Kensington And Chelsea (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Kensington and Chelsea Council has been told to pay a mum £3,800 plus £200 monthly after leaving her in unsafe, mouldy housing for over two years.
According to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Kensington and Chelsea Council failed to assess the suitability of the accommodation and was reluctant to address the problems its own staff had identified in the house, resulting in poor communication with the woman, who was only identified as Miss X.
Since then, the council has consented to offer Miss X an apology and £3,800 in compensation. Miss X claimed the local authority did not conduct a suitability check when she asked for one and accused the council of disregarding her personal circumstances by placing her distant from her support systems. Miss X is still residing on the property as of this writing.
She claimed that the physical and mental well-being of both her and her child had suffered as a result of being in the apartment. Kensington and Chelsea Council had been renting the apartment from a managing agent in East London when the woman was assigned to it.
What are the key details of the incident?
Miss X complained to the council in November 2022 about problems with the property’s condition, claiming that it was rife with mold and moisture. In the same month, the council replied, instructing her to speak with the management agents immediately in the event that there were problems with the property.
She took the matter to the council a month later. In February 2023, the management agents accused her of improperly ventilating the property and informed her that she was in charge of removing mold and damp.
In order to find a “resolution” to problems in the apartment or make sure that “a decision is made as to whether you should be moved on the basis of the disrepair,” the council also stated that its repair workers will communicate with the managing agents, according to the ombudsman report. Miss X was instructed to get in touch with the managing agency in January 2024 after she continued to call them with persistent disrepair issues.
Miss X informed the council that she had been bringing up the problems with the council and the managing agents for well over a year.
After inspecting the house in February 2024, the environmental health team from the East London borough determined that the kitchen door needed to be replaced because it did not satisfy fire safety regulations, the mold needed to be treated, and the kitchen and bathroom needed suitable ventilation.
The council gave the ombudsman a copy of Miss X’s July 2024 suitability reassessment, which revealed that her child had special needs, that the amount of mold and moisture was aggravating her asthma, that she had persistent antisocial behavior from other residents of the block.
Her ex-partner, against whom she was pursuing a non-molestation order because he had attempted to abduct the child in the past, knew where she lived. Additionally, they recorded Miss X stating that it was difficult for her to get employment and care for her child because she remained distant from her support systems.
According to the assessment, Miss X required “local temporary accommodation” or placement outside of London or in Greater London. The final section, which addressed the suitability of the current lodging, was left blank, and the Ombudsman concluded that the assessment had not been authorized.
Since Miss X’s initial complaint in 2022, the ombudsman said it has not seen any indication that the council had given any thought to whether the property was appropriate for her.
It stated that the council’s response that it would determine whether she needed to relocate due to the damage was not backed by any evidence. Additionally, it was found that the council failed to assign an officer to examine her case “as a matter of urgency” for a further 15 months.
Did the ombudsman report highlight the council’s communication failures?
The ombudsman stated that it was unclear whether the council had informed Miss X of the results of its evaluation conducted in July 2024 or outlined her entitlement to a review. ‘Inconsistent and erratic’ was another way they described the communication between the managing agents and the council.
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 ombudsman concluded that the council did not go far enough in tracking advancement or keeping an eye on the performance of the managing agents.
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.”
They said that 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 criticized the agent’s response to Miss X’s complaints regarding damp and mold, stating that it was against government guidelines to advise her to resolve the issue on her own.
It claimed that the agents were unable to determine the root causes of the damp and mold, which they attributed to insufficient ventilation in the restroom and kitchen.
They claimed that before releasing the property, the agent ought to have made sure it complied with fire safety regulations.
Additionally, they claimed that the situation bore a “striking resemblance” to one that occurred in October 2023 involving a different property but the same managing agency and council.
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.”
