Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of an Environmental Health Officer and the Council’s allocations process. The Council’s apology for the content of the Officer’s email is a suitable remedy. The landlord has completed the necessary repairs and the Council has reviewed the information provided for the complainant’s banding. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Ms X, complains:
• a Council officer spoke to her in an inappropriate and unprofessional way
• a Council Officer carried out a visual inspection of Ms X’s home and failed to identify damp; and
• she has bidding on properties for more than five years without success.

Ms X wants the Council to stop the Officer from working with the public and review the allocation process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X lives in a two-bedroomed private rented property with her husband & three children. She asked for an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) to visit her home because of damp.
6. Ms X says the EHO did not bring any equipment with them when they visited. They failed to identify damp in the floor by the front door which later collapsed.
7. The Council says an EHO visited and carried out a visual inspection. They noted evidence of water penetration to the porch, small areas of mould growth to kitchen wall and areas of peeling paint. The EHO did not observe defects to flooring and Ms X gave no indication of concerns in the area.
8. It also states that it is not reasonable or practical for Officers to inspect under the floor. If Ms X had raised concerns or the EHO spotted a problem, the Council says it would have asked the landlord to carry out further inspections.
9. The Council confirms that, when Ms X told the landlord about the collapsed floor, the landlord visited the next day, lifted the floor, fixed a leaking pipe and reboarded the floor. Work has been completed to resolve damp in the porch.
10. The Council also says the EHO sent an email to Ms X. In it they said Ms X moved into the house with two children who were not of an age when they should be sharing a room. The Officer said Ms X has added to the overcrowding by marrying and having another child.
11. A senior Officer has apologised for the wording of the EHO’s email. They advised the EHO has been reminded to consider wording future correspondence to avoid causing distress.
12. Ms X also raised concerns about unsuccessful bidding on larger properties for more than five years. The Council confirms it has reviewed the medical information provided by Ms X and there is no justification to award a higher banding in its property allocation banding system. However, it will consider any new information Ms X may provide.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• the Council has apologised for the distress caused by the wording of the EHO’s email
• it has confirmed the landlord has repaired the leaking pipe, the flooring, and the damp to the porch; and
• it has reviewed Ms X’s information and is satisfied her allocation banding is correct.
14. We cannot require the Council to remove the EHO from a public facing role. The apology for the wording of the email is an adequate remedy to this part of the complaint. As the landlord has completed the necessary repairs and reviewed Ms X’s medical information, further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman