Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the issuing of enforcement notices for a privately-owned property. This is because Mr X has appeal rights to a tribunal which we would reasonably expect him to use and so the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council was wrong to issue him with enforcement notices relating to the poor condition of a privately-owned property which is rented out to a tenant and which he says is owned by a trust. He says the Council did not deal with the case properly and that its actions have caused hardship and delay to the trust’s plans for the property.

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)
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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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

5. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council issued Mr X with enforcement notices in connection with the poor state of a privately-owned property which is rented out to a tenant. The notices advised Mr X of the action he was required to take to address identified hazards and deficiencies at the property. They also advised of his right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber against the notices.
7. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision to issue him with the enforcement notices and about the way it had dealt with the case. He told the Council that the property is owned by a trust and not him. However, the Council told him the responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of a tenanted property falls on those who have a legal interest in the property and that he is such a person because his name appears on the property’s ownership register at the Land Registry.
8. The Council accepted that initially it had not carried out a thorough investigation and had not properly followed up on it. It apologised for this and reminded Mr X of his right to appeal if he wanted to challenge the notices.

Assessment

9. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to the substantive issue concerning Mr X’s liability as a registered owner of the property. As it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to make use of his appeal rights to the tribunal the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be considered further.
10. Mr X says as it will cost money to exercise his appeal rights, and because a trust which provides care needs is involved, the Ombudsman should investigate the complaint instead. However, Parliament has provided an alternative remedy by means of appeal to the tribunal which in this case it would be reasonable to expect him to use.
11. I note Mr X also complains about the way the Council dealt with his case and failed to follow proper procedures. However, Mr X can appeal to the tribunal if he thinks fault by the Council led to the issuing of the enforcement notices. The Council has already apologised for the initial errors by the first investigating officer which meant all the matters to be remedied were not picked up until a second officer took up the case. However, there are insufficient grounds to warrant a separate investigation of these matters by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has appeal rights to a tribunal which we would reasonably expect him to use and so the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman