Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s private housing because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
1. Allowed him and his child to live in unsuitable private rented accommodation when they were homeless in 2023 rather than providing them with social housing;
2. failed to take sufficient action against his private landlord regarding asbestos and a rodent infestation at the property; and
3. failed during an inspection to assess asbestos in the guttering outside the property.
2. Mr X said as a result his family’s health has been put at risk, he seeks financial compensation and wants the Council to rehouse him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Law and guidance

HHSRS and private renting

6. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is used to assess health and safety hazards in homes. It is risk-based, set out in regulation and covers a range of 21 potential hazards.
7. If a council considers a category 1 hazard exists in a privately rented property they must take appropriate enforcement action. Councils have discretion to take enforcement action if a category 2 hazard is identified.
8. Asbestos, depending on its location, severity and likelihood of it being disturbed, can be either a category 1 or 2 hazard. A pest infestation can also be either a category 1 or 2 hazard, depending on severity.

My findings

Complaint 1a) failed to provide social housing

9. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in 2023. According to the Council’s records, the Council discharged its homelessness duty to Mr X in January 2024 because Mr X had found his own accommodation in the private-rented sector and so was no longer homeless. Mr X disputes this account. He said he only moved into the private property on the understanding he would still ultimately be provided with social housing.
10. The case records do not support that Mr X was misled at this time. Also, the law is clear that councils can offer private rented housing to homeless applicants to discharge their housing duties, so Mr X was not at any point guaranteed an offer of social housing. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this part of the complaint further.

Complaint 1b) council failed to take enforcement action

11. The Council carried out an HHSRS inspection of Mr X’s home in June 2025 where it looked for category 1 and 2 hazards at the property including signs of asbestos and pest infestation.
12. It did not find any rodent infestation that required treatment but did find some issues which required action, including that several sections of the property should be tested for asbestos. The Council instructed the landlord to commission the asbestos testing, which the landlord did. The samples were sent to an accredited national laboratory for testing. No asbestos was found in the samples.
13. Mr X said the asbestos assessment could not be trusted as it was commissioned by the landlord. The Council instructed the landlord to use an accredited testing service, which they did. There is nothing in law which prevents councils asking for assessments to be arranged in this way. As there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it handled Mr X’s reports of asbestos and infestation, we will not investigate this complaint further.

Complaint 1c) failed to assess asbestos in the exterior guttering

14. Mr X said the environmental health inspector should have assessed the outside gutters for asbestos, as well as the inside of the property. Having reviewed the documents, the environmental health assessment of the property was thorough and most assessments of asbestos under the HHSRS focus on the inside of properties as this is where risk is highest. Again, there is not enough evidence of fault in this inspection that would justify further investigation.

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