Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled reports about the condition of Ms X’s property or for how it placed restrictions on her contact. The Council was at fault for how it handled some of her requests for re-housing. This meant Ms X had to wait longer than she should have to receive assistance. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X for the uncertainty she experienced as a result of the delays providing homeless assistance and carry out a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:
• Did not take appropriate action following her reports about damp and mould in her property.
• Did not properly consider her requests for re-housing.
• Inappropriately placed restrictions on her contact.
2. Ms X said this has meant she has had to live in a property which is damaging her health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have not investigated matters before January 2024. Ms X complained to us in January 2025. I can see no good reasons why she could not have complained to us sooner about matters before January 2024.
8. I have ended my investigation in July 2025. Should Ms X have any complaints about matters after July 2025, she would need to raise a complaint with the Council in the first instance.
9. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint that the Council did not allow her to join its housing register. Ms X had a right of review to challenge this decision. I see no good reasons why she could not have exercised this right.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Law and guidance

12. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
13. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. This is called the Prevention Duty. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
15. Private tenants and tenants of Housing Associations may complain to their council about the condition of their property. A council has powers to enforce against landlords where it identifies a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. These powers involve use of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
16. The HHSRS applies a risk based approach to different hazards associated with poor quality housing. It includes consideration of matters such as damp and mould, personal hygiene sanitation and drainage, electrical hazards and structural safety. Category 1 hazards are the most serious. Councils have legal powers to require landlords or property owners take immediate action to remedy these. Councils have discretion to take enforcement action if a category 2 hazard is identified.
17. The Housing Act 2004 provides councils with a range of enforcement options to address hazards. These include:
• hazard awareness notices;
• prohibition orders;
• improvement notices;
• emergency remedial action or emergency prohibition orders – not available for category 2 hazards;
• demolition orders - not available for category 2 hazards;
• clearance areas - not available for category 2 hazards.
18. A council may issue an improvement notice in response to a category 1 or 2 hazard. This can require the landlord to carry out certain repairs to remove or mitigate hazards in the property. (Housing Health and Safety Rating System Enforcement Guidance para 5.4)
19. A council must revoke an improvement notice if a landlord has complied with it and can also vary the notice in other circumstances. A council may need to make a judgement that, although the terms of the notice itself may not have been fully complied with, the hazard has ceased to be a category 1 hazard and it does not intend to take further action. (Housing Health and Safety Rating System Enforcement Guidance para 5.10)
20. It is for the council to decide which of the above is the appropriate action to deal with the hazard. This decision should be based on the HHSRS hazard score, whether or not the authority has a duty or discretion to act and the authority’s judgement as to the most appropriate means of dealing with the hazard, taking account of both potential and actual vulnerable occupants.

Back to top

Reports about the condition of the property

What happened

21. Ms X lives in a property where the landlord is a Housing Association.
22. In late March 2024, Ms X reported there was severe damp and mould in her property. The Council passed the case to one of its Environmental Health Practitioners (EHP).
23. The EHP contacted Ms X’s landlord and told it to take steps to carry out repairs or the EHP would carry out a HHSRS inspection. The landlord reported it was taking steps to remedy the mould and dampness.
24. In May 2024, Ms X contacted the EHP again and provided photos showing her landlord had not made progress with the repairs. In response the EHP arranged to inspect Ms X’s property.
25. On 22 May 2024, the EHP inspected Ms X’s property under the HHSRS. The EHP decided there was a category one hazard for damp and mould and three further category two hazards.
26. In June 2024, the EHP sent Ms X’s landlord an Improvement Notice, requiring it to carry out works to fix the hazards. The EHP provided the landlord with a list of repair works to complete by 19 July 2024.
27. In late June 2024, Ms X raised concerns about contractors turning up without notice. The EHP wrote to her landlord about this warning it to give her notification of appointments.
28. In early July 2024, Ms X’s landlord told the Council it intended to appeal the Improvement Notice. The landlord said it did not agree with one item on the schedule of works which required it to replace a non-opening window with an opening window.
29. On 7 August 2024, the Council decided to vary the Improvement Notice to remove the requirement for the landlord to replace the non-opening window it disputed. The Council said it did this as the landlord agreed to carry out all the other works listed and this would avoid a court hearing. The new notice gave the landlord until 19 October 2024 to complete the works. Following this Ms X’s landlord confirmed it had withdrawn the appeal against the Improvement Notice.
30. Throughout August and September 2024, email correspondence showed Ms X raised concerns about the behaviour of operatives attending her property to carry out repairs. Her landlord also said Ms X had at times refused to allow operatives access to the property.
31. In late August 2024, Ms X’s landlord gave her a Notice Seeking Possession on the basis she had significant rent arrears.
32. In September 2024, following further disagreements between Ms X and her landlord, Ms X said she wanted all operatives attending her property to be female. Her landlord’s position was that this was not possible but said it could offer to have some female workers and have a female housing officer to oversee the works.
33. In October 2024, Ms X’s landlord told the Council it was trying to gain access to her property to complete the works. The EHP agreed the outstanding works with the landlord and in early November 2024 agreed to a further variation of the Improvement Notice. This extended the time for the landlord to complete the repairs until 19 January 2025. The Council’s reason for deciding to grant an extension was it believed the landlord would have a reasonable excuse defence it could argue should the Council try to enforce the notice as it had not been granted access to the property by Ms X.
34. The EHP, landlord and Ms X agreed a contractor could attend the property on 13 December 2024. The contractor attended and there was an argument at the property with Ms X. Ms X contacted the EHP and said the contractor had dismissed some of the works contained in the Improvement Notice. The EHP contacted Ms X’s landlord and warned it would not extend the notice any further and to make sure its contractors were briefed on the works needed.
35. In early January 2025, the EHP visited Ms X’s property to inspect the works. The EHP found there was outstanding repairs relating to the mould and damp fire saftey and staircase. The EHP also found there was a leak from the bin store causing water to flow over the communal entrance. This was a new issue. The EHP sent the landlord a notice under the Building Act to address this leak. Following this the EHP had further correspondence with Ms X’s landlord about completing the remaining works at her property. The EHP and landlord agreed to complete the works on 22 January 2025 and Ms X agreed to access to the property.
36. The Council explained it decided not to enforce the Improvement Notice even though the deadline had passed to complete the works as it had only missed the deadline by a few days and could rely on a defence that Ms X would not allow access to the property. The Council said it decided the chances of prosecuting the landlord were not good enough.
37. The EHP visited Ms X’s property in early February 2025 to inspect the works and carry out a further HHSRS inspection. The EHP found there was a low category two hazard for damp and mould at the property and there were no electrical certifications for the extractor units the landlord installed.
38. In mid-February 2025, Ms X’s landlord sent the EHP photos of the completed works at the property. The EHP sent the landlord a Notice of Intention to issue a civil fine as it did not have the electrical certificates. The landlord sent the Council the electrical certificates in early April 2024. Following this the Council revoked the Improvement Notice.
39. The Council decided to give the landlord a Hazard Awareness notice. The Council said it did this as the landlord reduced the hazard from category one to a low category two hazard, so this type of notice was the most appropriate. The notice told the landlord to carry out a mould wash of the property and fix the bathroom tiles.

Findings

40. After the Council received reports about the condition of Ms X’s property, it assigned the case to an EHP and arranged to carry out an inspection of the property. When it found a category one hazard, the Council decided to issue an Improvement Notice to Ms X’s landlord. I am satisfied the Council looked into Ms X’s concerns and decided to issue the Improvement Notice.
41. Ms X raised concerns about the Council extending the Improvement Notice. There were disagreements between Ms X and her landlord’s contractors about the repairs and access issues. In light of this the Council took the decision that it could not enforce the Improvement Notice as Ms X’s landlord would have a suitable defence against this. I am satisfied the Council properly considered whether it should extend the notice and has provided it reasons. I recognise Ms X disagrees with this but I cannot find any fault in how it came to this decision.
42. The Council did not seek to enforce the Improvement Notice even though the landlord had not completed the repairs until after the final notice expired. I do not consider this was fault. The Council explained its reasons for not enforcing the Improvement Notice. It took account of Ms X behaviour, the length of the delay from her landlord completing the repairs and the chances of successfully prosecuting her landlord.
43. After the Council re-inspected Ms X’s property once the landlord said it had carried out repairs, it decided to withdraw the Improvement Notice and issue a Hazard Awareness Notice. The Council explained this was because there were no category one hazards at the property following the repairs and only a low category two hazard. The Council does not have to take enforcement action where there are only category two hazards. I do not consider the Council at fault for this decision.

Back to top

Ms X’s request for re-housing

What happened

44. In Spring 2024, Ms X applied to join the Council’s housing register. The Council told Ms X in early May 2024 she did not qualify to join the housing register as she had rent arrears.
45. In August 2024, the EHP looking into the condition of Ms X’s home told her to approach the Council’s housing solutions team as she had received a Notice Seeking Possession from her landlord. It is not clear what happened after this or whether Ms X approached the Housing Solutions Team.
46. In September 2024, Ms X contacted the Housing Solutions team and told it she was not safe in the Council area as someone who had assaulted her in the past had been seen in the area. In response, the Council contacted the police about this who told the Council they believed Ms X was at a low risk.
47. In January 2025, the EHP contacted the Housing Solutions Team and told it they had sent an Improvement Notice to Ms X’s landlord and provided details of the hazards at her property. The EHP also said Ms X had provided details about how her medical issues were being impacted by the conditions at her property.
48. In January 2025, the Housing Solutions Team emailed Ms X and told her it could not provide interim accommodation and this was the responsibility of her landlord.
49. In July 2025, Ms X sent the Council a homelessness enquiry form. She had received a further Notice Seeking Possession. The Council carried out an assessment and decided to owe Ms X the Prevention Duty and sent her a PHP.

Findings

50. In relation to the Council’s decision not to allow Ms X to join its housing register I have not investigated this part of the complaint as explained above. Ms X had review rights she could use to challenge this decision. I can see no reasons why she could not have asked the Council to review this decision.
51. The Council took a homelessness application from Ms X in July 2025 and decided to owe her the Prevention Duty. However there were times when it could have looked at whether it should provide homelessness assistance to Ms X sooner. This was fault. From May 2024, the Council was aware there were category one hazards in Ms X’s property and the Council was also aware of her medical conditions, however the Council did not provide any homelessness assistance or at least consider whether it should.
52. In August 2024, the Private Sector Team were aware Ms X received a Notice Seeking Possession, so was at risk of homelessness. At this time the Council looked into whether Ms X was at risk of homelessness on the basis of being safe in the area but did not consider the fact she had received a Notice Seeking Possession.
53. In January 2025, the EHP contacted the Housing Solutions Team and explained the hazards at Ms X’s property and difficulties in getting repairs carried out. The Council did not provide homeless assistance at this time, however there is a record of it telling Ms X via email that it was her housing association’s responsibility to provide her with interim accommodation. This was fault. The Council could have assessed whether it had reason to believe Ms X was homeless and in priority need and offered interim accommodation if Ms X met this threshold.
54. Had the Council provided homeless assistance sooner to Ms X it would have likely on balance owed her the Prevention Duty much sooner. This would have meant Ms X could have received help to prevent homelessness earlier.

Back to top

Contact restrictions

What happened

55. From May 2025 to June 2025, Ms X sent the Council several emails and left voicemail messages which contained threatening language and accused Council officers of lying.
56. On 18 June 2025, the Council wrote to Ms X and told her it was restricting her contact. The Council said for housing matters Ms X had one point of contact who she must email. For other matters Ms X could contact the Council as normal. The Council told Ms X it would review the restrictions in six months time.

Findings

57. The Council’s policy for restricting a person’s contact allows it to restrict someone’s contact if there is a pattern of unreasonable behaviour. This includes abusive, intimidating, or threatening behaviour, swearing and offensive language. The Council’s policy says it can restrict contact by requiring someone to only contact one staff member and that once it has taken this decision it will explain why it has restricted contact, how contact has been restricted and how long for.
58. When the Council decided to restrict Ms X’s contact, it had received several emails and voicemail messages which contained swearing and threatening language. As a result it decided to give Ms X one point of contact for her housing matters only. When it wrote to Ms X to explain this it told her how she can contact it, what the contact restrictions were and when it would review these. I am satisfied the Council followed its policy when deciding to restrict Ms X’s contact and was not at fault.

Back to top

Agreed Action

59. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Apologise to Ms X for the injustice she experienced from not considering whether it could have provided homelessness assistance and advice to her earlier. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Ms X £200 to recognise the uncertainty and loss of opportunity she experienced as a result of not providing homelessness assistance sooner.
• Look at what procedures are in place for communication and passing of information from the Private Sector Team and Housing Solutions Team where some could be at risk of homelessness. The Council should consider whether there are any steps it could take to improve information sharing between these teams in future.
60. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman