Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with his concerns about privately rented property disrepair. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling to justify our involvement. We also risk stepping into the court’s jurisdiction because Mr X appears to have started legal proceedings against his landlord and the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take proper action against his landlord for disrepair issues that significantly impact on his health. Mr X believes the Council has found and then concealed significant hazards with his rental property. He also thinks the Council has misapplied rules under the Housing Act by not taking action against his landlord for operating an unlicensed House of Multiple Occupation (HMO). He wants the Council to correct the errors it has recorded about him, award compensation to reimburse his rent for the last year and for distress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
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 and we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X moved into his privately rented property in late 2024. In April 2025, he appears to have first reported issued to the Council about draughts and significant cold. Mr X says the cold significantly impacts on his existing health conditions and finances as he has to pay more to keep his home warm.
7. The Council made an initial visit to Mr X’s property in April 2025. It did not identify significant hazards to justify formal enforcement action against the landlord, but did recommend it addressed minor issues with the windows, bathroom and smoke detector. The Council revisited Mr X’s property in June 2025 to check if the issues had been resolved. It explained it could not take action to insist the landlord replaced the windows in the event the cold and draughts worsened in the winter.
8. The Council also explained to Mr X that it would not be taking formal action against the landlord for not having a licence to operate a HMO. This was because the landlord had submitted a HMO licence application to the Council. The law says where an application has been submitted, the Council does not have legal grounds to pursue action against the landlord (Housing Act 2004, section 72(4)(B)).
9. The Council’s final complaint response to Mr X in July 2025 explained it had made a typing error in previous correspondence where it had advised him there were category 1 hazards (under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System or HHSRS) present in his rental property, when there are not. The Council apologised for the error and the confusion this had caused to Mr X.
10. Since Mr X submitted his complaint to us, the Council has attempted a joint visit with the landlord’s agent to inspect Mr X’s property. Mr X has not allowed inspection because he believes the Council and his landlord should provide proper notice before visiting his home. Within his correspondence to the Council, Mr X has indicated that he is pursuing legal action about the disrepair issues. Mr X’s correspondence suggests his legal action is against his landlord and/or the Council for the same or similar matters to those he has brought to us.
11. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings. In this case, we will not investigate because there is a risk of our involvement would trespass on matters that are also being considered by the court. Mr X’s claim for compensation is for a significant sum of money. When we recommend a payment to remedy injustice, this is typically intended to be symbolic payment shows the complainant had legitimate cause to make their complaint. We do not award punitive compensation or damaged as these are matters for the courts. We therefore cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we risk stepping into the court’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman