The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take action in respect of disrepair at a private property and delayed in completing a National Referral Mechanism referral in respect of a modern slavery victim. There was no significant action between October 2020 and July 2021 in respect of the disrepair which is fault. The failure to complete a Duty to Notify referral under the Modern Slavery process in September 2019 was also fault.
The complaint
Ms X complained the Council failed to take action in respect of disrepair at a privately rented property and delayed in completing a National Referral Mechanism referral in respect of a modern slavery victim.
Ms X says she has had to live in unsuitable conditions and was denied help.
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) 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
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; discussed the issues with the complainant; sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.
What I found
Modern Slavery Referrals The National Referral Mechanism (NRM) is a framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery and ensuring they receive the appropriate support. Local Authorities are “first responder” organisations and so have a responsibility to identify and refer potential victims. There are two types of referral: the NRM, where consent is given, and the Duty to Notify (DtN). A DtN is used where the adult does not consent to be referred into the NRM process.
Key facts A councillor contacted the Private Sector Housing (PSH) department in September 2019 regarding disrepair at the property Ms X lived in. Private Sector Housing (PSH) officers contacted Ms X on 11 September who say she did not want them to inspect the property. Ms X disputes this. Ms X met with PSH officers at the Council offices on 16 September.
Ms X said she had been brought to the property on the pre-text of marrying the landlord. Comments provided by the Council say it suggested making a National Referral Mechanism (NRM) referral because Ms X said she had been forcibly moved from another area but she requested they did not. Ms X disputes this. The Council says it was advised there was no tenancy, no rent payments, that Ms X had no access to public funds and that she was living on charity payments. It is also noted that she had an appeal pending with the Home Office regarding residency issues.
PSH officer contacted the homelessness prevention team and was advised it could not offer accommodation due to Ms X’s immigration status and gave information about a community organisation that may be able to assist. The PSH officer contacted that organisation and made a provisional appointment for Ms X but she declined the appointment. Ms X disputes this happened.
PSH officers visited Ms X’s flat on 7 October 2019 and noted severe damp, disconnected smoke alarm, missing tiles in kitchen, problems with doors, missing skirting boards, loose hand basin, protruding electrical connector in bathroom, as well as issues in shared areas. The officers concluded they needed to visit with a fire officer.
Council officers visited again on 16 October 2019 with a fire officer and the owner. The owner agreed to carry out works. The fire officer wrote to the owner regarding the business and common parts of the property. The Council wrote to the owner on 18 October detailing the urgent works that he had agreed to complete.
The Council says it had multiple telephone conversations with the landlord and Ms X about access to complete the works. On 22 October the fire officer confirmed the alarms were in full working order. The PSH officer visited the premises on 23 October but was unable to gain access.
PSH officer visited with the fire officer on 10 February 2020 and found a previously repaired water leak affecting the first floor landing was leaking again. The Council wrote to the owner on 18 February 2020 detailing all the works that were considered necessary.
On 1 March 2020, gas safety certification was provided by the owner. Following a request to meet the owner at the property to carry out an inspection, the owner informed the Council his solicitor had advised him to stay away from the property due to allegations by Ms X.
The PSH officer submitted a warrant application to legal services who said there was uncertainty due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On 6 April 2020 the Council served a Housing Act 2004 section 239 letter on the owner who said he was self-isolating and unable to provide access. The officer attempted access to other flats in the building on 7 April and spoke to the occupiers of two other flats.
On 28 April 2020 the Council served a prohibition order in respect of flat 4 in the building. On 5 May the Council visited the premises and served a copy of the order on the occupier of flat 4. It noted substantial works were in progress. The owner submitted an out of time appeal in respect of the prohibition order which was accepted. The Council decided to revoke the notice.
PSH officers visited Ms X in July with a fire consultant. The officer says she had to persuade Ms X to allow entry to inspect her flat. PSH officer and fire consultant visited again on 13 July to carry out work on the new interlinked fire alarm system.
Following comments made by Ms X, a PSH officer completed a modern slavery referral form in September 2020 and forwarded it to the Home Office. It is my understanding that this referral resulted in two agencies contacting Ms X to offer help and support. These two agencies are independent of the Council and are funded by the government. Ms X says the Council did not make her aware that it had made an NRM.
The Council served improvement notices on the owners in October 2020 following a land registry check. It is my understanding the notice related to Ms X’s flat, the first floor landing and ground floor. It detailed the works that should be carried out and that they should be started not later than 1 October 2020 and completed within 10 weeks.
Ms X submitted a formal complaint to the Council on 4 June 2021. She said the flats were not suitable for human habitation and that the PSH department had failed to ensure repairs were completed. She said an improvement notice from October 2020 had not been followed up and her complaints had been totally ignored.
The Council completed an inspection on 2 July 2021 to check the works had been completed. It wrote to the owner on 13 July detailing the works that still required attention. None of the listed works relate to Ms X’s flat but there were some works required to common areas.
The Council’s response dated 23 July 2021, to Ms X’s formal complaint said the case was ongoing and the Council was using legal powers set out in statute. It explained that certain processes had to be carried out or it could prejudice a case and prevent it getting to court. It said that at the outset the Council was instrumental in obtaining an offer of alternative accommodation which she turned down. Ms X disputes that she was offered and refused an offer of alternative accommodation. It said a joint inspection was recently completed and further action will be taken. It said it would proceed to formal enforcement action under The Housing Act 2004 if necessary.
A further visit took place on 31 August 2021 at the owner’s request. It was not possible to gain access to another flat where the boiler was situated but the owner agreed to investigate further. A radiator in Ms X’s flat was fixed during the visit.
The owner wrote to the Council on 8 November 2021 saying all works had been completed. The Council notified Ms X of its intention to visit on 18 November to inspect the repairs. When the officers visited no access was provided and so the inspection could not take place.
The Council wrote again to Ms X on 12 November 2021 in response to her complaints. She had raised specific complaints regarding the actions of officers involved in her case. The Council upheld only two matters. That it should have notified her when the case officer changed and that it sent a letter in the post when she had specifically requested to correspond by email only. It acknowledged there was a considerable amount of time in issuing notices but said this was due to a ban on all enforcement action during lockdown. The Council also suggested the landlord may have experienced difficulty in getting tradespeople during lockdown.
Ms X also raised the issue of the Council delaying in making a referral regarding modern slavery. In this complaint response the Council says that Ms X disclosed the issue on 17 August 2020 and that it did not consider this had been mishandled.
The Council said it would continue to work with Ms X’s landlord to ensure the building meets current standards.
Analysis The information provided above focusses on the actions of the Council. I am aware Ms X contacted the Council frequently about the situation from 2019 onwards. Due to the amount of contact she had with the Council I am unable to provide a detailed chronology. Most of her contact was about the state of the accommodation and also alleged harassment by other tenants and the landlord.
Ms X complains the Council failed to take action in respect of disrepair at her property. The information provided shows the Council took action swiftly in September 2019 in meeting Ms X to discuss the situation. The Council visited the property to complete an inspect within weeks and promptly contacted the owner about the issues.
I note a lack of action from October 2019 to February 2020 with no explanation why even though Ms X was in contact with the Council. The first COVID-19 lockdown began in March 2020 and so a lack of action in this period is understandable. A visit in May 2020 noted works were in progress and further visits took place in July, as lockdown restrictions were eased. The Council served an improvement notice in October 2020 giving a 10 week compliance period. I am not persuaded there is any significant delay amounting to fault up to the serving of the notice in October 2020.
However, there is no evidence of any action until after Ms X submitted a formal complaint in June 2021. While I have not seen any formal response to this complaint, inspection visits were carried out in July 2021. I consider the delay in taking action until July 2021 to be fault. The information provided indicates some works were completed and the follow up inspection did not indicate any works were still required to Ms X’s flat. I consider this delay caused Ms X distress and uncertainty.
Ms X also complains about the Council’s delay in making a referral in respect of modern slavery. The Council first came into contact with Ms X in September 2019 and the information provided by PSH officers indicates a referral was raised at that time but that Ms X did not want the Council to do this. However, in response to her formal complaint, the Council says it was not aware of this issue until September 2020 and that it acted at that time without delay.
If Ms X did not consent to the referral in September 2019 the Council should have completed a DtN referral. I consider the failure to submit an NRM in 2019 is fault. Ms X says she did not know about the Council submitted an NRM in September 2020. However, as her complaint is that the Council should have done this sooner, I am not persuaded this was fault causing a significant injustice. The referral resulted in her being able to access support via the Salvation Army as a potential victim of modern slavery. I am aware that Ms X received support in 2020 from the Salvation Army and another subcontractor organisation.
Ms X says the failure to make the referral in 2019 prevented her from moving to safe accommodation because of limitations caused by the pandemic. She says there were no available spaces in refuges during the lockdowns and that the organisations involved did not want to take the risk of housing her. The Council says that it arranged an offer of alternative accommodation via the Salvation Army in April 2021 but she declined the offer. Ms X denies that any offer of alternative accommodation was made.
While I find it was fault by the Council not to make a DtN referral in September 2019, I am not persuaded this caused Ms X a significant injustice. While there may have been some limitations on available accommodation during the lockdowns, I am not persuaded this situation continues and on balance, I consider that alternative accommodation would have been available to Ms X if she chose to move. Ms X told me that she wanted to defend an eviction case taken against her and that if she is awarded compensation she would be able to use the money to find her own accommodation. I have not seen any evidence to show Ms X wanted to move and that she was prevented from doing so by the Council.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice caused to Ms X as a result of the faults identified above the Council, within one month of my final decision should, take the following action: Apologise to Ms X; Pay Ms X £250 as a symbolic payment for the distress and uncertainty caused; and Remind staff of the required processes under the National Referral Mechanism for modern slavery.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman