Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaints about inspections the Council carried out at her private rented property in 2016 and 2017. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise his discretion and now investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, says the Council did not identify serious health hazards when it inspected her property in 2016 and 2017. Ms B also complains the Council has failed to provide information she has requested. Ms B has explained she and other members of her family have been diagnosed with lung cancer and Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS) and have suffered physically, mentally and financially as a result of the living conditions.

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. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

6. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered the information Ms B provided and the complaint correspondence between Ms B and the Council. 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

8. Ms B has explained she moved to her private rented accommodation in September 2014. Her son started to become ill shortly after. In October 2016, Ms B contacted the Council to complain about the levels of mould and damp in the property. The Council carried out an inspection and told Ms B it considered the mould was due to condensation and she should ventilate the property.
9. Ms B says in October 2017 she contacted the Council again because the mould had come back and she and her family and dogs were falling ill. There were also issues with slugs at the property. The Council inspected again, and Ms B arranged for a damp survey. Ms B has provided a copy of the damp survey that said there was condensation to most rooms, the roof needed a complete replacement with new flashing and the ground level outside the kitchen was too high. The landlord then decided to sell the property and Ms B moved out in December 2017.
10. Ms B says her grandmother has since been diagnosed with early stage lung cancer and she and other family members have been diagnosed with Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS). This condition is thought to arise due to an inability to remove biotoxins such as mould from the body. Ms B believes the Council should have identified the property was a hazard and ordered her to leave it. Ms B has also asked the Council for information about the inspections it carried out and complains the Council has failed to provide this information.
11. While Ms B is dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint, the Ombudsman will not investigate this matter. The Council carried out its inspections in 2016 and 2017 so complaints about the inspections are late. I do not consider there are any good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion and now investigate this late complaint. This is because the Ombudsman could not say whether there were hazards present in the property at the time that the Council could and should have identified.
12. Officers visited the property and carried out inspections, and there are no reasons for the Ombudsman to say the Council’s decisions were made with fault. The Ombudsman could also not decide there is a causal link between the condition of the property Ms B lived in and the health conditions from which her family are now suffering.
13. The Information Commissioner (ICO) is better placed to consider Ms B’s complaint the Council has not provided her with information. The ICO has the power to consider if a council has fulfilled its duties in relation to data handling and the release of information.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise his discretion and now investigate.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman