Summary: Mr X complained about the Council serving an improvement notice and carrying out works in default at a property which he owns in 2018. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which Mr X was aware of outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints and there are no good reasons why we should investigate outside this period. It was reasonable for him to appeal against the notices to the First Tier property tribunal at the time.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about being served with improvement notices served on him in May 2018 for a property which he rented to a tenant. He says the notices were unreasonable because his tenant had caused damage and he was unable to gain access to the property. The Council subsequently served a notice to carry out works in default which he says were unsatisfactory and cost more than the quoted amounts. He says he was not given sufficient opportunity to carry out the works himself.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X owns a property which he was renting to a tenant in 2018. The Council served improvement notices on him in May 2018 for disrepair at the flat. Mr X says the tenant was responsible for some of the disrepair and would not allow his contractors access to do works. The Council interviewed him under caution in October 2018 when the works had not been completed by the notice time requirement.
6. The Council then carried out the work in default even though Mr X wanted to do the repairs but could not gain access. The Council said the works were necessary and its contractors were able to gain access.
7. The notices served by the Council carried a right of appeal to the First Tier residential property tribunal. Mr X was aware of this and wrote to the Tribunal in January 2019.
8. The restriction outlined in paragraph 2 applies here because Mr X complains about a matter he became aware of more than 12 months ago. We have discretion to disapply this rule where we decide there are good reasons. In this case I have decided not to exercise discretion because Mr X has not provided any good reasons why he did not complain to us within 12 months.
9. Had Mr X complained to us within the 12-month period we would have referred him to the right of appeal against the notices. It was reasonable for him to appeal to the Tribunal and he appears to have commenced this process in 2019.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which Mr X was aware of outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints and there are no good reasons why we should investigate outside this period. It was reasonable for him to appeal against the notices to the First Tier property tribunal at the time.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman