A West London council has been told to pay a mum £3,800 and another £200 every month until it moves her to suitable home after she endured over two years of living in a mouldy home deemed unsafe.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman said Kensington and Chelsea Council had communicated poorly with the woman, known only as Miss X, that it was slow to act on the issues its own officers had spotted in the property and failed to review the suitability of its accommodation.
The council has since agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £3,800 in compensation. Miss X accused the council of ignoring her personal circumstances when it placed her far from her support networks and claimed the local authority failed to carry out a suitability review when she requested one. At the time of writing, Miss X remains living in the property.
She said remaining in the flat had affected her and her child’s mental and physical health. The woman had been placed in an East London flat which Kensington and Chelsea Council had been leasing from a managing agent.
In November 2022, Miss X complained to the council about ongoing disrepair issues and said the property had been riddled with damp and mould. The council responded in the same month telling her to contact the managing agents directly if there were issues with the property.
A month later, Miss X escalated her complaint with the council. In February 2023, she had also been told by the managing agents she was responsible for clearing damp and mould and accused her of not ventilating the property properly.
In April 2023, the council apologised saying a ‘large level of staff absence’ in the temporary accommodation team had led to delays. She was also told a new officer would contact her ‘as a matter of urgency’ to carry out a new assessment and find her a suitable home.
The council also said its repair teams would be in touch with the managing agents to find a ‘resolution’ to issues in the flat or ensure that ‘a decision is made as to whether you should be moved on the basis of the disrepair’, the ombudsman report found. In January 2024, in response to further contact from Miss X about ongoing disrepair issues, she was told to contact the managing agent.
Miss X told the council she had been reporting the issues to both the managing agents and the council for well over a year. In February 2024, the East London borough’s environmental health team inspected the property and identified the need to treat the mould, install appropriate ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom, and to replace the kitchen door, which did not meet fire safety standards.
The council provided the ombudsman a copy of Miss X’s suitability reassessment from July 2024 and found it recorded her child as having special needs, that the extent of damp and mould was affecting Miss X’s asthma, ongoing antisocial behaviour issues from other residents in the block and that her ex-partner, who she was in the process of taking a non-molestation order against because he tried to kidnap the child previously, knew where she lived. They also recorded Miss X saying she lived far away from her support networks, making it harder for her to care for her child and find work.
The assessment said Miss X needed ‘local temporary accommodation’ or to be placed in Greater London or out of London. The ombudsman found the assessment had not been authorised and the final section, which focused on suitability of current accommodation, was left blank.
The ombudsman said it did not see any evidence suggesting the council considered whether the property was suitable for Miss X since her first complaint in 2022.
It said no evidence existed backing up the council’s response that it would decide whether she needed to move because of the disrepair. It also found that despite promising to commit an officer to review her case ‘as a matter of urgency’ the council did not do so for another 15 months.
The ombudsman said it wasn’t clear if the council had shared the outcome of its July 2024 assessment with Miss X or set out her right to a review. They also found communication between the council and the managing agents was ‘inconsistent and sporadic’. The report said: “The matter drifted for months at a time and it appears it is only because Miss X was persistent in following up that the council has acted.”
The watchdog criticised the council for referring Miss X to the managing agents after telling her to contact the local authority when issues arose with her property. They said although the council accepted its communication with Miss X was poor ‘this did not, however, improve after the council upheld the complaint’.
The ombudsman found the council did not do enough to monitor the managing agents’ performance or chase progress. The report read: “The council’s service agreement with the managing agents says the managing agent must send a repair report to the council within five working days of a report of disrepair, setting out the works required and how long it will take. The agreement says the managing agents should complete repairs within 28 days of a report.
“There is no evidence the council received such reports. It was therefore only because Miss X complained to the council that it knew about the issues. Nevertheless, it is responsible for the actions of the managing agents and their contractors when they act on the council’s behalf to manage temporary accommodation.”
The ombudsman also criticised the agent’s handling of Miss X’s complaints about mould and damp, saying that telling her to fix the problem herself was not in line with government guidance. It said the agents failed to identify the underlying causes of the mould and damp, which it said was due to inadequate ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom.
They said the agent should have checked if the property met fire safety requirements before letting it out. They also said the case had a ‘striking resemblance’ to one involving a separate property but the same council and managing agents in October 2023.
Those findings included delays to completing repairs and poor communication between the council and the managing agents. The council at the time had agreed to the ombudsman’s recommendation to discuss its findings in that case with the managing agents, identify improvements, and monitor performance.
The recent ombudsman’s report said: “There does not appear to be any improvement by either the council or the managing agents. I have, therefore, recommended a review of all properties currently used by the council as temporary accommodation with this managing agent to ensure they are safe and meet minimum standards.”
The ombudsman said Miss X experienced ‘significant and avoidable distress and frustration’ as a result of Kensington and Chelsea Council’s poor communication. They said Miss X lived with extensive damp and mould ‘for too long’ because the council had not addressed the issue with the managing agents.
They said the failure to ensure doors met fire regulation left Miss X ‘at avoidable risk of harm’ and said the council should have reviewed the suitability of the accommodation by April 2023, at the latest. The report said: “Had it done so, it is likely it would have decided that the property was unsuitable.”
The ombudsman said the property’s persistent mould and damp problems, the issue of ASB, the risk of domestic abuse and distance from Miss X’s support network on whom she relied for support taking care of her child made it unsuitable for her. The report read: “This means Miss X has lived in unsuitable accommodation since April 2023. This is a significant injustice.”
They ordered the council to find her alternative temporary accommodation within the council’s area or as close as possible and to pay her £200 a month for the 19 months she lived in unsuitable accommodation and to continue paying that amount until they find suitable accommodation or end its duty to her.
Kensington and Chelsea Council was ordered to act within four weeks of the final ombudsman decision and improve its services. The council must tell the ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months.
A Kensington and Chelsea Council spokesperson said: “All residents deserve to live in good-quality housing, regardless of whether it’s temporary accommodation or a permanent home. We apologise for falling short of the service this resident deserved and have completed each of the actions agreed with the ombudsman.
“We are committed to being a caring and competent council and have used the learnings from this case to improve how we recognise and resolve disrepair. London is in the grip of a homelessness crisis and we have more than 2,100 households in temporary accommodation. The majority of those placements are in neighbouring boroughs or Greater London and we do everything we can to find homes in locations that best suit our residents’ circumstances.”
