that it had found potential alternative accommodation for her. I acknowledge Miss X declined the potential offer and remains at the same address. Miss X has the right to request a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation offered by the Council.
56. The evidence shows a period from 28 November 2024 (the date the Council agreed Miss X’s accommodation was unsuitable) to 4 June 2025 (the date the Council suggested alternative accommodation to Miss X) where Miss X remained in unsuitable accommodation. This is a period of six months. The Council’s failure to provide suitable accommodation to Miss X for this period is fault causing an injustice to Miss X. Miss X says the Council’s actions severely impacted her mental health and caused a significant amount of avoidable stress. The Council’s records support this explanation.
57. Where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for financial redress is usually in the range of £150 to £350 a month. In this case, a financial remedy at the higher end of this range is appropriate due to the severe impact on Miss X’s mental wellbeing.

Back to top

Action

58. To address the injustice to Miss X, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one week of the final decision:
1. Offer suitable temporary accommodation to Miss X and provide a decision letter setting out Miss X’s right to request a review of the Council’s decision.
59. The Council has also agreed to take the following further actions within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Miss X for the fault identified. 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 I have recommended in my findings;
2. Make a symbolic payment of £300 in recognition of the distress caused by the delays in following up the issues of disrepair;
3. Make a further symbolic payment of £2,100 in recognition of the time spent in unsuitable accommodation. This equates to £350 per month for a period of six months, and
4. Remind staff of the Council’s legal duty to ensure applicants are in suitable accommodation which is free from disrepair or hazards.
60. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

61. I have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions to remedy the injustice to Miss X and I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman