Summary: We upheld a complaint from Ms B, who spent nine months living in a hotel with her three children following flood damage to a flat she lived in as temporary accommodation. We found the Council at fault for the time taken for Ms B to return, for not offering her suitable alternative housing and poor communications. We considered these faults caused Ms B the injustice of living in unsuitable accommodation and avoidable unnecessary distress. The Council accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out action it agreed to take to remedy Ms B’s injustice and improve its service to try and avoid a repeat.

The complaint

1. Ms B’s complaint concerned events in 2023 and 2024. She lived in a flat provided for her as temporary accommodation by the Council, which it had provided since 2019. In 2023 the flat experienced significant damage because of flooding caused by a leak from the flat above. Ms B complained the Council:

• did not identify the source of the leak sooner. She said by August 2023 her flat had become unfit to live in because of how much water came into her children’s bedroom;
• placed her in unsuitable hotel accommodation between October 2023 and July 2024. She said more than once the Council delayed or failed to renew the hotel booking causing her to have to change hotels or chase officers to ensure they rebooked it;
• took too long to fix the leak. She experienced further issues with water entering her flat up to August 2024 after she moved back in;
• after completing repairs, the Council was slow to put her flat in a condition where she could move back in. It had disposed of beds, wardrobes and carpets because of water damage. Its contractors also caused some damage to the flat and did not leave it clean and tidy;
• did not communicate effectively with her to explain the causes of delay in identifying and fixing the source of the flooding;
• was slow to apply a rebate to her rent account meaning she accrued over £4000 of rent arrears while living in the hotel;
• was slow to compensate her for the cost of lunches as she had no cooking facilities in the hotel. It did not compensate her for laundry costs nor some evening meal costs.

2. Ms B said the impact of the events complained about caused her and her family significant distress. Ms B said she struggled to establish routines for her children as the whole family had to share a single room in the hotel. One of her children has significant health problems which cause him to spend much time in hospital. His health needs increased while living in the hotel accommodation. While her eldest child struggled in school because of the disruption to her life. Ms B said her own mental health suffered during the events covered by this complaint and contributed to her taking sick leave from her employment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as private insurance providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
6. However, where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of those providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
7. 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)
8. 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 did and did not investigate

9. I investigated the events covered by this complaint from January 2023. Ms B used the Council’s complaint procedure before complaining to this office. However, when she completed that in March 2024, the Council did not signpost her to this office. Instead, it told her she could take her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) if unhappy with its reply.
10. Having identified the complaint was not for its service, HOS sent Ms B’s complaint for our consideration. However, it did not do that until November 2025. This meant that when we received the complaint, it was late. However, I considered it unfair to penalise Ms B for receiving the wrong advice from the Council and then for the delay in HOS sending her complaint to us.
11. So, I took the approach that we should consider the Council’s response to whatever reports Ms B made of water entering her flat from January 2023 onward. And to then explore what the Council or its contractors did in response.
12. I considered it reasonable to investigate events up to August 2024. As noted above Ms B’s complaint completed the Council’s complaint procedure before March 2024. But she continued to live in hotel accommodation while repairs continued to her flat until July. During which time Ms B continued to be in regular correspondence with the Council about repairs, the condition of the flat and when she could return. In that correspondence Ms B continued to express dissatisfaction with the Council or its contractors. And in its replies, the Council recognised that dissatisfaction and offered a further remedy to Ms B in July 2024. I found this complaint covered a continuous series of events therefore, lasting up to August 2024. The Council had not investigated every event summarised in paragraph 1 under its complaint procedure. But I considered it reasonable in this context, that my investigation should encompass all those matters.
13. I noted that in her complaint Ms B had also referred to making reports of water entering her flat before January 2023 - in 2019 and 2021. I decided not to investigate the Council’s response to those reports.
14. I did not find Ms B had provided good reasons for why she did not complain about the Council’s response to those reports before March 2024. There was no evidence she lacked the ability to do so.
15. Further, the law setting out our powers of investigation is there for a reason. The further back in time we investigate, the less likely it is the Council or its contractors will have kept records. Personnel will also change and memories fade. I did not consider we could safely investigate events that took place more than three years ago.
16. I also noted that in her submissions to this office Ms B told us that in January 2025 she had contacted the Council again about the condition of her flat. In particular, that she had found mould growing. I considered its response to this matter also fell outside the scope of this investigation. I found that both the Council and Ms B considered all repairs to her flat and the flat above (which had caused her flat to flood) had completed by August 2024. So, this later report was therefore separate and did not form part of that continuous series of events I described in paragraph 12. So, I could not include consideration of that report as part of this investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

17. I considered evidence provided by Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
18. I gave Ms B and the Council a draft version of this decision statement and invited their comments and for them to provide any further evidence considered relevant to its content. I took account of their responses before putting the decision statement in its final format.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legal and administrative considerations

19. If a council finds an applicant unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and they have a priority need, the council has a duty to secure accommodation for their occupation. This is the ‘main housing duty’. ‘Temporary accommodation’ is that a council provides until it can end this duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
20. 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 temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
21. Wherever possible, Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.33) Councils can only use B&B accommodation for households which include dependent children when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks. B&B accommodation is not self-contained; not owned by the council or a registered provider of social housing; and where the household must share toilet, washing, or cooking facilities with other households. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.35)
22. Government guidance says that in all cases “space and arrangement will be key factors in determining the suitability of accommodation. However, consideration of whether accommodation is suitable will require an assessment of all aspects of the accommodation in the light of the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household” (Homelessness Code of Practice, paragraph 17.4).
23. It also says councils “need to consider carefully the suitability of accommodation for households with particular medical and/or physical needs” (paragraph 17.5).

The key facts

24. In 2018, the Council found Ms B was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. It placed her in a two bed flat it owns and uses for temporary accommodation. It also rents out two flats above, which I will call ‘Flat X’ and ‘Flat Y’.
25. At the beginning of 2023 Ms B lived in the flat with her three dependent children, all of whom were aged five or younger. One child has autism and epilepsy. Until January 2023 Ms B received housing benefit which covered most of the rent. However, this stopped and Ms B told me this was because she entered full-time employment. From July 2023 Ms B paid her full rent weekly and had no rent arrears.
26. In April 2023 a Council contractor, which had responsibility for responding to reports of disrepair (up to September 2024) received a report of a leak in Flat X. The contractor suspected Flat X contained asbestos in building materials and so could not repair the leak straight away. Instead, they first needed to commission a specialist sub-contractor to survey for the presence of asbestos and, if found, to remove it.
27. In May 2023 the contractor first recorded contact from Ms B reporting water entering her flat. Its note implied however that Ms B had contacted it before about this matter. The contractor said she “constantly chased” it to fix the source of the leak.
28. By July 2023 the Council had fixed the original leak in Flat X but then identified a second leak in the same flat. The contractor fixed that the following month.
29. Ms B contacted a Council housing officer in August 2023 expressing frustration that water continued to enter her flat. She said it had recently “become much worse”. She believed the source of the leak was Flat Y and not Flat X. She set out her understanding the contractor had tried to access Flat Y but had so far not succeeded in doing so. However, the contractor’s records say it was not until the beginning of September 2023 it began exploring if Flat Y was the source of the leak.
30. By mid-September 2023 the contractor had identified a leak from Flat Y. It could not fix the leak immediately because it again suspected asbestos in building materials. So, it had to again commission a specialist contractor to identify if the flat contained asbestos and if so, to remove it.
31. Around this time Ms B contacted the housing officer again about water entering her flat. She was unhappy no-one from the Council or contractor had come to inspect the damage. She said water had now soaked the carpet in a bedroom used by two of her children. She worried the water came from a sewage waste pipe and her children had contact with it.
32. A Council Housing Officer visited two days later and saw the carpet in the children’s bedroom “soaked and stained”, as well as finding a “slight odour”.
33. At the start of October 2023 Ms B made a complaint to the Council, saying she had reported the leak from above for several months but its contractor had still not fixed it.
34. By mid-October the Council had provided Ms B with a dehumidifier and an aquavac to remove water from her carpets. But she reported high costs involved in running the dehumidifier and the carpet remained soaked.
35. At the end of October, the Council housing officer reported the leak still getting worse and they had concerns for the welfare of Ms B’s children. So, the Council offered Ms B alternative accommodation in a nearby hotel. The Council provided Ms B with a family room she shared with her three children which had its own bathroom. The Council arranged for the hotel to provide the family with breakfast. It did not book evening meals. Ms B stayed in the hotel for around six nights before moving to a different hotel, with the same arrangements. Ms B said the first hotel did not provide parking. She needed her car to transport her children to school and medical appointments. She provided us copies of messages showing she asked the Council for support with parking costs, to which it never replied.
36. In the second hotel, after a few days, the Council began booking evening meals for the family. But neither hotel provided cooking facilities and Ms B had to ask hotel staff to warm bottles for her youngest child from the hotel kitchen. For lunches the family had to rely on take away food or sandwiches.
37. The Council sent its first reply to Ms B’s complaint at the end of October 2023. It apologised for not carrying out sooner a fuller inspection to understand the cause of the leak. It apologised also for the inconvenience and distress caused. It sought Ms B’s approval to put a ‘keysafe’ outside her flat to enable easy access for its contractors to come and go and complete repairs.
38. At this time, work had not completed to remove asbestos from Flat Y. I noted that between mid-November 2023 and the end of January 2024 there were five separate dates booked for this to take place, but the work did not complete. The records did not show the reasons for this, but the notes suggested contractors could not gain access to Flat Y as officers discussed if they could gain forced entry.
39. In December 2023 the Council agreed to provide Ms B with a six weeks rent rebate for her flat, as she had to live in hotel accommodation
40. Also in December 2023 Ms B escalated her complaint, unhappy she remained in hotel accommodation and concerned at increasing damage to her flat as the leak remained unrepaired. By now, the ceiling in her children’s bedroom had begun to fall in. In January 2024, Ms B asked her housing officer about moving to another flat in the same complex that was vacant at the time. She explained how hard it was for her to look after her children, especially her disabled child, living in the hotel. Later, in January and February 2024, she would again ask the Council to review her accommodation.
41. In mid-February 2024, contractors completed an asbestos survey on Ms B’s flat. The first record I saw of the Council or its contractors identifying a need to undertake this was in November 2023 (although Ms B said contractors mentioned it to her before then). The Council said it believed the cause of the delay in completing this survey was because the asbestos surveyor struggled to gain access to Ms B’s flat. I found limited records about this matter, but in one email the specialist asbestos surveyor advised there was no key in Ms B’s key safe when they attended.
42. Also, in mid-February 2024 the Council repairs contractor made its last entry on its repairs record for Flat Y. It did not say what work they had undertaken to repair any leak. It referred only to restoring a “full flow” of water back to the flat.
43. At the end of the month the Council gave a further reply to Ms B’s complaint. It said that it had struggled to gain access to Flat Y which had delayed fixing the leak. It had also needed to remove asbestos from Flat Y and had to employ a specialist contractor to do that. It provided a schedule of works to Ms B which suggested repairs to her flat would start in early March. It recognised she had experienced upheaval and inconvenience. It offered her a goodwill payment of £250 and that it would compensate her for the cost of lunches while she lived in hotel accommodation.
44. In mid-March 2024 Ms B contacted the Council after finding out that work to repair her flat had still not begun. She asked it again to move her to “permanent accommodation”.
45. A few days later Ms B contacted the Council concerned because the contractor had confirmed there was asbestos in her flat. She said for weeks she had returned to the flat to carry out laundry and now could no longer do so. She had concerns about exposure to asbestos during these visits. Ms B also worried at the extra laundry costs she would now incur.
46. Further, in the days before this email Ms B said she had to move hotels for a few days as the Council failed to confirm her ongoing booking. Ms B provided us with contemporaneous emails from the Council and hotel chain confirming this. The Council told us that it rebooked Ms B’s hotel each week. It said it had no record of Ms B having to change hotels. Ms B also sent us emails from January and May 2024 when she had to chase the Council to reconfirm her hotel booking, as the hotel warned her it was about to expire.
47. In April 2024 Ms B told the Council she had stopped going to work because of stress related illness. She sent emails chasing it to pay lunch costs as it had promised. She said she understood the repairs to her flat had completed, but she could not return because of damaged or destroyed furniture and possessions. She asked again for the Council to move her from the hotel.
48. In early May 2024 Ms B wrote to say that despite repairs the flat still had cracks in the ceiling and damp and mould patches. She provided a list of all items damaged and/or destroyed. In its replies the Council agreed to provide replacement carpets and mattresses. It also gave contact details for its insurers should Ms B want to pursue a claim for any other items. Ms B continued to ask about repayment for lunch costs and laundry costs. She also asked again for a move away from hotel accommodation, saying her disabled child’s behaviour had become more difficult to manage because of the lack of space and quiet. He had more sleep disturbance and increased seizures.
49. In early June 2024 the Council said its contractor was arranging for the new mattresses and carpets and it would now also replace beds damaged by water. It said again it would refund Ms B for lunch costs and that it would apply another rent rebate. Since the rebate given in December 2023, Ms B had not paid rent and so her arrears were now over £3000 (they would eventually rise to £4600).
50. In mid-June the Council advised Ms B her flat was ready for her to return. But Ms B said the leak upstairs remained unfixed. And that contractors had dismantled her children’s bunk beds and wardrobes without rebuilding them. Further they had damaged a wardrobe. The Council agreed to extend Ms B’s hotel booking said it would also now replace the wardrobe and reassemble bunk beds.
51. Then a few days later an inspection took place and the Council’s contractor agreed to treat the walls with stain block, dispose of some unusable furniture and deep clean carpets.
52. At the end of June 2024, the Council understood all these works complete and the flat ready to return to. However, Ms B provided us with emails showing it did not complete the list of outstanding jobs until mid-July. By then the Council had offered Ms B a payment £700, which included £450 to cover the cost of a new wardrobe and assembly. Ms B said she received this payment but had not received the £250 the Council offered her in February 2024.
53. In August 2024, Ms B contacted the Council again saying it had still not fixed the leak from Flat Y with water staining appearing again on the ceiling of her flat. She again asked the Council about repayment of lunch money.
54. A contractor gained access to Flat Y in August 2024 and identified the source of the leak to Ms B’s flat. He fixed the leak.
55. Later that month the Council applied a second rebate to Ms B’s rent account, to cover payments from the end of December 2023 to the end of June 2024.
56. In September 2024 a housing benefit claim went back into payment to Ms B which covered rent from the end of July 2024 onward. There was a three week gap therefore in July 2024, meaning the rent account remained in arrears.
57. In December 2024 Ms B again asked the Council to refund her for lunch expenses as previously promised. She also asked it to apply a rent rebate for the remaining rent costs she incurred while living in the hotel. The Council declined this saying that Ms B could have moved back to the flat at the end of June 2024.
58. In March 2025 the Council paid Ms B £3176 to cover her lunch costs while living in hotel accommodation. It based this payment on receipts provided by Ms B. From this payment, it deducted an amount equivalent to three weeks’ rent and applied this to Ms B’s rent account, which covered the non-paid rent in July 2024.

Back to top

My findings

59. I considered each part of Ms B’s complaint in turn.

The complaint about the delay in identifying the source of the leak

60. I did not find evidence to support Ms B’s statements made around October 2023 that she had reported a leak affecting her flat several months previously. The earliest evidence I found to confirm Ms B reported water entering her flat dated from May 2023.
61. However, I considered it possible that further investigation would have confirmed Ms B’s account. The records the Council provided from its former contractor appeared incomplete. The contractor’s records associated with its inspections and repairs to Flat X implied more contact between Ms B and the contractor than it had recorded.
62. But I decided not to make further enquiries. This was because I considered that even if the Council and contractor had only learnt of the leak in May 2023, they had responded too slowly to it.
63. I noted here that before September 2023 the Council’s contractor focused all their efforts on fixing leaks from Flat X. The occupier of that flat had reported a leak from their property. The contractor then identified a second leak from that flat after inspection. But the contractor assumed this was the source of water entering Ms B’s flat without checking if this was so. It was evident that from at least August 2023 Ms B believed the source of water entering her flat was Flat Y. But there was no record that either the Council or the contractor inspected her flat before October 2023. I considered earlier inspection could have helped identify that Ms B was correct in this point. I found therefore the failure of the Council or its contractor to identify Flat Y as the source of the leak sooner, was a fault.
64. I noted that all three flats contained asbestos building materials. This complicated and delayed repairs. The contractor had to commission specialist surveyors and contractors to confirm its presence and type, and to remove the material. However, I noted that despite this the contractor had fixed the two leaks from Flat X within three months of it identifying each one. Had it begun inspecting Flat Y sooner the same may have been possible. This could have resulted in less damage to Ms B’s flat.
65. The slow identification of the leak from Flat Y meant that Ms B experienced greater inconvenience than she needed to before matters worsened to the point she had to leave. That was an injustice, although I did not find that before mid-August 2023 her flat was necessarily unsuitable for her to remain living there.
66. I considered mid-August a significant time as this is when Ms B said the water entering her flat had become much worse. After that, I found further descriptions from both Ms B and the Council Housing Officer of the flat experiencing significant water damage. And I also saw photographs which showed significant damage from water to the ceiling, wall and carpet in the children’s bedroom. I considered by mid-August 2023, the flat (or much of it) had become unsuitable for the family to live in. So, Ms B’s injustice increased from that time.
67. I set out below actions the Council has agreed to take to remedy that injustice.

The complaint about the Council placing Ms B in hotel accommodation

68. I noted above the law which says that councils should wherever possible avoid placing families in B&B accommodation. I did not find the hotels occupied by Ms B were B&B accommodation as defined. This was because she did not have to share a bathroom and there were no cooking facilities.
69. However, I considered the law and guidance around B&B accommodation remained relevant to this case. This was because it explains that such accommodation is always likely to be unsuitable for families for anything other than a short-term emergency arrangement. The hotel accommodation found for Ms B was so similar to B&B accommodation I did not think any different consideration should apply.
70. Further, the law and guidance also made clear that whatever accommodation the Council provides to homeless families it must be suitable.
71. Here there was sadly no evidence that between December 2023 and July 2024 the Council ever stopped to consider the suitability of the hotel accommodation it provided to Ms B. Nor at any point did it look for any alternative temporary housing for her. In that time, she had to share a single room with three children, one of whom has significant health issues likely worsened by the cramped living conditions. She had no access to cooking facilities. Ms B repeatedly explained to officers the strain this put on her and her children as well as that caused by the damage to her flat. I found the Council at fault for not reviewing its use of hotel accommodation to house Ms B and her family.
72. I considered had the Council done so, it would have found the hotel accommodation unsuitable. It would have offered Ms B something better. It was an injustice to Ms B therefore that she had to live in such unsuitable conditions.
73. I considering how the Council should remedy that injustice, I consulted the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies (Guidance on remedies - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman). Using that as my guide, I decided to recommend the Council make a symbolic payment for the time Ms B spent in unsuitable hotel accommodation. I noted the guidance suggested applying a tariff of between £100 and £200 a week where because of a fault, a family stays in B&B accommodation for more than six weeks. While I reiterate the hotels stayed in by Ms B were not B&B accommodation, they were sufficiently similar that I saw no reason to depart from this guidance. And I considered I should apply a tariff towards the top end of the scale given Ms B’s family composition and the extra needs of one of her children.
74. In calculating how long this tariff should apply, I considered Ms B’s injustice began from the day the Council moved her into hotel accommodation. I thought it possible the Council had no other accommodation it could offer immediately. But the facts showed the Council did not even consider looking for any alternative.
75. I found Ms B’s injustice extended to mid-July 2025, when she returned to the flat; 37 weeks in total. The Council suggested Ms B could have returned to her flat from the end of June. But the evidence showed that during June 2024 the Council had agreed to undertake a series of works to ensure the flat was fit for Ms B to return to. Ms B provided the evidence showing those works did not complete until mid-July. I also noted the Council continued to renew her hotel booking meanwhile without suggesting at the time her flat was ready to return to.
76. I address below Ms B’s complaint that she had to move hotels, or at times came close to having to do so.

The complaint about the delay in completing repairs

77. I considered the Council also at fault for how long it took for Ms B’s flat to become ready for her return. I recognised there were reasons which caused inevitable delay to the repairs to both Ms B’s flat and Flat Y. Both flats contained asbestos building material, which needed specialist surveying and removal. I also found the Council and its contractors had significant difficulties gaining access to Flat Y to complete that surveying, removal and consequent repairs.
78. However, even allowing for these reasons I could not understand why Ms B’s flat was not ready sooner. The contractor’s records suggested they believed they had fixed the leak to Flat Y by mid-February 2024. But it still took another four and a half months for Ms B’s flat to have repairs completed and made fit for her return.
79. Those records showed there was a lack of proper planning for the work needed to Ms B’s flat. Despite the Council identifying in November 2023 that it would need an asbestos survey, that did not complete for another three months. I found no explanation for why this was. There was just one email which suggested the surveyor could not access the flat on one occasion. This was not enough to dispel the impression the Council had not shown enough urgency in getting the survey booked in or completed.
80. There was also no record that clearly set out what the plan for repairs was once the contractor had fixed the leak to Flat Y. That needed to encompass repair, decoration and damage to furniture and carpets. There was no evidence the Council and its contractor considered this last matter before May 2024. There was then delay in providing replacement furniture and carpets.
81. So, I found fault in the Council’s management of the repairs which meant Ms B could not return to her flat sooner. The consequence of this was she had to spend longer in the unsuitable hotel accommodation. The injustice arising from this fault was therefore indistinguishable from that identified in paragraph 72.
82. But I needed also to consider what happened after Ms B returned to her flat. She found water still entering from above, something Ms B had raised a concern about before she moved back in. The contractor confirmed there was still a leak from Flat Y when they inspected again in August 2024 and fixed it.
83. I had concern that in the contractor’s records of repair to Flat Y there was nothing saying when it considered it had fixed the leak. Its February 2024 record did not directly refer to this. I thought it likely therefore the contractor missed opportunities to identify sooner the leak it went on to repair in August 2024. That too was a fault.
84. This led to a further injustice to Ms B. She experienced some additional anxiety and time in having to report this matter after she returned to her flat. I set out the action the Council has agreed to remedy this injustice below.

The complaint about communications

85. I considered the flooding caused to Ms B’s flat would always have caused her distress, even if there was no fault in how the Council or its contractor responded to it. Ms B faced understandable worry at the potential health impacts of water entering her flat. She faced damage and loss to her property and possessions. And she had the upheaval of moving out of the flat.
86. I set out above how the Council’s approach to temporary accommodation added to Ms B’s distress, and how fault by the Council or its contractor prolonged that. But in addition, I found the records showed a series of other poor communications by the Council or its contractors:

• first, they failed to provide Ms B with a clear plan of action setting out what inspection and repairs her flat needed and how long this would take. Alongside that, they failed to provide her with regular updates on the progress of work and causes of delays. The records showed Ms B had to repeatedly chase the Council and contractor for information;
• second, they failed to give Ms B information on the likely presence of asbestos in her flat when it became evident how serious the leak was (so by September 2023). I considered the asbestos survey and later checks provided assurance for Ms B there was no ongoing danger from asbestos. But this could not allay her concerns the family suffered potential exposure before moving to the hotel. I noted here that Ms B regularly returned to the flat to do laundry after the water damage had disturbed building materials in the flat;
• third, the Council failed to routinely contact Ms B to confirm it had rebooked her hotel. The Council said at no point did Ms B had to move hotels, but she provided emails showing that happened on one occasion. While further emails showed at least two other ‘near misses’;
• fourth, the Council failed to give clear advice to Ms B about rent payments after she moved to hotel accommodation. It told me its policy was to pay hotel costs for those who must move out of temporary accommodation while it fixes repairs. They would remain liable to pay rent. I had no issue with that. But here, the Council agreed in December 2023 to apply a rebate to Ms B’s rent account without explaining why. It created an expectation for Ms B that it would meet her rent so long as circumstances remained unchanged. It also offered her no advice or signposting on potentially claiming housing benefit when her circumstances changed around April 2024 and she could no longer work;
• fifth, the Council also failed to make clear at an early stage what its hotel costs covered. Initially it booked Ms B’s accommodation as bed and breakfast only. Not until later did it agree to also provide evening meals and when Ms B temporarily change hotels in March 2024 these stopped for a time. It also never replied to Ms B’s request that it meet her parking costs, or later, her laundry costs;
• sixth, the Council also failed to offer clear advice on what liability it accepted for replacing any carpets or furniture damaged by the leak from above. I think by October 2023 at the latest it must have been clear the damage to some items meant they needed replacement.

87. I considered the injustice caused by the fault identified in the first bullet point crossed over with that already identified in this statement. But I considered each of the remaining flaws in communication justified consideration as a separable injustice.
88. However, that said I considered the distress resulting from the fault identified in the fourth bullet point mitigated by the Council’s decision to issue a rent rebate for 34 weeks rent in total. I could not see that it had any duty to do this. As my understanding was that Ms B remained liable to pay rent (and could claim housing benefit if she qualified) while temporarily absent from the flat.
89. I also considered the Council mitigated any distress caused by the fault set out in sixth bullet. It offered help to Ms B to replace carpets and furniture. It signposted her to its insurers, if she wanted to pursue any claim for other lost or damaged possessions. I noted also the contents of a flat would usually be the occupier’s responsibility to repair.
90. But I considered there was still some unremedied injustice to Ms B. This arose from the unnecessary distress caused to her by the communication failings detailed in the second, third and fourth bullet points. I set out below the action agreed by the Council to remedy this injustice.

The complaints about delay in applying the rent rebate and refunding lunch expenses

91. I set out my position above on the Council’s decision to offer Ms B a rent rebate. I reiterate I think the decision made in December 2023 was not one it had a duty to make. But with the Council having made a rent rebate in December, I understood why Ms B expected it to apply another. And I understood her frustration that it took the Council nine months to do so. However, I considered any injustice caused by this delay offset by my understanding Ms B had no automatic entitlement to the rebate.
92. I considered it right the Council offered Ms B some recognition she faced higher food costs in hotel accommodation. In February 2024 it offered to reimburse her for lunch expenses. However, it took multiple reminders from Ms B and over twelve months for the Council to do so. She had unnecessary time and trouble in resolving this part of her complaint. I considered that an injustice also.
93. However, I considered the Council had made a reasonable payment for the extra food costs Ms B incurred (equivalent to around £12-£13 a day). So, I found no fault in that. Nor in its decision to use some of this money to offset against rent arrears.
94. I thought it likely Ms B incurred extra laundry costs while living in the hotel. I found it disappointing the Council never set out its position on those, despite Ms B asking more than once for it to consider these. Nor did it respond to her questions about parking costs. I set out above that these poor communications caused distress, which the Council has agreed to remedy. I did not consider any further payments necessary to cover these costs directly, noting also the Council had agreed a symbolic payment to recognise Ms B spent a prolonged time living in unsuitable hotel accommodation. Part of that injustice was the inconvenience caused by these extra expenses.
95. Finally, I also had to find fault with the Council’s complaint handling. As I noted above it signposted Ms B to the wrong Ombudsman service. Its error here caused Ms B further avoidable time and trouble, which was another injustice to her.

Back to top

Agreed Action

96. The Council has accepted the findings set out above, which I welcome. It has agreed that to remedy Ms B’s injustice it will, within 20 working days of this decision, provide the following:
1. an apology to Ms B. Our guidance on remedies sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council has agreed it will consider this guidance in making its apology;
2. a symbolic payment to Ms B of £4800. I explain how I calculated this sum below.
97. In calculating a symbolic payment, I began by considering what I would have recommended if the Council had not offered its own remedy (other than its refund of lunch expenses). That calculation was as follows:

• for the period between May and mid-August 2023, when Ms B’s flat experienced some water damage, a payment of £300 (or around £100 a month) to reflect the extent of the injustice this caused her;
• for the period mid-August to late October 2023 (before the move to a hotel), a payment of £750 (or around £300 a month) to reflect the impact on Ms B of living in accommodation which had become unsuitable;
• for the period of 37 weeks between late October 2023 and mid-July 2024 when Ms B lived in unsuitable hotel accommodation, a payment of £175 a week or £6475;
• for the injustice arising from Ms B having to report the leak of water from Flat Y after she returned to her flat in July 2024, a payment of £100;
• for the distress caused by the poor communications by the Council and / or its contractors with Ms B, £800 (£300 each for the unremedied injustice identified from the fault set out the second and third bullet points of paragraph 86 and £200 for that set out in the fifth bullet);
• for the unnecessary time and trouble Ms B had in chasing the Council to make the lunch payments it promised and directing her to the wrong Ombudsman, a payment of £250.

98. That resulted in a total of £8675. However, I considered it appropriate to reduce this payment noting the Council:

• has previously given Ms B £250 when it upheld parts of her complaint;
• had provided Ms B with replacement carpets, beds, mattresses and a wardrobe. I was unclear it had a duty to replace all these items;
• had applied a rent rebate of £4290 for the time Ms B spent living in hotel accommodation (at the same time not charging her for the hotel). I found it under no duty to do this.

99. I did not think it right to simply offset these amounts from the calculated sum of £8675. When I issued my draft decision statement I calculated that I should reduce the payment by £3875 for the considerations in paragraph 98. Because I considered I must also take account that had the Council not provided replacement items or a rent rebate Ms B may have received consideration for these another way. For example, through an insurance claim or housing benefit.
100. I went on to also consider the case for recommending wider service improvements following this investigation. I found there were some unique features about this case, such as the presence of asbestos affecting the flats needing repair and the difficulties the Council had in contacting the occupier of Flat Y. I also noted the Council no longer used the same repairs contractor. These factors suggested a repeat to the faults identified was less likely to happen again.
101. But against this, I had to balance that other households living in temporary accommodation might experience disrepair. And their accommodation might become unsuitable as a result. Households living in temporary accommodation would also have other reasons to complain at times.
102. So, I came to the view the Council could learn lessons from this complaint. I considered the best way for it to do that was to draw up its own action plan to consider the faults found by this investigation. It has agreed to do this, so that its action plan will encompass:

• its response to disrepair in temporary accommodation;
• its consideration of alternative accommodation when temporary accommodation becomes unsuitable because of disrepair;
• its communications where it has to move someone from temporary accommodation on a short term basis;
• its complaint handling.

103. The Council’s action plan will consider what steps it can take to try and prevent a repeat of the faults identified in these areas. For example, by revisiting procedures or giving advice or training to staff. The plan will set out who is responsible for implementing actions and by when.
104. The Council has agreed to send us a copy of the plan within 20 working days of the decision and update us further when all the actions it contains are due to complete. This should be within a maximum six months of this decision.
105. So, the Council will provide us with evidence when it has complied with all the actions set out in paragraphs 96 and 104.

Back to top

Final Decision

106. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council had caused injustice to Ms B. The Council accepted this finding and agreed to take action that I considered would remedy the injustice. Consequently, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman