Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters following its serving of an enforcement notice on Ms X’s landlord to carry out works to its property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council failed to take follow up action after serving her landlord with an enforcement notice requiring work to address a defective pipe from the property above hers. She says its failure to communicate with her following the expiration of the notice with the work still outstanding amounts to a service withdrawal for which she should be compensated along with a refund for costs she incurred in taking mitigating measures.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, including its response to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council served an enforcement notice on Ms X’s landlord, a housing association, requiring work to address a water leak from the owner occupied flat above Ms X’s.
7. Ms X contacted the Council after the expiry date set for the required work had passed without the work having been done. The Council contacted the landlord which explained it had been unable to obtain access to the upstairs flat and had had to take legal action to gain access.
8. In responding to Ms X’s complaint about these matters, the Council explained that while the Notice had not been complied with within the required timescales, it had satisfied itself the landlord was taking reasonable steps to comply and so it did not consider it reasonable to carry out the works in default. It did, however, acknowledge that following the expiry of the Notice, it had not communicated sufficiently with Ms X or the landlord, and it apologised to her for this. It has advised Ms X to arrange access for the landlord so that it can complete any outstanding repairs.
9. The decision whether or not to enforce the notice was for the Council to take. It is not our role to review the merits of its decision here and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
10. The Council partially upheld Ms X’s complaint because it did not keep her informed of its actions and failed to provide regular updates. While this fault is noted, we do not investigate every complaint we receive and in this case there are insufficient grounds to warrant a formal investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman