Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue Miss X a notice to close her business. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council referred her business to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and issued a Section 146 notice to close her business after she complained about a contractor working on behalf of the Council.
2. She said it issued the notice despite HSE confirming no action was needed. She said it has caused financial loss and distress. She wants the notice to be withdrawn.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome,

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complained the Council issued a Section 146 notice and her business had to cease trading. The Council said in 2023 it undertook a gas inspection which found missing components for a regulated gas flow on a cooker, and issued Miss X with a warning notice. It carried out a further inspection in 2024 and found essential components had again been removed from the cooker which caused gas to leak.
7. The Council said it sought legal advice before issuing the notice due and its actions were in line with Miss X’s tenancy.
8. Miss X complained the Council referred her business to HSE after she made a complaint. In its complaint response the Council said it made the referral to HSE prior to Miss X making a complaint. It said although HSE closed the case because it could not identify who removed the components from the cooker, it was still a reportable safety breach.
9. In its complaint response the Council said it could have improved its communication with Miss X. It said that in future, it would serve notices with a cover letter and complete annual checks of tenant contact details.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council sought legal advice before issuing the notice and explained why it thought the cooker had parts intentionally removed. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. The Council clarified the referral to HSE was prior to Miss X’s complaint, apologised for its communication and identified service improvements. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman