Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled her reports of disrepair in her temporary accommodation. We have found the Council at fault for its poor communication and complaint handling, failure to escalate the enforcement action against the property management agency, and delay in accepting Miss X’s review request. This fault caused Miss X distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete the suitability review.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to act on her reports of serious health and safety hazards in her temporary accommodation. She said this is affecting her and her child’s health and causing distress.

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. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Miss X moved into the property she complains about in July 2021. From the evidence I have seen, Miss X first reported problems of mould to the Council in 2023. Section 26B (paragraph 2) applies in this case. I have not exercised to discretion to investigate matters which took place more than 12 months before Miss X brought her complaint to us. I have seen no good reason why Miss X did not complaint to us sooner.
6. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2025. I have started my investigation in May 2024, 12 months before. Given that the same issues have continued since Miss X brought her complaint to us, I have investigated beyond May 2025.
7. I have investigated the Council’s actions in relation to its duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation under the homelessness act.
8. I have not investigated specific issues around the disrepair of the property as this is out of our jurisdiction, and for the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. 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 guidance

The main housing duty

11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Review rights

12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• 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.

Suitability of accommodation

13. 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)
14. 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)
15. Councils have a duty to keep the suitability of accommodation under review. An applicant may ask a council to reconsider the suitability of their current temporary accommodation if their circumstances change (for example, if their medical or disability-related needs change or there is an increase in the size of the household). The council should then make a new suitability decision. (R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin))
16. If the council agrees the 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). If the council accepts the accommodation is unsuitable, the applicant does not need to request a section 202 review. We can therefore investigate complaints from applicants who remain in temporary accommodation after the council accepts it is unsuitable.
17. However, if the council decides the accommodation is suitable, that decision must be put in writing and the applicant must be notified of the right to request a section 202 review. The applicant can then use the section 202 review procedure to challenge the decision on suitability, and we usually expect people to use this statutory right and then appeal.

Council environmental health

18. The Council’s environmental health team enforces private sector housing standards, tackling hazards like damp, mould, and disrepair. The Council advises tenants to first report issues to landlords, then to the Council if unresolved.
19. The Council says that if a tenant thinks the conditions of their property are putting their health at risk, it can assess whether their home is safe and take action if it is not.
20. It says that in most cases, the Council will write to the landlord first. The Council will give the landlord 3 weeks to deal with the problem. It says this is usually enough time to solve the problem. If after 3 weeks the tenant tells the Council that the landlord has not responded to its letter, the Council will inspect the property.
21. The policy says that after inspecting the property, the Council will take action. The action it take will depend on the kind of problem there is. If the Council find conditions that are a risk to the tenant’s health, it will issue a formal notice to the landlord. If the landlord does not take action after this, the Council will prosecute or fine the landlord.

What happened

Background

22. Miss X submitted a homeless application to the Council in 2019. The Council accepted the main housing duty in November 2019. This gave Miss X the right to request a review of the suitability of any temporary accommodation the Council offered her. Miss X requested two suitability reviews of accommodation before accepting her current temporary accommodation in July 2021.
23. Miss X reported problems of mould in the property to the Council in 2023. The Council referred this to the property’s management agency (‘the management agency’). From the evidence I have seen, there was no contact between Miss X and the Council until March 2025.

Miss X reported property disrepair

24. In March 2025, Miss X contacted the management agency about various problems in the temporary accommodation. This included mould, damp and mice. The management agency arranged for pest control to visit the property and offered for the maintenance team to visit the next day to treat any mould.
25. The management agency contacted a housing officer at the Council to arrange a joint inspection of the property. This was on a Friday. On the Monday, when it had not heard from the Council, it offered to inspect the property without the Council. Miss X said she was frustrated by the Council’s poor communication but wanted the housing officer to visit with the management agency. The following day, the Council contacted Miss X to inform her that the housing offer was no longer working at the Council.
26. That same week, the management agency offered for the maintenance team to carry out a ‘mould wash’. Miss X did not respond to this offer.
27. Following its earlier visit, pest control completed a report of its findings in early April. This stated there were visible signs of mice in the property. It identified that the pest activity was part of a broader issue affecting the building as whole. It said it inspected, refreshed and replenished all bait stations and checked the premises for any carcasses but found none. It recommended that Miss X should improve housekeeping and hygiene standards to support ongoing pest control efforts. Miss X disagreed with the report.

Miss X complained to the Council about her housing situation

28. Later in April, Miss X complained about how the Council was handling her housing situation. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s response and escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. She asked for the Council to inspect the property and to consider her for rehousing.

Issues unresolved

29. In early May, Miss X reported to the management agency that the damp and mice issues were unresolved. She asked for dates when it was going to repair the mice holes and treat the mould.
30. The management agency said that Miss X had requested that any inspections should only be carried out when a Council housing officer was available, and this was impacting on scheduling the repairs. Miss X correctly said it was the management agency that had recommended a joint inspection.
31. The management agency followed up dates for a joint inspection with the Council. When no suitable date could be agreed, the management agency inspected the property alone in mid-May.

Property visit and proposed treatment

32. During the visit, there was discussion about whether the kitchen needed to be replaced or refurbished. The management agency told Miss X that it would need permission from the landlord before any major works could be undertaken.
33. It said, in the interim, the maintenance team could treat the mould and temporarily cover the mouse holes. It asked Miss X to empty the kitchen cupboards to allow the team access. Miss X refused to clear the cupboards until she had confirmation that a more permanent solution had been agreed.
34. The management agency sent Miss X a final email. It said that it had proposed works that Miss X had declined. It said that she had not cleared any mice droppings from the kitchen cupboards or kept the kitchen clean despite being concerned about the health risks. It also said that she needed to ventilate the property to prevent condensation mould. It informed Miss X that moving forward, she should contact the Council directly. It also suggested that she request a suitability review of the property as it was temporary accommodation.

Miss X escalated to the Ombudsman and requested a suitability review

35. Miss X contacted the Council and complained how she had been treated. The Council responded to Miss X with a copy of the management agency’s final email and referred her to the Ombudsman.
36. In May 2025, Miss X brought her complain to the Ombudsman and submitted a request for a suitability review of her temporary accommodation in June 2025.

Update

37. Since bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss X has continued to pursue the Council and the management company about the mould and mice issues. The Council and management agency inspected the property in July 2025. The inspection confirmed the presence of mice droppings and mould but said the property was in overall good condition.
38. The management agency said that Miss X did not need to vacate the property for the repair/treatment works to be carried out. Pest control visited in July and again in September. It confirmed that all previous proofing methods continued to be effective and that the damp inspection was negative.
39. Miss X reported the property disrepair to environmental health at the Council. The Council inspected the property in December 2025. The report said that while pest activity was confirmed, it did not constitute a category 1 hazard, but that pest control treatment was required. The Council instructed the management agency to arrange a date with Miss X to treat the problem.
40. In January 2026, Miss X reported to the Council that the management agency had not visited. The Council issued an enforcement notice on the management agency. This required the remedial work to be completed by mid-February 2026.
41. Miss X requested an urgent suitability review of the property and immediate consideration for re housing. The Council logged Miss X’s request. In February, the Council wrote to Miss X and explained her review request was out of time.
42. After the management agency failed to attend an agreed date to carry out the remediation works, the Council agreed to meet with Miss X.
43. At the meeting, the Council confirmed that:
• it would undertake a suitability review of the property,
• it would contact the management agency about the missed appointment, and
• that environmental health had an active enforcement case against the management agency.
44. Pest control visited the property in mid-February. It carried out some treatment but confirmed a follow-up visit was required. At the time of this decision, Miss X confirmed the management agency had not arranged a follow-up visit and the Council had disregarded her earlier suitability review request from June 2025.

My findings

Delayed response to problems of disrepair

45. Miss X reported problems of mice and damp to the management agency. After its initial visit, it contacted the Council to arrange a joint visit to the property.
46. The Council delayed in responding to the management agency and Miss X. The management agency eventually carried out its own visit and arranged for pest control to carry out remedial works.
47. I have not found fault with the Council the delays as its policy suggests that the landlord/management agency should deal with reported problems in the first instance. However, I have found evidence of poor communication on the Council’s part as it should have informed the management agency and Miss X of its role. This caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss X.

Poor complaint handling

48. When the problems continued, and Miss X was unhappy with the management agency’s actions, she complained to the Council. The Council responded by sending a copy of the management agency’s final response to her. It also suggested she request a statutory review of the temporary accommodation’s suitability and referred her to the Ombudsman.
49. This was fault as the Council did not carry out its own investigation of Miss X’s complaint about the management agency’s actions.

First suitability review request

50. From the evidence I have seen, Miss X submitted a request for a review in June 2025. The Council did not respond to this and denied receiving the request when Miss X chased the Council.
51. This was fault that delayed the suitability review. Causing Miss X uncertainty.

Environmental health contacted

52. Miss X contacted environmental health at the Council in August 2025. An inspection of the property took place in September which identified that the treatment was working. Upon visiting in December, the Council identified the presence of mice and instructed the management agency to act.
53. I have found no fault here as the Council arranged inspection visits and followed up with the management agency.

Enforcement notice

54. The management agency failed to treat the mice problem. After a month of chasing, the Council issued an enforcement notice requiring the management agency to act within 3 weeks.
55. This is in line with the Council’s enforcement policy. I have found no fault here. When the management agency failed to act, the Council should have taken further action. I have seen no evidence of this. This was fault causing Miss X further frustration.

Second suitability review request

56. When Miss X requested a suitability review in January 2025, the Council refused and told Miss X that it was out of time given that she accepted the temporary accommodation in 2019.
57. As explained in paragraph 15, councils have a duty to keep the suitability of accommodation under review. The Council should have made a new suitability decision and informed Miss X in writing. This would have then reinstated Miss X’s right to review. This was fault that caused Miss X further distress.
58. When Miss X met with the Council, 3 weeks after her review request (and 1 week after the Council’s refusal), the Council changed its mind and agreed to carry out a suitability review. The Council should complete a suitability review with 8 weeks (56 days) of Miss X’s request. This date is after the date of this decision, so I have not made a finding on this matter.

Conclusion

59. I have found the Council at fault for:
• its poor communication with Miss X when it became aware of the problems with her property.
• poor complaint handling at stage 2 when it did not carry out its own investigation of the management agency’s handling of her case.
• failing to escalate its enforcement action against the management agency when it did not act in line with the notice issued by the Council.
• failing to act upon Miss X’s first request for a suitability review.
• failing to make a new suitability decision when Miss X requested a suitability review.
60. The above fault caused Miss X avoidable distress. This included the frustration and uncertainty of not knowing when or whether the problems with her temporary accommodation were going to be resolved.
61. I cannot go as far as saying the fault caused Miss the injustice of remaining in unsuitable accommodation as the Council had not completed the suitability review at the time of my decision. I also cannot make a judgement on whether the state of the accommodation has affected Miss X or her son’s health. This will be covered by the suitability review.
62. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X in recognition of the distress caused by the fault. The Council has also agreed to complete the suitability review within 4 weeks of my decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

63. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Miss X for the uncertainty and frustration caused by the poor communication and complaint handling, and failure to escalate its enforcement action against the management agency, and delay in accepting her review request.
2. Pay Miss X £500 in recognition of the distress caused by the Council’s fault.
3. Complete the suitability review request and inform Miss X of the outcome and the next steps.
64. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

65. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman