Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions when she reported repeated leaks from neighbours in her temporary accommodation. We found the Council at fault for not monitoring progress about the issues. We also found fault as it did not consider relevant factors about Mrs X’s housing situation regarding suitability and priority on its housing register. This caused significant frustration and uncertainty for Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, reconsider Mrs X’s housing priority, and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. It also agreed to identify learning points from this case.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider or deal with the ongoing leaks from the flat above her, making the temporary accommodation (TA) she lives in unsuitable. She said the issues were a health and safety hazard, negatively impacting on the whole family’s mental and physical health.

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, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
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. This decision statement specifically considers matters in Mrs X’s complaint relating to the duties of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (the Council) and Mrs X’s contact with it.
6. Mrs X’s complaint overlaps with the responsibilities of another council (Council B). Mrs X has raised a separate case with us against Council B. She reported some of the same, and additional, issues to it in a similar timeframe. That case should make separable findings around Council B.
7. Mrs X referred to recurrent issues around her housing since 2021. Mrs X complained to us in June 2025. Part of the complaint is late (see Paragraph 3). I will not consider that far back as Mrs X could have complained to us sooner about this earlier period.
8. The main areas I will focus on in this complaint is the Council’s consideration of Mrs X’s concerns around the repeated leaks coming from the flat above her, rather than general disrepairs. I will consider from June 2024 (12 months prior to coming to us) to September 2025 (when Mrs X received the Council’s final complaint response). Any new or ongoing issues since needs to be a new complaint to the Council to respond to first.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. The complaint has been discussed with Mrs X and her views considered.
10. The Council responded to our enquiries, and I considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mrs 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

Relevant administrative background

Suitability of homeless accommodation

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. If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, it must provide suitable accommodation. Councils must keep the issue of suitability under review (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 17.8). It is an ongoing duty.

The Council’s allocation scheme (updated 2023)

13. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories: homeless people; people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing and people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
14. The Council operates a banding and points-based priority system. Applicants are placed in Bands 1 (highest need) to 4 (general priority). It also awarded different numbers of points, based on housing needs. Under its allocations scheme, the Council has a section about health and independence points. It outlines situations where it might not award priority for rehousing due to health problems:
• Living in unsuitable temporary accommodation - “if you are living in temporary accommodation…and we decide that your current home is not suitable for you because of your health problems, we may not give you health and independence points straight away. This is because we have a responsibility to provide you with suitable temporary accommodation…that is our priority. If we have not been able to offer you another, suitable, temporary home within six weeks, we will give you health and independence points to improve your chances of moving, providing you meet the criteria”.
• Problems due to repair issues – “if the health-related problems you are facing are caused by repair issues within your current home and your home would be suitable for you otherwise, it is likely that it will be better to look at fixing the repair issues rather than look to find you another home. We can give you advice about this”.

Background

15. Mrs X has lived in temporary accommodation (TA) provided under the Council’s main housing duty for several years and is Band B on its housing register. The property is in a separate borough in London, under Council B. Mrs X said she has experienced leaks from the upstairs flat for a few years. The upstairs flat has a private landlord.

What happened – summary of key relevant events in the period considered

16. In mid-February 2025, a Council log showed Mrs X reported a leak from the upstairs flat, and these had been ongoing for a few years now. She said her TA was unsuitable and requested an inspection. The Council emailed the Managing Agent (MA), who manages Mrs X’s TA, and asked it for a plan of action to resolve the situation.
17. Two days later, the MA emailed the Council. It said the leak was from above and not from a property it managed which made it complicated. It would speak to the owner to try and get a resolution. The Council acknowledged this.
18. In late March 2025, a Council officer visited Mrs X’s property. The next month, they shared the inspection report internally. They said, “there is no active leak in the property or any other underlying repair issue to render the property uninhabitable”. The attached report said there was no sign of water ingress and no outstanding repair issues.
19. In late April 2025, Mrs X emailed the Council to report a current leak from the upstairs flat, with pictures. She wanted to be rehoused as it affected her mentally and physically. The Council sent an email to the MA. It asked about the extent of the leak and a plan of action to resolve it.
20. The same day, Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council. She outlined the unresolved repeating leak from the upstairs flat, affecting her TA. She was vulnerable with health issues, with the situation causing significant stress on her wellbeing and family. She had contacted Council B for it to instruct the upstairs flat to fix the plumbing issues but to no success. Mrs X asked for more priority points for her housing register application under health and independence. She said the property was not suitable as it impacted on her health needs. Mrs X later provided several medical supporting letters which described how the issues with the upstairs flat affected her.
21. Two days later, the Council told Mrs X it would treat her concerns as service requests, not as a formal complaint.
22. In early May 2025, the Council sent an internal email to say it had spoken to Mrs X. They explained the MA would liaise with the upstairs landlord and Council B about any repairs needed that were causing the leaks in Mrs X’s.
23. In late May 2025, the Council received a contractor completion report. It advised they “carried out replacement of pipework fixed leaks and removed water filter” in Mrs X’s property. The MA signed this repair off 2 weeks later.
24. In early June 2025, Mrs X complained to us. We advised the Council to take her complaint through its formal complaints process.
25. In late June 2025, Mrs X reported another leak in the kitchen. This flooded her light fittings and boiler. She had to call the emergency services to switch the electrics off. She also did this with a bathroom leak 5 days earlier. She did not want to move to another TA but wanted extra points to increase her chances of bidding on a permanent home. The same day, the Council emailed the MA to ensure it arranged the necessary work to resolve the leaks. The MA said it attended to make the lights safe.
26. At the start of July 2025, the Council’s Health and Disability (HD) team wrote to her to assess her home’s suitability. It decided her evidence did not demonstrate a significantly adverse effect on her health or that her TA was unsuitable. It had no requirement to provide alternative TA. It said matters around significant repair issues was not a matter for the HD team to address or resolve. It advised her to contact the relevant team to make requests about the issues. Mrs X asked for a review of the decision.
27. In late August 2025, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at Stage 1. It said the MA confirmed it fixed the leak in May 2025. The MA had made attempts to inspect Mrs X’s property to assess any ongoing disrepair since the start of August 2025, but she had declined access. It said if she wanted more points, she could be assessed by the HD team. It did not uphold her complaint.
28. At the end of August 2025, Mrs X asked to withdraw the review as she did not want to move to alternative TA. She wanted the points.
29. In late September 2025, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at Stage 2. It would arrange an inspection to assess the current condition. It referred her to the process for health points outlined in its 2017 allocations scheme. It did not uphold her complaint.

Analysis

Mrs X’s concerns about the repeated upstairs flat leaks

30. The Council provided Mrs X’s TA, so its responsibility was to keep suitability under review and to consider information relevant for Mrs X’s housing register application. The leaks came from the upstairs flat, but this property is managed by a private landlord. The landlord is therefore responsible for the repairs, not the Council.
31. Overall, I am not satisfied with the Council’s general actions around Mrs X’s reports of ongoing leaks:
• After Mrs X’s reports, it asked the MA for updates on the action it would take. The Council then did not proactively monitor progress (with Mrs X or the MA) afterwards of whether, or how, these had been addressed. These leaks had the potential to keep affecting Mrs X’s property (as it had done previously) but the Council did not follow up about the source of the leaks, only reacting with the next incident. This is fault.
• I note the Council provided a report as evidence of repairing the leak in May 2025. This had little specific detail in it. The Council was satisfied with this, but there are no case records to say why. It appears this repaired a consequence of a leak in Mrs X’s home, rather than fixing the source of it in the upstairs flat. Given Mrs X reported further leaks which became worse (involving emergency services), I do not consider the Council could rely on this alone to support the view it had fixed the issues. This is fault.
• The Council referred to two inspections (in March and September 2025) saying it observed no visible leaks. But it visited many weeks after a reported leak, so this was expected. The Council also approached the matter as a general disrepair issue. I do not consider that the heart of Mrs X’s concerns; it was more complex than that. The source of the leaks was not in Mrs X’s accommodation, but the upstairs flat. The Council failed to properly consider the bigger picture, including the implications of the ongoing situation for Mrs X, and how it affected her. This is fault.
• I recognise the Council was not directly responsible for the repairs needed in the upstairs flat, but I have also not seen evidence on whether it contacted Council B itself to share or gather information. It missed opportunities for a joined up, co-ordinated approach to satisfy itself the issues in the upstairs flat were being addressed. This is fault.
• Having identified the faults above, I cannot say, on balance, whether this would likely have changed the outcome or made a difference to Mrs X’s situation, as it relied on the actions of third parties. However, this creates a high level of uncertainty for Mrs X, which is injustice.

Suitability and health and independence points

32. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide what priority points the Council should award to applicants or say if a property is unsuitable. Our role is to consider the process of how it made its decisions, including whether the Council followed guidance and considered relevant information.
33. In my view, the Council made flawed decisions around the suitability of Mrs X’s TA:
• It’s HD team carried out a suitability review, which is a narrow scope. It decided her TA did not have a significant adverse impact on her. I can see it made this decision within the ‘health’ limits of what it could consider in its allocation scheme. However, it was not Mrs X’s TA itself, it was the repeated leaks from the upstairs flat affecting her with ongoing distress and anxiety.
• But looking at the Council’s allocation scheme (see Paragraph 14), even if it did find the property unsuitable, it would move her to alternative TA before giving extra points. Mrs X withdrew her review request as she did not want this (so we only have the Council’s initial decision). This was her choice and it restricted what the Council could practically do. But in my view, this does not absolve it of its duty to consider suitability or other approaches with points priority.
• Suitability is not just about impact on health; a property can be unsuitable if it relates to unsatisfactory housing conditions. This includes if it presents hazards or safety risks. These were relevant factors in Mrs X’s situation, and the Council did not consider this sooner. Its allocations scheme does not appear to give reasonable preference relating to this. It does say how it may consider repair issues on health (see Paragraph 14). But Mrs X’s circumstances did not fit as the repair issues were not within her home but a neighbour’s. (Regardless, my findings above noted the Council did not sufficiently act in this respect either).
• The Council relied on inspections to say there was no ‘active leak’, but I cannot see it had proper consideration of Mrs X’s situation or put serious thought into assessing the frequency, the increasing severity or risks about safety given the sporadic and unpredictable nature of the leaks. This is fault.
• If it had considered these, the Council may have considered whether Mrs X’s case warranted discretion as an exceptional case, which its allocations scheme allows for.
• Again, on balance, I cannot say whether the outcome would have been different had it not been for the fault above, but this creates uncertainty for Mrs X, which is injustice.

Complaint handling

34. The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint missed the point of her concerns. She was not complaining about outstanding disrepair issues in her own home, rather how the leaks from the upstairs flat were affecting her TA’s suitability. It also said it was satisfied the MA fixed it earlier in the year, but Mrs X had reported at least another two more leaks to it since then. It failed to mention this. It also advised her to the process around additional points (referring to an outdated allocation scheme), but Mrs X had already completed this. These points further suggested a lack of oversight her case. This fault with poor complaints handling caused avoidable frustration and confusion for Mrs X.

Back to top

Agreed Action

35. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within six weeks of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X in writing for the injustice caused by the faults identified (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology); and pay Mrs X a symbolic payment of £200 to recognise the injustice of frustration, uncertainty and distress from the faults.
• It should reconsider and make a new decision about Mrs X’s priority on the housing register. It should explain whether it decided to exercise discretion based on Mrs X’s circumstances, explain its reasons in how it made this decision and what it considered. If it decides to award additional points, it should consider whether it should backdate them to an appropriate point. It should inform Mrs X of the outcome in writing and offer review rights if she disagrees.
36. Within two months of the final decision:
• It should share this decision as a case study with relevant housing staff. It should discuss and identify points of learning, and share what action it will take to prevent future recurrence of fault. It should share this plan of action with us.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman