Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Hounslow (202407223)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407223

London Borough of Hounslow

30 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Request to be permanently rehoused.
    3. Move to temporary rehousing while it conducted repair work.

Background

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, she was a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord temporarily rehoused her during repair work to an alternative property. Subsequently, this became permanent and she remains a secure tenant at this property. The landlord, a local council, owns both properties and is aware of the resident’s health concerns and vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 5 December 2023. She said it needed to carry out repair work to treat damp and mould in her home. It was arranging this through its disrepair process as the resident had submitted a disrepair claim to the court. She said due to her compromised health she was unable to remain in the property whilst it conducted the work and therefore required rehousing. She told the landlord she was unhappy at how it had handled similar circumstances in July 2023 when she had required access to alternative accommodation.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 12 February 2024. It said it had received medical evidence from the resident and would temporarily rehouse her due to her health concerns. It said it was working to identify suitable accommodation and would keep her updated with progress. It apologised for the distress the situation had caused her.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 20 February 2024. She was unhappy that it had not addressed all the concerns she had raised. She told the landlord that she wanted it to rehouse her on a permanent basis.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 21 March 2024. It said it had identified a property that the resident had agreed to move to temporarily whilst it completed repair work in her home. It said it had supported the resident through this process adequately and was not able to consider permanently rehousing her.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses. She is seeking compensation and an improvement in the landlord’s communication with her.

Assessment

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41 of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Request to be permanently rehoused.
  3. Paragraph 41.c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.
  4. The resident submitted a disrepair claim in relation to the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould which has been subject to a decision by the court on 24 July 2024. Due to this we are unable to consider this matter in our investigation.
  5. Paragraph 41.d of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.
  6. The landlord’s allocations policy states that its properties are allocated through its Local Housing Authority register. It advised the resident this was the case, and she subsequently submitted an application for rehousing via its register in January 2024. We therefore consider the handling of the resident’s rehousing request to have been carried out as part of the Council’s wider local authority duties, rather than as part of its social housing management function. Due to this we are unable to investigate the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  7. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) considers complaints about housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. This includes applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf. It covers assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding, or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference. Therefore, the resident may wish to contact the LGSCO for assistance with her complaint about this matter.

Scope of investigation

  1. The Housing Ombudsman assesses landlords’ handling of residents’ complaints to ascertain whether they took reasonable steps to resolve these within their internal process. This investigation has, therefore, focused on the events and evidence leading up to its final response on 21 March 2024. Any events following its stage 2 response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Temporary rehousing

  1. On 5 December 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its lack of communication with her concerning her need to be temporarily rehoused. She said that she had told the landlord that due to health concerns she would be unable to remain in her property whilst it completed remedial works due to damp and mould. She said that between July and October 2023 during previous repair work, the landlord had sought to secure temporary rehousing for her. She said the accommodation it offered at this time had been unsuitable and she was unhappy that staff members at the time had been “dismissive”.
  2. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 December 2023 to discuss the issues she had raised. She told it that she had evidence from her GP that supported her need to be rehoused whilst it undertook work. She explained to the landlord that she had recently been admitted to hospital and was using breathing apparatus due to complications from her asthma. The evidence shows that although it discussed this internally it did not begin its process to secure rehousing for the resident. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate that it had listened to her concerns and respond appropriately.
  3. There was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s concerns that led to her chasing it for updates 3 times between 16 and 22 January 2024. Its internal communications show there was some confusion regarding what it could address within its complaints process. This was due to the legal proceedings that were taking place in respect to repair matters. It was positive that the landlord sought legal advice to ensure it clarified its obligations relating to its approach. It would have been reasonable however, to ensure that it updated the resident on the situation to adequately manage her expectations.
  4. In its stage 1 response on 12 February 2024 the landlord confirmed that it would temporarily rehouse the resident while it carried out the required repair work to her home. It said it was working to identify suitable accommodation and its housing team would liaise with her to manage this process. It was appropriate that it apologised for any distress she had experienced and reassured her that it was considering the seriousness of her health conditions in its approach. It did not however, demonstrate that it had considered previous events raised by the resident in its response, which was a shortcoming. Given her complaint had referred to its communication and previous offers of accommodation it would have been reasonable for it to discuss these points in its response.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 20 February 2024. She told the landlord that she wanted it to address a lack of communication by its staff members and the previous events that she had raised in her complaint. She was unhappy that it had refused to provide her with a copy of its decant policy. She said that although the landlord had now identified alternative accommodation for her, it had asked her to sign documentation relating to this before giving her a chance to assess its suitability.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 February 2024 to advise that it had identified a 2-bedroom ground floor flat for her to move to on a temporary basis while it completed repair works at her home. It said the move would take place on 4 March 2024 and that it would make a disturbance allowance payment by cheque of £250 to help her with the essential costs of moving. It clarified that it would cover several costs involved in the move upon the production of receipts including:
    1. Removal costs.
    2. Disconnection and reconnection of essential appliances.
    3. Mail redirection for up to 6 months.
    4. Reconnection of a landline.
  7. The landlord also clarified in this correspondence arrangements around utility bills, rent payments and the security of items left in the resident’s home whilst it completed repair work. Although we are aware that the resident was unhappy that the landlord did not consider her for larger accommodation, its offer of a ‘like for like’ property and the information it provided at this time was reasonable and in line with its procedure.
  8. It was appropriate that in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 21 March 2024, it set out the action it had taken relating to its offer of temporary rehousing. It said that the resident had viewed the accommodation on 20 February 2024, and it subsequently sent her documentation regarding this on 23 February 2024. This demonstrated it had given her time to consider the suitability of the accommodation. It explained that as it refers to an internal procedure for temporary rehousing, and does not have a decant policy, it could not provide this to her.
  9. The landlord’s final response also addressed the resident’s concerns over a lack of communication. It asked her to forward any evidence of correspondence that individual staff members had not responded to. It provided a relevant manager’s email address to do this. It would have been reasonable for it to address events from July 2023 and the suitability of previous offers of accommodation mentioned in her original complaint. We understand that a social landlord has limited access to available properties. Due to this, its ability to offer accommodation that meets the needs of its residents can be challenging. Therefore, whilst the landlord could have discussed this in its response, its omission did not impact the outcome of the situation and thus does not warrant a failure finding.
  10. In summary, although there were noted shortcomings in some aspects of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns, these were not such as to detract from its overall measures to rehouse the resident due to her health concerns. It took action in line with its procedure in dealing with the matter and demonstrated an awareness of the resident’s vulnerabilities due to her compromised health. It was reasonable that it discussed the concerns with the resident and explained the reasons for its decisions in its complaint responses. While its communication with her at points could have been timelier, it took reasonable and proportionate measures to address the issues.
  11. We are aware that although the landlord originally agreed that the resident’s move was temporary, following its final response she has commenced a permanent tenancy at the property. In her correspondence with us she has raised concerns over the suitability of the property based on vulnerabilities within her household. Due to this we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact her to provide relevant housing options advice.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould is outside our jurisdiction to consider.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused is outside our jurisdiction to consider.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to temporary rehousing while it conducted repair work.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her concerns over the suitability of her current accommodation. It should provide relevant housing options advice if she requires this.