The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained the Council ended its homelessness duty by arranging a tenancy in an unlicensed property affected by black mould. The Council was at fault for arranging a tenancy in an unlicensed property. This caused Ms X anxiety. There was no fault in the way it responded to her concerns about black mould. The Council arranged for Ms X to move to an alternative property, and it organised and paid for her removals. This was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.
The complaint
Ms X complained the Council ended its homelessness duty by arranging a tenancy in an unlicensed property affected by black mould. Ms X says this caused her distress and the mould has affected her breathing. She also complained about issues with temporary accommodation the Council provided several years ago. She wants to be allocated a Council property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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) Ms X raised issues regarding temporary accommodation she was provided by the Council in previous years. I have not investigated this as it was open to Ms X to complain to us at the time and I see no good reason to investigate this now. Ms X also had the right to request a suitability review of the properties offered if she thought they were unsuitable.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered the information provided by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I have considered the information provided by the Council in response to our initial enquiries.
I gave Ms X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.
What I found
The relevant law and guidance If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, councils carry out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until they make a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193) The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) If an applicant who has accepted private rented sector accommodation tells a council, within two years, they are homeless again, the council must provide interim accommodation while it investigates whether the applicant is eligible, homeless and in priority need. If the council agrees the applicant meets those criteria, it retains a duty to re-house the applicant.
In the Council’s area, landlords of all privately rented properties must apply for a property licence. Failure to apply for a licence could lead to prosecution and a fine.
What happened Ms X has mental and physical health conditions. She was living in temporary accommodation, arranged by the Council under its homelessness duty. Ms X complained about vermin at the property. The Council conducted a review of its suitability and in early June 2021 concluded it was unsuitable due to disrepair.
In late June 2021 Ms X was offered an assured shorthold tenancy in a private rented property. Ms X viewed the property and emailed the Council accepting the offer. The Council ended its housing duty.
The Council’s records show it carried out a range of checks including a property condition report. It also obtained copies of the property’s gas and electrical safety certificates.
In March 2022 Ms X complained to the Council that there was black mould in the property and the back garden was overgrown. She also complained the landlord would not pay for repairs to the lock and the property was not licenced. Around this time Ms X’s MP also wrote to the Council on her behalf regarding the same issues.
The landlord contacted the Council to complain about Ms X’s behaviour. The Council referred Ms X to its Tenancy Sustainment Team (TST) who contacted Ms X. She said the landlord had contacted the Council in retaliation after she requested to see his licence and the gas and electrical safety certificates.
An officer from the TST spoke to Ms X. They noted the relationship between Ms X and the landlord had broken down. Ms X reported the landlord made inappropriate comments. They also noted Ms X admitted losing her temper and making comments she shouldn’t have made. The TST agreed to raise the issue of the mould, the lack of a licence and the door lock with the landlord. Both Ms X and the landlord agreed to raise any future concerns via the TST.
The TST asked Ms X to confirm the landlord could inspect the mould. They also advised Ms X that as the tenancy was coming to an end she could start looking for alternative accommodation or they would assist with a homeless application.
Ms X complained further to the Council later in March 2022. She was unhappy she would have to make another homeless application as her landlord was unlicenced. Ms X reported the mould had affected her lungs.
In late March 2022 the landlord served Ms X with a notice to quit. The landlord told the TST they would reimburse some money for the lock but only at the end of the tenancy.
In late March the Council responded to Ms X’s MP. It advised it was investigating the licensing and the property was to be inspected regarding the mould.
In early April the TST assisted Ms X with completing a homelessness application. Ms X’s MP contacted the Council again to raise Ms X’s concern that the landlord has reported her for anti-social behaviour due to her requesting to see the relevant certificates. The Council responded to Ms X’s MP and advised it had not received a complaint of anti-social behaviour regarding Ms X. It reported it noted minor condensation in the bathroom and bedroom.
The Council sent Ms X a stage one response to her complaint. It said investigations were ongoing into the licensing and mould. It advised an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) would inspect the property. Ms X remained unhappy and the Council considered the complaint at the second stage of its complaints procedure.
The Council wrote to Ms X in April 2022. It said before offering her the tenancy, it had carried out a range of checks on the property to ensure it was suitable. However, the check to confirm it was licenced was missed due to human error. It advised the landlord could not issue a notice to quit because it was not licenced. However, it would help her to find an alternative property, would provide any deposit and rent in advance needed to secure this. It would also cover the cost of any removals in recognition of its original mistake.
It said the Council would inspect the mould and would take action regarding the licence. It apologised it did not identify the property was unlicenced. The Council reinstated its housing duty to Ms X.
The Council visited the property with the landlord in April 2022. The EHO noted only minor condensation to the bathroom and bedroom in small areas. They noted all windows were closed and the curtains drawn. They considered no further action was required.
The Council has since arranged for Ms X to move to another private rented sector property, and it organised and paid for her removals. It has also issued the landlord with a licence.
Findings
The Council carried out a range of checks on Ms X’s privately rented property before offering her the tenancy. However, it failed to check the property was licenced. This was fault. This caused Ms X anxiety over whether the property was suitable.
Ms X’s concern over this contributed to the breakdown in her relationship with her landlord. However other factors also contributed to this including issues around repairs to a lock and mould in the property.
The Council sought to assist with addressing Ms X’s concerns and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it did this. The EHO has also inspected the property and was satisfied the mould was minor and no further action was required.
The Council has also taken action to ensure the landlord has obtained a licence for the property.
The Council has apologised to Ms X and it offered Ms X another private sector rented accommodation, which Ms X accepted. Ms X wants the Council to offer her a council owned property, but this is not something I can require the Council to do. The law allows the Council to offer private sector rented accommodation to meet its housing duty. So it is not at fault in doing so.
The Council organised and paid Ms X’s moving costs in acknowledgement of the impact of its fault. This was an appropriate remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman