Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council inspecting her rented property for disrepair when she is taking action to evict the tenant for breach of tenancy conditions. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains that the Council has shown bias in favour of her tenant whom she is seeking to evict from a property which she rents. She says the Council acted in the tenant’s favour by inspecting the flat without her agreement and this may jeopardise her legal action against the tenant. She also says the Council will not grant her council tax relief for being unable to let flats due to the tenant’s behaviour.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint and she has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X rents a flat to a tenant whom she says is in breach of her tenancy conditions. She says the tenant is in rent arrears, has caused damage to the flat and has carried out anti-social activities. She served a legal notice on the tenant requiring her to leave the flat. The tenant then complained to the Council that the flat was in poor repair and had health and safety problems.
5. The Council wrote to Mrs X informing her that it would be inspecting the flat under the requirements of the Housing Act 2004. When the inspection was completed the Council sent Mrs X notice of work required and what the procedure was if she failed to comply. Mrs X considered this to be bullying by the Council who appeared to have taken her tenant’s side in the dispute between them. She says the tenant caused some of the disrepair which the Council notified her of.
6. Mrs X says the Council’s actions could prejudice her court action to evict the tenant. The Council says it has a duty to inspect property where there may be repair and health and safety hazards under the Housing Act 2004. The officer gave the required notice and Mrs X has an obligation to comply with the legislation, regardless of her private action against her tenant.
7. Mrs X could apply for a council tax discount on her empty properties if they meet the requirements of the Council’s scheme. However, she cannot claim for lost income from the Council and would have to consider private legal action for this.
8. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. There is insufficient evidence of any fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman