Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council should not have served an Improvement Notice on the complainant regarding a property he rents to a tenant. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should not have served an Improvement Notice because the tenant had not reported any problems. Mr X wants the Council to withdraw the Notice and cancel the fee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the Improvement Notice and checked whether Mr X has complied with it. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mr X is a landlord. A tenant contacted the Council to report problems with the heating. The Council wrote to Mr X in October to say it was going to do an inspection.
6. The Council did an inspection and found that the boiler was not working properly. The Council also found there was an inadequate fire detection system and that the kitchen did not have a door. The Council served an Improvement Notice on Mr X. The Notice said the Council had identified a category one hazard and two category two hazards. The Notice required Mr X to repair the boiler and provide the Council with a gas safety certificate. The Notice also required Mr X to install a mains-powered fire alarm system and to provide a completion certificate. The Notice required Mr X to fit a kitchen door. The Notice said Mr X must complete the work by 24 December and said he had incurred a fee of £497.
7. The Notice explained Mr X had 21 days to appeal to the Residential Property Tribunal. The Notice explained his appeal rights in detail and how he could make a late appeal.
8. The Council says Mr X has not complied with the Notice.
9. Mr X objects to the Notice. He says the Council did not give enough notice before issuing the Notice. He says the tenant did not report any problems to him and he acted to remedy any problems which he was told about. He says the tribunal service told him to ask the Council to withdraw the Notice. He also disputes the technical requirements of the Notice. For example, he says it would be unsafe to fit a kitchen door.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal. The Improvement Notice gave very clear and detailed information about his appeal rights and the possible outcomes. The Notice did not say that an option was to ask the Council to withdraw the Notice. I do not know exactly what was said when Mr X contacted the tribunal service but he could have submitted a written appeal to ensure he was invited to a hearing for a formal decision.
11. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about Improvement Notices. Mr X has raised technical points about why the requirements stated in the Notice are, in his view, unreasonable or unsafe. It is for the tribunal, not the Ombudsman, to assess whether the requirements specified in the Notice were necessary and safe.
12. Mr X could apply for a late appeal. He could explain the appeal is late due to advice given to him by the tribunal service. It would be for the tribunal to decide whether to accept a late appeal. Mr X doubts the tribunal would accept a late appeal. But, he does not know what the outcome will be unless he makes the appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal. In addition, Mr X could ask for a late appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman