Summary: Ms C complains about the way the Council dealt with her as the landlord of a property about hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Ms C says she suffered unnecessary stress, costs and time and trouble in pursuing the matter. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council but considers the agreed actions of an apology, £100 and service improvements provide a suitable remedy in addition to the actions the Council had already taken.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C, complains about the way the Council dealt with her regarding hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System it identified in a property of which she is the landlord. Ms C complains in particular that:

• the Council unreasonably served a notice on her about issues which were largely the tenants’ responsibility;
• the officer dealing with her case bullied her and did not respond properly to her communications;
• the Council did not take enough account of her efforts to resolve the problems at the property or the difficulties she was caused by her tenants; and
• the Council did not address all the issues she raised in its responses to her complaint.

2. Ms C says because of the Council’s fault she has suffered unnecessary stress, costs and time and trouble in pursuing the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the papers provided by Ms C and discussed the complaint with her. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Ms C. I have explained my draft decision to Ms C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Local authorities have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004, Part 1 to take enforcement action against private landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government issued guidance in August 2006 about the HHSRS.
8. The Council received a report towards the end of January 2019 from the father of Ms C’s tenant which was headed as damp and bed bugs. The emailed report refers to several issues some of which had been resolved by the landlord but raised concerns about being charged for replacement carpets and mould and damp at the property. The tenant provided photographs in support including of bugs.
9. The Council visited the property at the beginning of February. The Council’s notes from this visit say the property was in generally fair condition with slight mould in two bedrooms and the kitchen due to inadequate ventilation. There was no evidence of bed bugs at the visit but the tenant explained they had removed a mattress and bedding in the affected bedroom. The notes set out several recommended repairs to improve ventilation and to treat the mould. It was also recommended to replace worn carpets or treat these for bugs and to repair living room window handle which could not be opened.
10. The Council completed a HHRSR assessment shortly after the visit and identified three categories of hazard as damp and mould growth, excess heat and domestic hygiene (pests and refuse).
11. The Council wrote to Ms C in February enclosing an Improvement Notice informing her the Council was considering taking enforcement action in respect of her property. The letter makes clear the Council is sending the information before taking formal action to allow Ms C to discuss the matter or confirm she would complete the works. The letter provides 14 days for written representations or 7 days for representations in person at its offices. The Council says if it does not receive representations within the permitted period it will take enforcement action and recover its costs of between £450 and £1,000 in so doing. The Council further confirmed that if enforcement action was taken and works had not started by the required date it would consider completing the works in default and charge the cost of the works plus a 30% surcharge.
12. The Council’s Improvement Notice stated it had identified three Category 1 hazards: damp and mould; excess heat; and domestic hygiene, pest and refuse. It subsequently lists two Category 1 hazards of mould and excess heat and one category 2 hazard of domestic hygiene, pest and refuse. For the category 1 hazards it required Ms C to provide adequate ventilation and to fix or replace the broken window handle in the living room. For the category 2 hazard it required a pest control programme.
13. I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it responded to the initial report from Ms C’s tenant by visiting the property and issuing an Improvement Notice following the outcome of its HHRSR assessment. The Council has acted in accordance with its powers and the relevant guidance.
14. In responding to my enquiries, the Council has noted the above Improvement Notice contains several errors. The Council says Schedule 1 wrongly included the hazard ‘excess heat’ under category 1 which this should have been under category 2 and the second heading on this schedule is ‘category 1 hazards’ but should be ‘category 2 hazards’.  The second schedule also includes ‘excess heat’ under category 1 rather than category 2.  The Council says that enforcement officers prepare and send their own informal notices but a senior manager would check each statutory notice before it was sent which would have identified these errors. The Council also says the notice was informal and the schedule of required works was clear. Whilst noting the Council’s comments, the Improvement Notice is still an important document with significant potential consequences and should contain accurate information and the failure to do is fault.
15. The Council completed a reinspection of the property towards the end of March. The Council has not been able to provide notes for the second inspection. The Council has explained the revisit was to check on the progress of works and the officer would use a copy of the schedule and check this against the works at the property. I also note the Council followed up the visit with an email to Ms C as set out below. However, the failure to keep an adequate record of such a visit given the potential for formal enforcement action is fault.
16. The Council has provided a copy of its email to Ms C following the revisit. The Council confirmed action had been taken in relation to the ‘excess heat’ and ‘domestic hygiene’ hazards and both these parts of the notice had been closed. However, although the Council noted the mould had been removed there was still no additional ventilation. The Council says as the ventilation works had not been completed the notice would remain open with a copy being registered at the Land Registry to warn any potential buyer or tenant that a Category 1 hazard existed at the property. The Council also says if the tenants reported the mould had reoccurred without the required ventilation works being completed it would serve a statutory notice at a cost of £400 and escalate the matter to formal statutory action. The Council also advised Ms C that if the mould reoccurred her tenants could apply to court for a refund of all rent from the date of its initial notice.
17. Ms C had contacted the Council the day before the scheduled inspection to confirm there was outstanding action about ventilation as her carpenter was delayed. Ms C has confirmed the notice was subsequently closed following further action.
18. During its complaint correspondence with Ms C the Council accepted the case officer had not fully answered all her questions, had not referred her to their manager when requested and the email above had been unduly formal and severe in tone given that she had already completed some remedial works. The Council provided a detailed explanation of the HHSRS system to Ms C and apologised and explained the case officer would complete some refresher training and their work would be monitored more closely for a period.
19. The Ombudsman would welcome the Council’s actions above which I consider go some way in providing a suitable remedy for Ms C’s complaint. However, I consider the Council should also take the additional actions below to provide a complete remedy.

Agreed action

20. The Council will take the following actions to provide a suitable remedy to Ms C:
1. write to Ms C to apologise for the further faults identified above in relation to its record keeping and accuracy of her Improvement Notice within one month of my final decision;
2. pay Ms C £100 in recognition of the upset and her time and trouble within one month of my final decision;
3. review its procedure to ensure adequate records of visits and assessments are maintained within two months of my final decision; and
4. issue a reminder to officers of the need to ensure accuracy when drafting Improvement Notices within two months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation as there was fault by the Council but I consider the agreed actions above are enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman