Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint against the Council about their failure to issue an Improvement Notice because it is out of our jurisdiction. We will not investigate the complaint about al delay in determining a review and safeguarding because there is insufficient evidence of fault it’s decision-making to justify our involvement

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council unreasonably delayed in determining their section 202 review decision and he has still not received a decision. He says they failed to issue a Improvement Notice when repairs were not carried out following their inspections.
2. Mr Y also complained that the Council failed to safeguard him against a retaliatory section 21 notice and trespass. He says the Council were procedurally dismissive of his complaints.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the Complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of privately rented and leasehold property.
8. Mr Y was living in a privately let single occupancy property. Mr Y reported several concerns to the Council about the property, including fire safety and a collapsed ceiling. Following the report, the Council identified Category Two hazards and advised his landlord to carry out repair works within two months from the 29th of July 2025. Works could not be carried out due to Mr Y refusing the landlord and builders access to the property, despite being given multiple written notices within the appropriate timeframe.
9. The Council did not identify any Category 1 hazards on its inspection and gave the landlord time to carry out repairs within a two-month timescale before considering serving an improvement notice. If the landlord cannot access the premises then it is unlikely any notice would withstand an appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal without good reason.
10. On 26 June, Mr Y made a homelessness application to the Council after being served a section 21 eviction notice. This notice was found to be invalid, therefore the Council decided Mr Y was not homeless and communicated their decision via letter.
11. Mr Y requested a review of this decision which was due on the 7th of October. The Council issued a section 203 decision on 15 October to Mr Y, upholding their previous decision. The Council acknowledge and apologised for the delay; they advised Mr Y he could seek a review of this decision through the County Court. The delay of one week is insufficient to warrant further consideration and the outcome was not affected by the delay as the appeal process applicable to when the decision was issued.
12. From the documents submitted there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council investigated Mr Y’s concerns, took appropriate action and provided him with accurate advice.
13. Mr Y had a statutory right to appeal to the county court about the Council’s decision on accommodation suitability. The restriction in paragraph three therefore applies. Mr Y could have used this right of appeal and so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint against the Council about their failure to issue an Improvement Notice because it is out of our jurisdiction. We will not investigate the complaint about procedural delay and safeguarding because there is insufficient evidence of fault it’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman