Summary: Miss D complains the Council failed to correctly deal with private housing disrepair, homelessness and alleged harassment by her landlord. I have not found fault by the Council except for a failure to obtain a Police report when considering the harassment allegations. The Council has agreed to review the evidence in the harassment case.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council:

• failed to correctly assess disrepair in her private rental home and ensure remedial works were acceptable
• did not provide adequate homelessness support and delayed accepting a homelessness application
• failed to properly investigate her complaints about alleged harassment by her landlord
• did not make a safeguarding referral for the family after reports about disrepair and harassment

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have exercised discretion to investigate events from December 2023 (when Miss D first reported the disrepair) through to 13 May 2025 when the Council issued its final stage complaint response. If Miss D is dissatisfied with the actions of the Council after that date, she should make a new complaint and complete the complaints process before she can bring the case to the Ombudsman. This includes Miss D’s complaint about the new evidence she obtained towards the end of 2025 into the damp survey commissioned by her landlord.
5. Miss D also refers to the Council breaching the Data Protection Act. I have advised her this is a matter for the Information Commissioner, not the Ombudsman, to assess.
6. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We cannot always respond to complaints in the level of detail people might want. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

2023

9. On 4 December 2023 Miss D submitted a homelessness application to the Council. The Council asked Miss D to submit documentation. On 27 December Miss D contacted the Private Sector Housing Team (PSH Team) reporting mould/ damp in her rental home. She included correspondence from her landlord which stated works were needed to the property which could only be done if the property was vacant. They had supplied Miss D with a dehumidifier. The same day the PSH Team replied to Miss D asking for additional information. On 28 December the Council closed the homelessness application because it had not received all the required documents, Miss D had provided some evidence, but this did not include the tenancy agreement, proof of income, bank statements and ID for the children.

2024

10. On 9 January 2024 an Officer dealing with a housing register application spoke to Miss D, they explained she was not eligible to join the housing register. They passed on her details to the homelessness Triage Team who opened a new homelessness case. The Council subsequently requested supporting documentation to process the application. On 10 January a PSH Team Officer contacted Miss D to book an inspection of the property. On 19 January a PSH Team Officer inspected the property and completed a Housing Health and Safety Rating System assessment (HHSRS). They found three Category 1 hazards relating to fire exits and alarms, two Category 2 hazards for damp and mould (there was damp in the bedrooms, and an extractor fan did not work) and two Category 2 hazards for sanitation relating to lack of temperature control for hot water and no wash basin in the WC. On 29 January the homelessness case was closed, Miss D had not provided all the required documents including bank statements, income and expenditure information and a tenancy agreement. On 2 February the PSH Team notified the landlord about the hazards and detailed what works were required at the property. A copy was sent to Miss D. On the same day the landlord gave the Council a timeframe for completing works at the property. On 7 February Miss D asked the PSH Team for an update. They responded on 12 February, the landlord had started works and a more detailed timescale would be confirmed with him once he received quotes from contractors.
11. On 19 February Miss D submitted another homeless application, she said she was experiencing disrepair, had not received an eviction notice and was concerned she would have to move if planning permission was granted for the property site. The Council asked her to complete the application form and provide documentation. It also explained Miss D did not need to be evicted to receive assistance with homelessness, but she needed to complete the outstanding actions so the Council could arrange a housing assessment. Miss D provided some information the same day and said she was living in disrepair. On 29 February the landlord updated the Council about how works were progressing.
12. On 8 March Miss D told the PSH Team no work had been done, and mould remained in the property. The PSH Team replied the same day, they would confirm when contractors would attend to the extractor fan and fire alarms. They would also see if there was equipment available to help Miss D monitor damp levels. Also on 8 March a Housing Officer spoke to Miss D about her homelessness application based on disrepair. The Officer said the Council had not served an Improvement Notice on the landlord and Miss D had not received an eviction notice, so she was not considered to be homeless.
13. On 13 March a PSH Team Officer visited the property to check works. They provided Miss D with a hydrometer to check damp levels and asked her to provide regular readings for at least one month. The Officer also spoke to the landlord and reminded him that 24 hours’ notice should be given to tenants before accessing a property. On 15 March Miss D and the landlord confirmed works to the extractor fan and alarms had been carried out, in addition works to sealant around a window would be attended to that day. On 20 March the landlord told the Council all works were now completed. On 25 March the Council closed the homelessness application because documents had not been provided and Miss D did not have a valid eviction notice. It noted Miss D had referred to disrepair and this was being investigated by the PSH Team.
14. On 8 April the PSH Team Officer contacted Miss D to see if she was satisfied with the works. Miss D said the damp was ongoing, the Council asked her to provide regular damp readings as they had not always been supplied. The Officer spoke to the landlord who agreed to commission a damp survey to investigate outstanding issues. On 10 May a damp survey was carried out by a specialist company. The survey report was sent to the PSH Team on 20 May, it found no outstanding issues with penetrating damp. The Council says it checked the named surveyor and company were accredited. On 7 June the PSH Team Officer contacted Miss D about the damp. Miss D said damp in a child’s room had improved. The Officer advised they would close the case because works were complete and the damp report had not found additional issues.
15. On 22 November Miss D emailed the PSH Team, there was still damp and mould in the property and rats in the loft. The PSH Team opened a new case on 2 December and asked Miss D to provide additional information.

2025

16. On 16 January 2025 the PSH Team asked Miss D to submit the information it had requested. On 24 January Miss D said she had problems completing the document provided by the Council. The damp was getting worse. The Council assisted Miss D to complete the documentation on 24 January. On 6 February a PSH Team Officer visited the property and completed a HHSRS assessment. They found a Category 2 hazard for damp and mould. There was penetrating damp in both bedrooms. Miss D says she told the PSH Team Officer she was concerned there were rats in the loft. The Council says the Officer did not hear any noise coming from the loft and did not see evidence outside the loft area of pests. The landlord was present and said he would have a pest control operative investigate the loft space. The PSH Team Officer did not enter the loft.
17. The PSH Team Officer was then away from work; on their return they emailed the landlord and Miss D on 27 February. They said there was no need for a further damp survey. Miss D had questioned the competencies of the person who had carried out the 2024 survey, but the Council was satisfied the person who carried out the survey was suitably qualified. The Officer advised about the works needed. They also said that Miss D was concerned about a pest infestation, but no signs of pests were found during the inspection. The tenancy agreement should set out who was responsible for any pest control issues. The same day the landlord confirmed he would carry out works to the property (including mould cleaning and treatment and replacing a fascia board). On 3 March a contractor attended the property to quote for the works.
18. On 13 March Miss D emailed the PSH Team alleging harassment by the landlord which included unannounced visits to her home and putting unreasonable pressure on her to move. She said their actions were causing distress to her and her family. The matter was referred to the Senior Private Sector and Housing Solutions Officer (Private Sector Officer) dealing with landlord harassment. On 15 March a contractor carried out works and the landlord sent the PSH Team photographs of the repairs. Miss D said she was unhappy with the standard of the works. On 18 March the PSH Team Officer and Private Sector Officer met to discuss the case. The Private Sector Officer emailed Miss D for a contact number to discuss the alleged harassment with her. On the same day the landlord emailed the Council that ‘snagging issues’ would be attended to and mould would be monitored.
19. On 19 March a Landlord Relationship Officer called Miss D who stated she did not want to remain in her property. Miss D felt the disrepair and alleged harassment were sufficient for her to be considered homeless. The Council sent Miss D an income and expenditure form to complete. Miss D was asked to provide evidence and a timeline about the alleged harassment together with any other relevant information about medical need and disrepair. Miss D said she had not been served with an eviction notice. On 20 March the Private Sector Officer told Miss D disrepair would continue to be considered by the PSH Team. Housing Solutions would consider the harassment, affordability assessment and suitability of accommodation. Also on 20 March the PSH Team provided Miss D with a data logger (to monitor damp and humidity) and installed it in the property.
20. On 23 March Miss D asked that her landlord only contact her via the PSH Team and she was unhappy with the works carried out and wanted the Council to provide alternative accommodation. On 24 March the landlord told the PSH Team works had been completed and provided photographs. On 25 March Miss D emailed the Private Sector Officer about what evidence she had put together. The Officer invited Miss D to meet in April. On 28 March the PSH Team collected the data logger and examined the results. On 31 March Miss D told the Council she felt the damp survey had been fraudulent, it had taken too long to provide a data logger and reported further harassment by the landlord.
21. On 2 April Miss D met the Private Sector Officer and discussed her concerns. She subsequently emailed the Officer with her evidence relating to the harassment allegations. Also that day Officers from Housing Solutions, the PSH Team and the Private Sector Officer met to discuss the case. They set out the results of the data logger which showed high levels of humidity in the property. They said the harassment allegations were being considered by the relevant Officer. The PSH Team then emailed Miss D setting out the data logger information. In respect of Miss D’s concerns there were rats in the loft, no evidence had been supplied to show this was the case. The Council had asked the landlord to repair a board that may have allowed pests into the loft and that work was complete. They reiterated that no Category 1 hazards had been identified at the most recent HHSRS assessment so the Council would not be taking formal enforcement action.
22. On 2 April the Council created a homelessness application for Miss D. On 4 April Miss D asked for an update, the PSH Team Officer replied that a meeting had been arranged with Officers to discuss the case further. Miss D chased up the Council on 8 April and was told the meeting was being held that day. On 9 April the PSH Team Officer contacted Miss D, it had been decided a response would be provided by a Manager to address the issues raised about disrepair and the housing case in one response. On 10 April the Council received Miss D’s formal complaint about the handling of her case. Also on 10 April the Triage Team booked an appointment to meet Miss D to discuss her new homelessness application. Miss D asked what would be covered by the meeting and if she could bring a support person. The Council confirmed she could bring someone with her. The meeting would cover Miss D’s housing from a homelessness perspective and would look at affordability and suitability of the property. The meeting was to determine if the Council owed Miss D a homeless duty, but further enquiries might be needed before a decision would be issued.
23. On 23 April Miss D emailed the Homelessness Team with a copy of a psychiatrist’s letter which outlined issues with disrepair at Miss D’s home and how this had impacted on Miss D’s mental health. On 28 April Miss D met an Officer to discuss her homelessness application. The Council then emailed Miss D that it would assess the information she provided. The same day the Housing Solutions Officer emailed the Police for information relating to the allegations against the landlord, they also confirmed to Miss D that action had been carried out and once it heard back from the Police a decision would be made about the homelessness application. On 28 April a Housing Officer met Miss D and carried out a housing assessment. The Council also made further enquiries of the Police and asked for a copy of an incident report. On 29 April Miss D emailed the Council complaining it had failed to consider the evidence she had previously supplied before meeting on 28 April. A financial assessment had been carried out at the meeting without Miss D being notified in advance so she could have an advocate present to assist her. She felt there was delay issuing a homelessness decision and a relief duty should have been accepted.
24. On 1 May Miss D submitted a housing register application to the Council along with supporting documents about medical conditions. On 13 May the Council responded to the final stage complaint. It set out the timeline for the PSH Team case and that works were complete. It went through the provision of a data logger and its results. It reiterated that no Category 1 hazards relating to damp and mould had been found at the property. In respect of safeguarding it had found no evidence to suggest a safeguarding referral was needed for the family because the threshold for risk of significant harm not been met. It then advised a homelessness decision would be issued by 1 June. In respect of alleged harassment it had considered the evidence from Miss D and had not found there to be a breach of the Protection for Eviction Act.

Events after the investigation period

25. On 20 May the Council accepted a prevention duty towards Miss D after receipt of a valid eviction notice. At the end of June Miss D reported a ceiling in the property had collapsed and temporary accommodation was offered to her the same day. Miss D secured alternative accommodation and moved in July.
26. From September onwards Miss D was in touch with the company who carried out the damp survey at her home in 2024. The company said the name of the surveyor on the damp report was wrong and the inspection had been carried out by a different person who was trained but not accredited.

What should have happened

HHSRS process

27. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair. Local authorities have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) (introduced by the Housing Act 2004, Part 1) 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 a Category 1 hazard exists in residential premises, they must take appropriate action in accordance with section 5 of the Act to ensure the hazard is removed or reduced to an acceptable level.  Councils have discretion to take enforcement action if a Category 2 hazard is identified. They will take account of the severity of the Category 2 hazard and the co-operation of the property owner/ managing agent.
28. The process at the Council is to open a service request on receipt of a report from a tenant about private sector housing disrepair. An Officer will ask for information about the disrepair from the tenant and decide on next steps, usually this will involve a site visit to carry out the HHSRS assessment. Depending on the outcome of that assessment the Council may seek action from the landlord. The Council says that in most cases it seeks improvements to properties by working with a landlord on an informal basis and providing clear advice on any repairs needed. The Council may issue a schedule of works for the landlord to complete. In some cases where a landlord is not found to be complying and there is a significant breach of legislation the Council can move to formal enforcement. As above, where there is a Category 2 hazard the Council does not have to take formal enforcement action. The Officer will monitor works being carried out by keeping in touch with the landlord and tenant. Once the works are reported as complete the Council will require evidence (such as photographs) to show the works are done and may revisit the property. The Council will close a disrepair case once it is satisfied the required works are complete and the identified hazards have been reduced to a safe level.

Investigating allegations of harassment by a landlord

29. The Council can consider reports from a private sector housing tenant of harassment by their landlord. The Council has powers to consider reports of a landlord seeking to force a tenant to leave their home under the Prevention of Eviction Act 1977. The Council says it will consider evidence provided by a tenant and assess if it shows a claim of harassment. If it does not find evidence, it will notify the tenant of its decision.

Homelessness

30. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

31. When the Council receives a request for homelessness assistance its Triage Team requests a list of information and evidence from the applicant, including ID, tenancy agreements, income and expenditure details. The Council says it reviews cases at “around one month” into the process, if an applicant has not provided information requested as part of the process the Council will close the case. If the evidence is provided the Council will then carry out a housing assessment. At this point the Housing Officer would be able to assess a range of information and interview the applicant. The assessment meeting also involves an assessment of finances to decide on the affordability of accommodation.

Safeguarding referrals

32. In cases involving private housing disrepair the Council can consider if hazards at the property warrant a safeguarding referral. The hazard score from the HHSRS assessment along with professional judgement will inform a decision. The Council also has the option in such cases to issue a Prohibition Order and provide assistance to rehouse the tenant. If hazards are not found to be pose an imminent risk to the tenant a Prohibition Order or safeguarding referral will not be required.
33. In respect of reports about landlord harassment the Council can also consider if a safeguarding referral is needed. It would only do so where it found evidence the tenant was facing significant harm.

Was there fault by the Council

Homelessness

34. I have considered how the Council processed Miss D’s homelessness applications. In December 2023 and January 2024 the Council received homelessness applications from Miss D. It requested she supply documentation so the applications could then be passed for a homelessness assessment. In each instance Miss D did not supply all the information required by the Council, as a result the cases were closed. In February 2024 Miss D submitted a further application. The Council subsequently closed the case because Miss D had not either received either a valid eviction notice or an Improvement Notice and she had not supplied all the required documentation. In all three cases the Council had the right to close the applications because it had not received all the documents requested. There is no fault in this matter because the Council acted in line with procedures. It had no obligation to provide anything more than an advisory service to Miss D at that point.
35. In 2025 the Council opened a new homelessness application because Miss D said the alleged harassment by her landlord, along with disrepair, meant she could not remain in her home. The Council told Miss D on 28 April 2025 that it had asked the Police for information and once this was received it would reach a decision on her application. That information was not received. I deal with this further in respect of the harassment complaint below. In this part of the complaint I can see the Police report was no longer essential to determining if the Council had a homelessness duty towards Miss D because a valid eviction notice was received a few weeks later. That was sufficient for the Council to then accept a prevention duty towards her. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council because it progressed the case, correctly advised Miss D about its actions and considered the evidence she provided.

HHSRS inspections

36. Miss D is dissatisfied with the PSH Team investigation and its inspections of her home. I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process when investigating Miss D’s reports. Officers attended the property and carried out HHSRS inspections, because they found hazards they liaised with the landlord to get remedial works carried out. Officers also did post-work checks to satisfy themselves the repairs were complete. Miss D refers to the Council not inspecting the loft for pests during the HHSRS inspection in February 2025. The Council correctly advised Miss D at the time this was a matter for her and her landlord to resolve. The tenancy agreement should set out who was responsible for dealing with a pest infestation and the landlord had agreed to have the loft inspected by a pest control operative. The Council gave Miss D reasonable advice on how to progress her concerns about a possible infestation.
37. Miss D also refers to the damp survey commissioned by the landlord. The Council checked the named person on the report was a certified surveyor and accepted the survey report. I do not see there is fault by the Council, it acted in line with its usual procedures when it received the survey report. At neither that point, or in early 2025 when Miss D questioned the report again, did the Council have any evidence to show the wrong person was named on the report. Importantly the Council was not solely reliant on the damp report when assessing Miss D’s case. It took its own measures including the provision of monitoring equipment to Miss D to check whether damp was an ongoing issue.

Harassment

38. Miss D says the Council failed to take action against her landlord for harassment. The Council considered the evidence provided by Miss D in March and April 2025. It asked the Police for information at the end of April but says it did not receive a response. I cannot see the Council chased this up. Whilst the Police report was referred to in the context of the homelessness application it is reasonable to assume it would also be needed to inform a decision about the harassment allegations. Whilst it is for the Council to use its professional judgement in reaching a decision, I would expect it to record why Police evidence was no longer needed or to obtain that evidence before reaching a decision on the matter. I consider this to be fault by the Council.

Safeguarding

39. Miss D believes the Council should have made a safeguarding referral for her family. I have not found any fault by the Council in this matter. Officers considered the evidence provided by Miss D and did not find there was a significant risk to the family that would warrant a safeguarding referral. I appreciate Miss D disagrees with the Council’s decision, but the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.

Did the fault cause an injustice

40. The failure to either pursue the Police information in 2025 or explain why it was no longer needed means Miss D is left uncertain about the assessment of her harassment allegations.

Back to top

Action

41. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and will review Miss D’s harassment case. That should include a consideration of all the evidence and deciding whether information from the Police is needed. The Council should issue a decision to Miss D, that sets out what evidence it considered and how its decision has been reached, within eight weeks of this case closing. If it needs more time to complete its review it should notify Miss D.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within the next eight weeks.

Back to top

Decision

43. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman