The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained the Council housed her and her family in temporary accommodation that was unsuitable because of a rodent infestation. Miss X said this had a physical and mental impact on her, her partner, and her children, some of whom have disabilities. She said it caused unnecessary distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, and improve its service.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, complained the Council housed her and her family in unsuitable temporary accommodation.
Miss X said this had a physical and mental impact on her, her partner, and her children, some of whom have disabilities. She said it impacted on her children’s education, and caused her unnecessary distress and frustration.
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 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) 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 considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and policies, set out below. I considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. I also considered the Ombudsman’s focus report, “Unsuitable temporary accommodation: guide for practitioners”, published in May 2023.
What I found
What should have happened There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary 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 their household. This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) 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) There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.
The duty to provide suitable accommodation is an ongoing duty. Councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.8) Councils have a duty to notify people about their decisions, including what duty is owed and decisions to end those duties. All letters must include information about their right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184; and Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 to 18.35) Councils must complete reviews about the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request. This period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
What happened In December 2022, the Council housed Miss X and her family in interim accommodation.
Miss X and her mother complained to the Council that the property was damp and had a rodent infestation. In February 2023, the Council said it would investigate. The Council found no evidence of rodents but arranged for pest control to visit.
In March and April, Miss X and her mother raised the same concerns a number of times. In April, Miss X said the property’s management company had visited three times and put down rodent poison but the problem was not resolved.
Also in April, the Council accepted a full housing duty to Miss X.
In July, Miss X wrote to the Council about the condition of the property.
In August, Miss X complained.
In the Council’s response, it apologised for not replying to the letter Miss X sent in July. It acknowledged that Miss X had had damp and pest problems at the property since being placed there. It said the rodent problem remained an issued despite putting down traps.
The Council said it was concerned about the issues Miss X had at the property. It said a potential rodent infestation should be investigated and dealt with as soon as possible. The Council said Miss X “should not have to put up with those conditions.” It said it would arrange an inspection to see what needed to be done to deal with the rodent problem or whether a change of property was needed.
In September, Council officers visited the property. The officers noted that while they did not see evidence of rodents, they did not doubt that it could be an issue. They also noted that the bathroom and kitchen were damp.
In October, the Council sent its second complaint response. It said it found clear evidence of mould and damp, despite Miss X’s efforts to keep the property clean. The Council said although officers had not seen any evidence of rodents, it did not doubt it was happening. The Council agreed to take steps to move the family from the property. It acknowledged the property was unsuitable.
Miss X and her family were moved to a different property in November.
Analysis Miss X complained the Council housed her and her family in unsuitable temporary accommodation. She said it was unsuitable because of a rodent infestation.
The Council initially placed Miss X and her family to this property under its interim duty. The Council accepted a full housing duty to them in April.
It is clear that the Council took action to address the problems Miss X complained of. It contacted the property’s management agent and arranged pest control visits. This is appropriate. However, Miss X told the Council in April that the problem had not been resolved despite those efforts.
Miss X repeatedly complained about the rodent problem. She wrote to the Council in July and the Council did not respond.
After Miss X formally complained, the Council visited the property in September and found it was unsuitable.
As I have said above, councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review, whether it is interim or temporary accommodation. I find the Council delayed reviewing the suitability of the property despite Miss X’s repeated complaints. This is fault.
Miss X told the Council in April that the rodent problem was ongoing despite efforts to treat it. This should have prompted the Council to complete a formal (statutory) suitability review in April, when Miss X had review rights. There is no evidence the Council did a formal suitability review at any time. This is fault.
In response to Ombudsman enquiries, the Council said its officers’ judgement after visiting the property in September was that the damp and rodent problem were “not sufficient to make the property unsuitable”. The Council also said it acknowledged that Miss X made repeated complaints about a rodent infestation and although it did not witness this directly, it agreed to find Miss X alternative accommodation. It also said it “stated that the infestation made the property unsuitable”. These statements are contradictory.
Ultimately, the Council accepted the property was unsuitable and moved Miss X and her family to a different property.
I find the Council could have started a formal statutory suitability review in April.
The Council said that when Miss X reported the rodent problem, she did not say the accommodation was unsuitable for her. It said the complaint was “regarding mouse infestation only”. It said Miss X did not ask for a suitability review.
People should not have to specifically ask for a “suitability review” or use legal phrases for a council to act. It was clear that Miss X was concerned about the rodent infestation and the impact of it on the family, in particular her children. This should have prompted the Council to complete a section 202 review of the suitability of the property.
Miss X said the Council never told her she could request a review of the property’s suitability.
The Council did not tell Miss X she had a right to request a review of the suitability of the property when she was placed there in December 2022. This is because she was placed there under the Council’s interim duty. Therefore, there was no right to request a formal review. However, the Council should have kept the issue of suitability under review.
Once the Council accepted a main housing duty to Miss X in April, the property became temporary accommodation, which carries a right to request a formal suitability review.
If the Council had started a formal suitability review in April, as I find it could have, it would have had eight weeks to complete its review. This would have been in June. I therefore find the Council could reasonably have reached the conclusion it reached in September (that the property was unsuitable) four months earlier, in June.
I find the faults (delaying reviewing the suitability of the property and not completing a formal suitability review) caused Miss X and her family injustice. It meant they lived in an unsuitable property and this impacted on the family’s physical and mental health and wellbeing, and caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration.
Agreed action
Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X in writing for the injustice caused by: delaying reviewing the suitability of the property; failing to complete a formal statutory suitability review; and, not telling Miss X of her right to request a formal suitability review when she got these rights in April.
We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making this apology.
Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Miss X of £1200. This is made up as follows: The Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies suggests a payment of between £150 and £300 per month for each month someone lives in unsuitable accommodation. I have taken into consideration the impact this had on the family’s physical and mental health and wellbeing, and that children - some of whom have disabilities and are therefore vulnerable - lived in the unsuitable property. I find that an appropriate and proportionate monthly amount for the level of injustice is £200.
I have also considered the length of time involved. I find it was reasonable for the Council to have taken time to try to resolve the problems before April. But I find the Council could have reached its decision that the property was unsuitable by at least June. For this reason, I find the injustice was ongoing from June to November, when they moved out. This is six months.
£200 per month multiplied by six months is £1200.
Within three months of this decision, the Council has agreed to: remind staff that an applicant should not need to specifically ask for a section 202 suitability review. The Council should keep the suitability of interim and temporary accommodation under review. Staff should be proactive when someone complains about the condition of the property or their living conditions, and carry out a formal statutory section 202 suitability review where applicable; remind staff that applicants must be told about their right to request a statutory suitability review; and, share a copy of this decision and our focus report (“Unsuitable temporary accommodation: guide for practitioners” issued May 2023) with staff, and discuss them at a team meeting.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. I find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council will apologise to Miss X, make a payment to her, and improve its service.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman