Summary: Miss C complained that the Council had failed to ensure repairs in her temporary accommodation were completed within a reasonable period. We accept the housing provider delayed in completing some of the repairs but we found its offer of £150 was a reasonable way of resolving the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss C complained that North Northamptonshire Council (the Council) failed to ensure significant repairs to her temporary accommodation were completed within a reasonable time. It also failed to consider whether the property was suitable for her and her family or provide her with a formal decision with a right of review. Miss C said the failure to complete the repairs caused her significant distress over a prolonged period.

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. 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Suitability of accommodation

6. 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)
7. 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)

What happened

8. Miss C had been living in temporary accommodation since January 2024 following a homeless application to the Council in 2023. The Council accepted the main housing duty towards her in May 2024, and the notification letter included a right of review regarding the suitability of the property, if she considered it was unsuitable. The accommodation was managed by Provider D, but the Council was responsible for ensuring the temporary accommodation was in good repair and suitable for the household.
9. In June 2024 she had complained about a broken radiator, broken bathroom tiles and an overgrown garden with dangerous holes. Provider D said it had mended the radiator, and the garden repair was underway. In mid-August 2024 Miss C complained that she had injured herself in the garden. On 2 September Provider D said the repairs were complete. Miss C said there was still a crumbling wall and a broken slab. The Council asked Provider D for an urgent response and said it would find alternative accommodation if the repairs were not completed.
10. There were no further complaints until 13 January 2025 when Miss C complained about several issues including a crack in the kitchen ceiling. Provider D said it had visited the property and resolved some of the issues and the others were in hand.
11. On 20 January Miss C complained about a faulty carbon monoxide meter and said that the plaster used to cover up the crack in the kitchen was inadequate. Provider D said it had attended the previous week and would be attending again to resolve the outstanding issues.
12. On 22 January the Council offered Miss C an alternative property. She declined due to the location and the Council agreed to rescind the offer.
13. On 6 February the Council responded to the complaint about the carbon monoxide meter and confirmed the alarm had been changed and inspected recently.
14. On 19 February Miss C complained again about the crack in the kitchen ceiling. The Council contacted Provider D who confirmed it had logged a formal complaint from Miss C. On 24 February Provider D inspected the house and noted there were cracks in the kitchen ceiling and the issue with the back door had not been resolved.
15. On 3 March Miss C complained again about the cracks in the ceiling. On 5 March Provider D confirmed it was due to water damage. It also said the holes in the garden were due to animals and the landlord would need to get a rotavator.
16. On 28 March Provider D apologised for the delay. On 2 April the Council responded to her second complaint about the kitchen ceiling. It confirmed the repairs had been completed and that it had offered Miss C alternative accommodation.
17. Miss C refused the property as the bedrooms were too small. She also escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure.
18. On 25 April the Council inspected the property and on 2 May it met with Provider D. Provider D accepted there had been some delays in completing the repairs and it had offered Miss C £150 as a goodwill gesture.
19. On 27 May the Council responded to Miss C’s complaint at stage two. It agreed the repairs had not been done promptly or effectively and made a further offer of accommodation. Miss C accepted this and moved in on 29 May.
20. She then complained to us. She said the kitchen ceiling had collapsed which was very stressful. In responding to my enquiries Provider D said the ceiling had collapsed as part of the repair process and not prior to the contractor’s arrival.
21. The Council in responding to my enquiries said Miss C had never requested a formal review of the suitability of the accommodation and it did not consider the accommodation was unsuitable. It had found alternative accommodation in recognition of the delays in carrying out the repairs.

Findings

22. I understand Miss C found the continuing disrepair in her accommodation distressing and inconvenient. However, I have not identified fault in the way the Council dealt with the issues Miss C raised. Each time she complained the Council responded promptly to Miss C and liaised with Provider D several times to ensure the repairs were completed.
23. Provider D accepted it took too long to repair the ceiling and the back door. It apologised and offered Miss C £150 as a goodwill gesture, along with making some improvements to its service. Given that the internal disrepair was relatively minor and did not impede Miss C’s daily life in a significant way, I consider the offer of £150 is a reasonable way of resolving the complaint and is in line with our guidance on remedies.
24. The Council informed Miss C of her right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation in May 2024. There is no evidence Miss C requested a formal review, and the Council did not consider the disrepair made the property unsuitable. It offered alternative accommodation as it recognised there had been some delay in resolving the issues. I have not found fault with its actions here.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find fault causing injustice but consider the Council has taken action to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman