Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to take appropriate action following her complaint about poor living conditions in her privately rented home. She says this has affected her health, led to legal costs and caused her distress. The Council is at fault. There was delay in contacting her after she initially complained which led to increased risk of harm. The Council has agreed to pay her £200 as an acknowledgement of this and for the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to take appropriate action following her complaint about poor living conditions in her privately rented home. She says there was delay in the process, which led to delay in identifying the hazards and required improvements in the property. This has caused her distress, affected her health and led to unnecessary legal costs. She wants the Council to apologise for the delays and distress caused and refund her legal costs.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read Ms X’s complaint and spoke with her about it on the phone.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it sent me. I also considered information provided by Ms X.
6. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair. Councils have powers 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.
8. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System lists 29 potential hazards against which council officers can assess housing conditions. The assessment will show the presence of any serious (category 1) hazards and other less serious (category 2) hazards.
9. If a Council finds serious hazards in a home, it has a duty to take the most appropriate action. Councils are advised to try and deal with the problem informally first, but if this is unsuccessful, they have powers to require the landlord to make improvements or to issue the landlord with a fine.
10. North Hertfordshire Council’s website sets out its duty to deal with serious hazards. It says its approach is to provide advice and guidance initially, but it will use enforcement powers if necessary.
11. It says it aims to contact tenants who report problems with their property within three working days.

What happened

12. In September 2018, Ms X moved into a private rented property. The landlord was still in the process of renovating the property.
13. By November 2018, the renovations were still ongoing. Ms X contacted the Council and said there were serious hazards in the property. The Council said an officer would ring her back to discuss her concerns further.
14. The Council says it rang her back the same day, but she did not answer. It said there was no voicemail facility to leave a message. Ms X says the Council did not call her back as it states.
15. Ms X says she rang the Council several times over the next week requesting to speak to an appropriate officer. Despite her repeated calls, no one called her back.
16. At the end of November, Ms X approached a solicitor. She instructed the solicitor to write a letter to her landlord advising them that due to the poor living conditions, she would be moving out.
17. Ms X says unfortunately the move to the new property fell through, so she had to remain in the current property.
18. In February 2019, a Council officer rang Ms X and left a voicemail. The voicemail asked Ms X to ring the Council if she was still concerned about the living conditions and potential health hazards in the property. It asked her to return the call within seven days or it would close the case.
19. Ten days later the Council officer reviewed the case and noted Ms X had not contacted them. They closed the case.
20. At the end of February, Ms X contacted the Council. The officer told her they had closed the case, but as Ms X had told them there were serious hazards in the property, they agreed to call her back to arrange an assessment.
21. Two days later, a Council officer, who I will call officer A, visited Ms X’s property to assess the living conditions. Officer A identified some areas of concern and said they would return the next day to speak to the landlord. Ms X was unhappy with the officer’s approach during the visit and said they were rude and unprofessional. Ms X says there was a live wire in the property (a category 1 hazard). She said the officer told her there was nothing wrong with the property and the category 1 hazards were “historic”. The Council says its officer tested the wires and they were not live.
22. The next morning, Ms X rang the Council to ask Officer A not to visit.
23. Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council. She said she had been living in an unsuitable property for months. When she first complained to the Council about this, it was 11 weeks before they contacted her. She also complained about officer A’s behaviour during the visit. She said they told her there were no category 1 hazards in the property (even though there was a live wire) and they insisted on speaking to her landlord the next day, even though she asked them not to. She also said she had spent over £500 on solicitor’s fees due to the lack of response from the Council. The Council says officer A did not tell her there were no category 1 hazards during this visit, but that it needed to inform the landlord of the Council’s intention to formally inspect the property before doing so. Although it accepts Ms X says there was a live wire, it says officer A tested the wires on the visit and they were not live.
24. In March 2019, the Council responded to her complaint. It upheld her complaint that there was excessive delay in contacting her after her initial contact in November 2018. It apologised for this and said it had taken action to avoid similar errors in the future. It asked Ms X to contact it to arrange a further visit or meeting with the landlord to try and resolve the situation.
25. Ms X was unhappy with this response and requested her complaint be escalated to Stage 2. She said due to Council fault, she had been living in a property with category 1 hazards for months. She said this had affected her health, caused her distress and led to solicitor’s costs of nearly £600.
26. The Council conducted its Stage 2 investigation, which included a visit to the property by the complaint investigator in April 2019. Following this visit, the investigator asked another Council officer, officer B, to visit and complete a full hazard risk assessment. They also emailed Ms X with some advice on tenant’s rights and contact details for the Council’s housing options team.
27. A week later, officer B visited and completed the risk assessment. The assessment identified several issues that needed to be addressed, and some of them were serious hazards. With Ms X’s permission, the officer spoke to the landlord during this visit and asked him to complete some actions within a week. Officer B then wrote to Ms X with a summary of their findings and asked her to contact them again if the landlord did not complete the urgent works as agreed.
28. The Council responded to her Stage 2 complaint. It upheld her complaint about the initial delay and said the Council would take action to ensure call back requests were suitable actioned. It offered her £100 to acknowledge the distress caused by the delay and the time and trouble taken to bring her complaint.
29. Officer B called Ms X a week later and confirmed the landlord had completed the urgent works. Ms X said she was happy for the case to be closed.
30. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the complaint response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the delays had affected her health, caused her distress and led to legal costs. She said she did not feel £100 compensation was enough. She wanted the Council to apologise and to refund her £600 legal costs.
31. In its response to our enquiries, the Council said it had upheld her complaint about the initial delay and taken action to improve its services. It said in response to her complaint it had completed a full hazard inspection, provided advice and offered a payment to recognise the distress caused. It said Ms X had not contacted it since the case was closed in May 2018 with any further concerns about conditions in the property. It said for the Council to consider any claim for costs, it required full and appropriate evidence of the costs being sought, which to date had not been provided.

Analysis

32. In November 2018, there was delay in the Council contacting Ms X after her initial call. The Council has accepted this and that it was at fault. In its complaint responses it has apologised to Ms X for this and said it has made service improvements. It has also offered her £100 for the distress caused. Ms X says during the 10 weeks before the Council called her back, she had to live in a property with category 1 serious hazards. She says this affected her health and caused her distress.
33. Our Guidance on Remedies says it is appropriate in some cases to recommend a remedy payment to acknowledge the impact of the fault, if a person is exposed to a risk of harm due to a lack of service provision. The risk assessment in April 2019 found some serious hazards that needed urgent action. As the renovations were ongoing, it is likely these or other serious hazards would have been present between November 2018 and February 2019. It is appropriate to recognise the increased risk of harm caused by the fault, when considering an appropriate remedy payment.
34. Ms X says she was unhappy with the behaviour of officer A in February 2019. The Council took appropriate action and completed a full investigation into her complaint. Although it acknowledged her dissatisfaction, it found no evidence officer A had acted inappropriately. This is not fault.
35. Ms X says due to the lack of Council response, she felt she had no other option than to approach a solicitor in November 2018. However, this was Ms X’s choice and the Council is not responsible for decisions taken by others. I cannot say the delay in contacting Ms X directly caused the legal costs and so cannot recommend the Council repay the costs as part of the remedy. However, as referred to in its complaint response to us, Ms X is open to approach the Council directly to make a claim, with details of the costs being sought, should she wish to do so.
36. After receiving her formal complaint, the Council acted appropriately to investigate her complaint. It took appropriate steps to resolve the situation. I have recommended an increased remedy to acknowledge the risk of harm in addition to the time and trouble payment offered by the Council. There is no ongoing injustice to Ms X.

Agreed action

37. Within one month of the final decision the Council will pay Ms X £200 as an acknowledgement of the increased risk of harm caused by the fault, and the distress caused.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault and the Council has agreed action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman