Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint the Council served an improvement notice before the deadline for providing information had passed. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, complains the Council exercised its power to enter her property and then serve an improvement notice, before she had the opportunity to provide information it had requested. Ms B complains she incurred a fee of £227.75 for the improvement notice and lost time and her reputation as a result of the notice. Ms B also complains about the behaviour and professionalism of officers who dealt with the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information Ms B provided and the Council’s response to her complaints. I sent a draft decision to Ms B and considered the comments she made in reply before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms B owns a property, containing two flats and two studios, that are rented to tenants. In July 2017, a fire officer contacted Ms B to advise there was a missing back-up battery in the fire detection system in the communal hall at the property. Ms B says she remedied this.
7. In August 2017, and after discussion with the fire and rescue service and Ms B, the Council issued a Notice under section 235 of the Housing Act 2004 requiring Ms B to produce documents relating to the property. Ms B says the documents were headed ‘Ground Floor Flat’. Ms B says the time limit on the Notice had not expired and she had asked the Council to clarify that information it required. But the Council served a further Notice and exercised its power under section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 to enter the ground floor flat before the expiration of the section 235 Notice.
8. The Council inspected Ms B’s property and identified a category 2 hazard under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS). The Council considered the fire detection system in place at the property was inappropriate.
9. In September 2017, the Council served an Improvement Notice under section 12 of the Housing Act 2004. Ms B says the Notice related to the property as a whole and required payment of a fee of £227.75. The Council revoked this Notice in April 2018 after Ms B had provided a completion certificate for required works and the Council had carried out a further inspection.
10. Ms B complained about the Council’s decisions to exercise its power to enter the ground floor flat and to serve an Improvement Notice relating to the whole property. Ms B said the Council had failed to explain either verbally or in writing what works were required before taking this action. Ms B also complained about the conduct of officers who had visited her property, saying they were unprofessional and one had snatched her telephone from her.
11. The actions Ms B complains about took place more than 12 months before Ms B contacted the Ombudsman. The complaint is therefore late. I have however exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to consider this late complaint. This is because it is clear Ms B has been pursuing a complaint since the Council revoked the Improvement Notice and received a final response to her complaint shortly before contacting the Ombudsman.
12. While Ms B is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with this matter, the Ombudsman will not carry out a detailed investigation. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council.
13. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the Council made the right decisions. We can only consider if there was fault with the way the Council made them. The Council has explained to Ms B it decided to inspect the building before the section 235 Notice had expired because it understood from correspondence that she had the incorrect type of fire detection system. This was confirmed when the Council inspected the property. These are decisions the Council’s officers are qualified to make and there are no reasons to say the decisions were affected by fault.
14. The Council has confirmed it has revoked the improvement notice and its records reflect this. The Council has also confirmed the improvement notice has no detrimental impact on Ms B as a landlord.
15. The Ombudsman was not party to the conversations between officers and Ms B and cannot reach any view on whether these conversations and the actions of officers were unprofessional. Further consideration of the complaint would not achieve any more for Ms B

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or achieve any more for Ms B.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman