Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with repairs at her permanent rented home and proposed new rented home, as her landlord; and its failure to provide her with suitable temporary accommodation. We have found fault and maladministration, causing injustice, by the Council in: failing to address the severe disrepair issues at Property A; poor record keeping; failure to evidence it offered Miss Y the opportunity to move her belongings out of Property A; and its failure to provide her with suitable accommodation from January 2024 to October 2024. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by: apologising to Miss Y for its failures, clearing any arrears, making payments and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council’s:
1. response, as her landlord, to disrepair at Property A, her previous permanent accommodation;
2. handling, as her landlord, of repairs to Property B, her proposed new permanent accommodation; and
3. failure to provide her and her family with suitable temporary accommodation from November 2023, when she moved out of Property A. and October 2024, when she moved into Property B.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we have used the word fault to refer to these.
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner or failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
5. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. If the LGSCO is 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(1), as amended)
8. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

9. Miss Y’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the LGSCO and HOS.
10. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.

Back to top

What we found

What happened

11. We have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on our review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Background

12. Miss Y and her family, which included a child, had previously been homeless. The Council had accepted it owed her the main housing duty. It discharged this duty by providing her with permanent social housing, Property A, in August 2023.
13. Miss Y and the Council, as landlord, entered into a tenancy agreement for Property A on 28 August 2023 and she moved into the accommodation.
14. Between 28 September and 30 October 2023, Miss Y made multiple reports to the Council of a leak coming into Property A from the flat above.

November to December 2023: Temporary decant

15. The Council accepted Miss Y and her family could not stay at Property A because of its condition and the extent of the disrepair. It decided to move them into alternative accommodation under its temporary decant policy while it completed the repairs.
16. Miss Y and her family were moved by the Council into hotel accommodation on 20 November.
17. On 23 December, Miss Y contacted the Council about their situation. The repair work at Property A had not been completed, there was no timescale for Miss Y’s return to Property A and the family were still in unsuitable hotel accommodation.
18. The Council proposed moving them to one of its properties as alternative decant accommodation. Miss Y told the Council this property wasn’t suitable because of its location, and distance from their work and child’s school. The Council then looked for another of its properties as alternative decant accommodation.
19. On 23 December, Miss Y contacted the Council about their situation. The repair work at Property A had not been completed and the family were still in unsuitable hotel accommodation.

January 2024: Miss Y’s further contact about her accommodation

20. On 17 January, an advice service representing Miss Y complained to the Council on her behalf. It said:

• Miss Y had been displaced from her home at Property A due to repair issues and decanted into hotel accommodation;
• she and her child had been living at the hotel for more than eight weeks. The accommodation was unsuitable and there was no timescale for her move back to her permanent accommodation;
• under homelessness law, families with children should not be accommodated in Bed and Breakfast (B&B) accommodation for more than six weeks; and
• Miss Y was now anxious about returning to Property A because of the impact of the disrepair on her family while they lived there. There were also concerns about the building’s long-term reliability.

January to October 2024: Council’s action to find other accommodation

21. Our understanding is the Council was now looking for another property to offer to Miss Y as new permanent social housing accommodation. In the meantime, it continued to accommodate Miss Y and her family in hotels.
22. The Council proposed:

• Property C, which Miss Y viewed, but declined because it was in poor condition and unsuitable; and
• Property D, which Miss Y said she would accept. The Council agreed to carry out work before she moved in. It advised her this had been completed but after viewing the property, Miss Y told the Council its condition was still unacceptable.

23. The Council then offered Property B, which Miss Y accepted. This property also required work and repairs before she could move in. it was hoped this would be completed by September 2024, but there were issues with the work which delayed this.
24. On 28 October, Miss Y and her family moved into, and entered into a tenancy agreement with the Council for, Property B.

Miss Y’s complaints to the Council

25. Miss Y complained to the Council in April 2024 about their temporary accommodation. She said they were still living in hotels, in breach of the Council’s homelessness duties.
26. In her further complaint in September 2024 Miss Y:

• told the Council about the impact on her and the family of living in hotel accommodation for so long. They had been placed in nine different hotels and sometimes in different boroughs, during this period;
• asked for compensation for the additional costs incurred as a result of living in hotel accommodation and the impact on her and her family; and
• asked the Council for a rebate of the rent she had paid for Property A and clear any rent arrears.

27. The Council said in its response to the complaint:

• it had accepted, in November 2023, it was unreasonable for them to continue to occupy Property A. Its housing management team had agreed to a permanent decant into suitable accommodation;
• it had provided Miss Y and her family with interim hotel accommodation for 49 weeks while it looked for suitable permanent accommodation;
• Miss Y was not entitled to a rent rebate for Property A. Its decant policy says tenants must continue to pay rent and bills, and the Council pays for the cost of alternative accommodation during the decant period;
• it acknowledged breaching its statutory duty by housing Miss Y and her family in unsuitable B&B style accommodation for 49 weeks, exceeding the six-week legal limit;
• she should claim through her home contents insurance for any belongings damaged while stored at Property A. Alternatively, she could consider filing a liability claim with the Council; and
• it had made a number of housing offers to her during the period she was decanted, at a time when all London boroughs were facing a severe housing shortage crisis.

28. The Council offered Miss Y a payment of £1,000 to reflect the impact of its failure to address the severe disrepair at Property A and her extended stay in hotel accommodation. It said it was unable to award a higher level of compensation due to limitations on the public purse.
29. Miss Y was not satisfied with the Council’s response and brought the complaint to us.

Back to top

What we have and have not investigated

Complaint (b) Council’s handling of repairs to Property B

30. Miss Y complains about the Council’s handling of repairs and work required to Property B. The Council had offered Property B to Miss Y as new permanent accommodation, but she was unable to move in until the work had been completed.
31. We, the LGSCO and HOS, have jointly decided we will not investigate this complaint because the Council was not acting as Miss Y’s landlord of Property B during this period.
32. We consider the Council’s duties, during the period from January to October 2024, were owed to Miss Y as a homeless person.
33. Our view, based on the evidence provided is:

• the Council decided to move Miss Y into alternative accommodation in November 2023 under its temporary decant policy. This was on the basis Miss Y would move back into Property A once the repair work was completed;
• but the repair work had not been completed by the end of December 2023, and Miss Y and her family continued to live in hotel accommodation. The Council should have considered, at this point, whether this was still a temporary decant and, if not, what duties it owed Miss Y now;
• had the Council properly considered the circumstances at the end of December 2023 – no timescale for completing the repairs or for Miss Y’s move back to Property A, her anxiety about returning and the wider concerns about the building’s reliability - it is more likely it would have decided this was no longer a temporary decant; and
• in any event, the Council decided, in January 2024, Miss Y would not move back to Property A and it would make her a direct offer of another property as permanent accommodation.

34. On this basis, we consider the Council should have accepted Miss Y was homeless at the end of December 2023 because she now had no secure accommodation reasonable for her to occupy. She remained homeless until she entered into the tenancy for Property B in October 2024.
35. It is acknowledged that the Council’s decant policy says tenants must continue to pay rent and bills, with the Council paying the cost of alternative accommodation. However, the Council should have considered if it was reasonable for it to continue to charge Miss Y full rent for Property A from January 2024 onwards. This is because it had at this point decided Miss Y would not move back to property A and therefore could not reasonably enjoy the provisions and protections provided by the rent she paid for that property.
36. We will consider the impact of the delay completing the work to Property B as part of complaint (c).

Complaint (a) Council’s handling of disrepair at Property A

37. HOS has investigated the Council’s response, as Miss Y’s landlord, to the reports of disrepair at Property A from the start of her tenancy in August 2023 to the end of December 2023.

Complaint (c) Council’s failure to provide suitable accommodation

38. LGSCO has investigated the Council’s failure to provide Miss Y and her family with suitable temporary accommodation while they were homeless from January to October 2024.

Back to top

Our decisions

39. Complaint (a) Council’s handling of disrepair at Property A

What should have happened

40. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the Council to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
41. The Council, as the landlord, also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the Council is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
42. The Council’s temporary decant policy states where no self-contained options available it may use hotels. The policy also states:

• All decant cases should have a clear plan, agreed with the resident, for moving back home.
• Cases should be reviewed on a weekly basis to make sure that temporary accommodation is not used for longer than necessary.
• There should be contact with the resident every 2 weeks alternating between a visit at the property and a virtual meeting.
• Residents will be offered 1 opportunity to remove their items from their property using the council’s arranged removals.

Assessment and findings

43. Between 28 September and 30 October 2023, Miss Y made multiple reports to the Council of a leak coming into Property A from the flat above. Having been informed by Miss Y of the leak the Council had a duty to respond in line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and its published policies and procedures.
44. Following each of Miss Y’s reports, the Council’s contractors attended in a timely manner but were repeatedly unable to gain access to the flat above to investigate where the leak was coming from and to resolve it.
45. In such circumstances the Council would be expected to be proactive in pursuing the upstairs neighbour for access. This is confirmed in the Council’s Repairs and Damp policy which states ‘Where disrepair has been reported and subsequent attempts to access the property have failed, we will pursue formal routes, including access injunctions and enforcing the tenancy agreement where necessary, to obtain access’.
46. Despite this and having noted in October 2023 that forced entry was required, the Council repeatedly failed to take any meaningful action to pursue the upstairs neighbour for access.
47. On 17 October 2023, the Council raised a job to mould wash Property A, noting that the works were delayed due to a leak traced to a neighbouring property. However, the Council’s records note this was not completed on 21 December 2023, over 1 month after it had moved Miss Y into hotel accommodation on 20 November 2023. The repair report for this job also notes its contractor reporting Property A was ‘still very wet’.
48. The Council accepted in November 2023 that Miss Y and her family should move out because of the condition of Property A. The Council provided her with hotel accommodation on 20 November 2023. The Council confirmed this in its stage 1 response. This was in accordance with its temporary decant policy which states where no self-contained options are available it may use hotels.
49. By the end of December 2023, the repair work at Property A had still not been completed, there was no timescale for Miss Y’s return to her permanent accommodation at Property A and she was still living in hotel accommodation.
50. We asked the Council to provide evidence of its decision-making process which led to Miss Y being moved out of Property A but it failed to provide this. This has resulted in an unfairness to Miss Y for which additional redress has been ordered.
51. We also asked the Council for evidence that it had complied with its obligations in respect of its decant policy, including an offer to remove Miss Y’s belongings from Property A, but none was provided. Again, the Council’s poor record keeping made it difficult for us to conclude that it complied with its obligations fairly and consistently.
52. Good record keeping is one of the fundamental aspects of housing management. Without it, and as in this case, a landlord is unable to support any claims it has made about the actions it has taken, or provide evidence that it is meeting its obligations fairly and consistently.
53. This further unfairness to Miss Y has been reflected in the additional redress ordered.
54. In its complaint responses the Council acknowledged it ‘failure to address the severe disrepair issues’...’despite (Miss Y’s) repeated request’ for these to be resolved. The Council included compensation for its handling of the leaks, damp and mould in the £1,000 it offered for all its acknowledged failures. However, it did not set out clearly what part of this was offered in relation to its handling of the repairs to Property A.
55. We are not satisfied that the Council acknowledged the full extent of its failures in relation to this element of Miss Y’s complaint. Nor did it provide compensation proportionate to the level of its failings or consider what learning it might take from the complaint to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future. The Council’s failures were compounded by the lack of evidence it was able to provide for this investigation.
56. It is acknowledged that there will always be some leaks that are more difficult to diagnose and/or repair and, therefore, longer to rectify. However, in this case, the Council failed to ensure that appropriate action was taken to resolve the leaks in a reasonable period of time. This had a significant impact on the resident which ultimately led to her being unable to remain living in Property A.
57. In her complaint Miss Y asked for £800 compensation for the 8 weeks she had experienced leaks, and subsequent damp and mould, whilst living in Property A. Given the level of the repeated failures by the Council, as well as the understandable and unnecessary distress and inconvenience to Miss Y, we have determined that £800 would be a reasonable amount of compensation for it to pay for this element of her complaint.
58. We have also determined that it would have been fair for the Council to have offered Miss Y a 100% reduction in the rent she had to pay for Property A as of 1 January 2024. This is because she could not reasonably enjoy the provisions and protections provided by the rent she paid for Property A.
59. In relation to Miss Y belongings, in general it is reasonable for a landlord to direct a resident to their own contents insurer for damage to their belongings. Where a resident believes the landlord is liable for damage to their belongings, it is also reasonable for a landlord to advise them that they could make a claim against its own insurers. Both of these the Council did in its complaint responses.
60. However, in this case given the Council was aware of leaks and damp in the resident’s property (both of which have the potential to damage belongings) it would have been reasonable for it to have offered Miss Y an opportunity to remove her belongings from Property A using its arranged removals, in accordance with its decant policy. The Council has provided no evidence that this was offered. Instead, it simply confirmed in its complaint responses that the resident’s belongings were stored at Property A throughout her 49 weeks stay in temporary accommodation.
61. We have ordered further compensation to address this failure and the unfairness to the resident as a result. It should be noted that this compensation is specifically for impact of the above failure. It is not compensation for the damage itself, as this would need to be claimed by Miss Y either from her own, or the Council’s, insurer.
62. Complaint (c) Council’s failure to provide suitable accommodation

What should have happened

Homelessness – the law

63. 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.
64. 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).
65. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need it 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)
66. A person with dependent children is an applicant in priority need.

Suitability of accommodation

67. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for their needs 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)
68. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

69. Bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks. B&B is accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned by the council or a registered provider of social housing and where the toilet, washing, or cooking facilities are shared with other households. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.35)

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

70. For the reasons set out at paragraphs 31 to 33, the Council should have accepted Miss Y was homeless from January 2024. As she was in priority need, it should have provided her with suitable accommodation while it looked for alternative permanent accommodation to offer her. Because it wrongly still considered the move to be a decant, it failed to do this.
71. The Council has acknowledged, and I agree, it failed to provide Miss Y with suitable accommodation from January 2024 to October 2024. Miss Y and her family spent a total of 43 weeks in hotel accommodation during this period. The Council should have moved her to suitable self-contained temporary accommodation within six weeks of 1 January 2024.
72. The Council did not do this, and its failure was fault.

Impact of this failure

73. Because of this failure Miss Y and her family stayed in unsuitable hotel accommodation for a further 37 weeks.
74. Miss Y told the Council about the impact of living in unsuitable hotel accommodation. She said they:

• were placed in nine different hotels, sometimes in other boroughs, during this period;
• incurred additional costs and spent extra time travelling to work and getting their child to school;
• had no access to kitchen facilities and were unable to prepare and cook their own food. Some meals were included but they had to buy pre-prepared food and takeaways for other meals. This had an impact on the family’s health;
• had no laundry facilities, which caused additional costs; and
• were unable to have a normal family life. Her child was unable to have friends over or play with toys.

Our approach to redress

75. Our approach to redress where we find fault because a homeless family has been placed in unsuitable accommodation is set out in our guidance on remedies
76. In cases where a family has been placed in B&B accommodation for more than the maximum of six weeks, we assess financial redress by reference to the number of weeks they stayed there beyond the point where they should have been moved.
77. We are likely to recommend a weekly payment in the range of £100 to £200. This is additional to reimbursement of any specific quantifiable costs the homeless household incurred as a direct result of a failure to arrange suitable accommodation. These can include reasonable additional cost of buying take-away food when there are no cooking facilities, and extra travelling costs to get to school or work if a household is inappropriately placed in accommodation outside the council’s area.
78. I consider the weekly payment should be at the top of the range here and have assessed weekly additional costs as £125.

Back to top

Action required

HOS recommendations and orders

79. Within 4 weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council is ordered to:
1. Apologise to Miss Y in writing for the failures identified in this report. The Council must ensure:  

• The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. 
• It has due regard to our apologies guidance.  
2. Pay Miss Y a total of £1,500 compensation. This is made up of:
• £800 for the understandable and unnecessary distress and inconvenience to Miss Y, as a result of its ‘failure to address the severe disrepair issues’ to Property A….’despite (Miss Y’s) repeated requests’.
• £200 for the impact of its poor record keeping on our investigation of its decision making in respect Miss Y’s temporary decant and whether it complied with its obligations under that policy.
• £500 for the unfairness to Miss Y of the Council’s failure to evidence that it offered the resident the opportunity to move her belongings out of Property A whilst the repairs to resolve the damp and mould remained outstanding.
• It is our position that compensation awarded by us should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the Council and Miss Y and should not be offset against arrears. This applies regardless of whether the Council’s compensation policy allows it to do this.
3. Arrange for refund to be made to Miss Y equivalent to 100% of any rent she paid for Property A from 1 January 2024 onwards. Unlike the compensation awarded by us, this may be offset against any arrears on Miss Y’s rent account.
4. Review its record keeping in this case against its Knowledge and Information Management Strategy and to confirm to us where this new strategy might address similar record keeping failures going forward.

80. It is recommended the Council should within 6 weeks of the date of the final decision:
1. Review its decant policies against the findings in this report. The purpose of this review is to consider:

• At what point, and under what circumstances, it would appropriate for it to offer residents the 1 opportunity to remove their items from their property using its arranged removals.
• Whether they adequately cover cases where the decant is no longer temporary and what happens if a tenant considers alternative accommodation is not suitable.
• The process for monitoring the suitability of accommodation and periods of time tenants spend in decant accommodation and decision making about when a decant is no longer temporary.

2. Consider what learning it can take from this report with regards to its record keeping and its approach to providing information requested by the Ombudsman, that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint.
2. The landlord should provide the Housing Ombudsman Service with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

LGSCO action

82. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Miss Y for its failure to provide her with suitable temporary accommodation from January to October 2024. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
2. pay Miss Y a total of £12,025, comprising £7,400 to recognise the upset and distress caused by living in unsuitable hotel accommodation for 37 weeks, and £4,625 to reflect the extra costs incurred as a direct result. This is based on our guidance on remedies.
83. The Council should provide the LGSCO with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

84. We have found fault and maladministration by the Council causing injustice. It has agreed to remedy this by taking the above actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman