The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not dealt with her housing properly. The Council was at fault because it gave conflicting information about how Ms X could recover costs for electricity top-ups and didn’t take into account information about her circumstances. Ms X is out of pocket and suffered distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X the value of her missed electricity top-ups, £100 for her time and trouble and £250 for avoidable distress.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complains the Council has not dealt with her housing properly because: A member of staff from the letting agent has threatened her, in relation to requiring access to her home to contractors and that contractors would be let in without her being there; It has failed to address disrepair issues she has reported; It has failed to top up her electricity; It has failed to answer emails she sent to the Council; and It has failed to properly consider the suitability of her accommodation in May and July 2021.
Ms X says she has suffered distress, has had to pay to deal with pest issues and to top her electricity and has had to live in unsuitable accommodation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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(i), as amended) We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.
We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Ms X about her complaint and considered documents she provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What happened?
This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
Ms X has been housing in temporary accommodation for over eight years.
Ms X reported disrepair issues in August 2020 and May 2021. At the same time she requested to be moved to new accommodation.
Ms X’s concerns about her accommodation was responded to in June 2021.
Attempts were made to complete a property inspection, which was accomplished at the end of June.
In July 2021, Ms X complained about electricity, disrepair, letting agent conduct, and her accommodation.
Ms X complained to her MP in August 2021. A further visit to her property took place in September, on the same date as her MP visited.
Some disrepair issues were addressed. The Council has offered Ms X alternative housing.
Analysis Access to her home I have reviewed available correspondence between the parties involved.
On the balance of probabilities the letting agent referred to extreme circumstances in the interests of Ms X’s safety. The Council correctly provided advice about notice required. Access to her home without notice was not actually made or attempted. This is not fault by the Council.
Disrepair issues Ms X has stated that a number of repair actions were undertaken in 2019.
Ms X reported issues in August 2020 and again in May 2021.
Numerous attempts were made to arrange a property inspection to identify the seriousness of issues and any required action. Ms X cancelled arranged visits on three occasions.
An inspection was successfully made at the end of June.
On the balance of probabilities, the Council attempted to address disrepair issues reported by Ms X by the time of her complaint.
The Council has offered to rehouse Ms X. The Council says Ms X engaged a solicitor and signed a waiver absolving the council of any liability due to repairing issues. I have therefore not investigated this further.
Electricity top-up I have seen a spread sheet of top-up payments relevant to Ms X.
The letting agent says clients are responsible for contacting them to request their top-ups. It says Ms X did not contact it for a period of time to request these.
I have seen emails and text messages relating utility top-ups.
in September 2021, the Council told Ms X on two occasions by email that the letting agent would refund missed electricity top-up payments when she provided receipts for them.
In October, Ms X was told by the letting agent that it held receipts for the top-up amounts she made herself, it required an invoice from her and then would repay these. The letting agents said it had previously told the Council what Ms X needed to do.
The Council and the letting agent gave Ms X conflicting information. Ms X was unsure as to what she needed to do. This is fault by the Council. Ms X has not received a refund for the electricity top-ups for which she provided receipts and the letting agent has now ceased trading.
Email replies The Council invited Ms X to provide copies of emails it had not responded to in its stage two complaint response. The Council says Ms X did not provide this information. Ms X maintains she did.
Ms X has provided documents which she said the Council had not responded to. The documents provided show an email sent on 1st July 2021 in which Ms X responded to the Council’s request for information about her circumstances.
I have reviewed the email chain containing this email between Ms X and the Council. Ms X’s email was forwarded to a Housing officer on the same day it was sent. The email chain shows her information was not responded to until December 2021, after significant correspondence from Ms X’s MP about her case.
The Council delayed acting on Ms X’s information. This is fault by the Council. Ms X was offered an inappropriate property in October that did not take into account her circumstances, causing her distress.
Suitability As identified above, the Council and the lettings agent made attempts to inspect the disrepair reported by Ms X.
A number of arranged dates were cancelled by Ms X. It is also clear that the letting agent missed arranged visits as well.
I have seen pictures of the disrepair provided by the letting agent, details of repair works undertaken and communications from contractors who identify difficulties in carrying out work for Ms X.
The Council says no category 1 hazards were identified, and although repairs were necessary the accommodation was not unsuitable.
On the balance of probabilities, the Council properly considered the suitability of Ms X’s accommodation. This is not fault by the Council.
Agreed action
To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision: Apologise to Ms X Pay Ms X the value of the electricity top-ups still outstanding; Pay Ms X £100 for her time and trouble attempting to recover missed top-up payments; and Pay Ms X £250 for her avoidable distress.
Final decision
I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Ms X. I have now completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman