Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports of disrepair in his rented property or its handling of his homelessness application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his reports of disrepair in his private rented sector property, and about its lack of support when his landlord subsequently served a notice to end the tenancy. He said the Councils actions meant he lost half of his possessions, which were affected by mould, and had to seek family help to secure alternative accommodation.

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 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.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr Xand the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Private housing disrepair

6. Mr X reported poor ventilation and mould in his private rented sector (PRS) accommodation. The Council carried out an inspection and its visit record states:
• It did not identify any mould at the time of the visit.
• Mr X said the landlord had recently treated the bathroom ceiling and the officer gave him advice about what action to take if the mould reappeared.
• It gave advice about ventilation in the bathroom and downstairs toilet.
• Some lighting in the kitchen had been switched off as there was an issue with the wiring, but this was not the main source of lighting in the room.
7. Following the visit, the Council emailed Mr X to explain its reasons for deciding no formal action as needed. Mr X was unhappy with the way the inspection was carried out and with the Council’s decision not to take formal action.
8. The Council inspected the property and recorded what it found. It is not under a duty to take formal action unless it identifies a category 1 hazard. Whether or not there was a category 1 hazard is a matter for the officer’s professional judgement. The Council explained its reasons for not taking formal action in this case.
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the report of disrepair to justify our involvement, so we will not consider this complaint further.

Homelessness

10. The landlord later served a notice to end Mr X’s tenancy. Mr X did not consider the notice was valid and said it was a retaliatory eviction. He sent the notice to the Council, which considered the notice was valid and confirmed this to Mr X.
11. The Council carried out a homeless assessment and accepted a prevention duty. It recorded that Mr X had identified a possible alternative property and may need help to secure it. It issued a personalised housing plan (PHP), which set out the actions it and Mr X should take to address his housing situation. After reviewing evidence about Mr X and his partner’s assets, it said Mr X was not eligible for support with a deposit and rent in advance.
12. Mr X subsequently moved to alternative housing, which he identified himself. After doing so, he withdrew his homelessness application, and the Council ended the prevention duty.
13. The Council took the action we would expect when an applicant is being evicted, including checking the notice was valid, issued a PHP that included general advice about his housing options and provided appropriate advice to Mr X in responses to his questions about his situation.
14. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement, so we will not consider this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman