Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a landlord. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision, to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council considered health and safety concerns he raised about his private housing. Mr X says this has caused anxiety, potential exposure to risks and no practical route to secure improvements or reassurance. Mr X would like the Council to acknowledge it did not look at the matter properly and carry out a proper review based on evidence, or provide a transparent reason why it will not.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and relevant policy and legislation.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X moved to into the property in 2008, therefore he could have complained about these issues sooner, as he would have been aware of them soon after moving in. However, as the complaint concerns ongoing issues, we can consider the Council’s decisions within the 12 months before Mr X came to us.
6. Local authorities have powers 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. If a council considers there is a serious hazard it must take appropriate enforcement action. A category 2 hazard is less serious or urgent. If less serious hazards are identified, councils have discretion to take enforcement action, but do not have to.
7. Mr X is a leaseholder, who lives in a residential property. He wrote to the Council, describing hazards in a communal area. The Council replied and told Mr X it had considered the issues he raised but did not think they were serious enough to justify its involvement. It explained that he would need to consider legal action to resolve the issues. I recognise Mr X may have liked the Council to provide more information about how it reached this decision. However, the Council did outline the reason for its decision, which was in line with relevant legislation and guidance.
8. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because a complainant disagrees with it, unless there is evidence of fault in the way it was made. In this case, the Council wrote to Mr X and set out its decision, a broad reason and the options available to him. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision, to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman