Summary: Mr X, on behalf of his mother, complains the Council failed to take further enforcement regarding the installation of a handrail and failed to take action to remove a rat infestation. The Council has been unable to provide records to show it properly considered whether to take further enforcement action. This is fault. There is evidence action was taken in respect of the infestation.

The complaint

1. Mr X, on behalf of his mother Mrs Y, complains the Council failed to take further enforcement action regarding the installation of a handrail after issuing an improvement notice in July 2017. Mr X also complains it failed to ensure action was taken to remove rats from the cellar.
2. Mrs Y was unable to leave the property unaided without the handrail and experienced stress thinking the house had a rat infestation.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. Mr X and Mrs Y have been complaining about disrepair for many years. I have taken the view that matters relating to the installation of the handrail and the pest control fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. I explain at paragraph 33 below the reasons for not investigating other matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant’s representative;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant’s representative;

• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mrs Y lived in a private rented property from the 1980’s until she moved out in January 2019. Mr X and Mrs Y raised complaints about disrepair throughout that time. My investigation has focussed on two issues, the installation of a handrail and pest control action.

Installation of handrail

9. It is my understanding that Mr X and Mrs Y discussed the installation of an external handrail with an occupational therapist (OT) in March 2017. The OT then discussed the matter with planning officers who advised that as the building was listed, planning permission would be required. Planning officers indicated that it would like to see two matching rails on each side of the entrance steps.
10. In July 2017 the Council served a section 11 improvement notice on the landlord under the Housing Act 2004. The notice stated a category one hazard existed at the property which meant there was a risk of falling on the stairs. The notice required the landlord the begin remedial works by 11 August 2017 and to complete them by 11 September 2017.
11. The Council was in email contact with the landlord about the works. In August 2017, a planning officer emailed the landlord explaining that although Occupational Health and Environmental Health Departments were satisfied with the proposed works, that planning was a separate process with a set of legal requirements that had to be satisfied. It explained the building was listed and within a conservation area and so both planning permission and listed building consent was required. The planning officer provided details of similar proposals as examples of how to approach the applications. The landlord had already submitted a listed building application but the planning officer explained it was invalid but could be validated when the appropriate drawings and Design and Access Statement provided.
12. Mr X contacted the Council on 29 October asking for an update regarding the installation of the handrails. He was aware the landlord had submitted the necessary documents and the application was being considered by the Council’s conservation officer. In response the Council said it was unable to enforce the improvement notice because of the issues raised by the conservation officer. It also said it was not acceptable to install the handrail without an agreement in principle from planning. The planning officer said she would speak to the landlord’s architect to try to resolve matters.
13. The Council wrote to Mr X on 2 November to explain the submitted proposals included more work than just the installation of a simple handrail. It said that a listed building application had been submitted but not a planning application.
14. Mr X chased the Council again on 10 December. The Council said it had not received any further information from the landlord or his architect. The Council says it had suggested the landlord withdraws the current proposals and he proceeds with a simple handrail design. The Council said that if a new drawing was submitted before Christmas it should be able to approve the application early in 2018.
15. The landlord’s architect submitted an amended drawing in January 2018. However this was not just for a simple handrail and so the Council advised it would not be acceptable. The Council sent a photograph of a nearby property with a handrail design that would be acceptable. It also reminded the architect that a planning application was also required.
16. The Council granted listed building consent for the handrail on 22 March 2018. I asked the Council to provide a chronology of its actions in respect of the installation of the handrail. Following the granting of listed building consent the Council has provided evidence of one email dated 24 May to the landlord asking when the approved handrail will be installed. The information provided by Mr X shows the handrail was installed on 3 October 2018.

Pest control action

17. On 8 May 2017 the Council served a notice under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949. The notice required the landlord to take action within 28 days to remove items from the basement, carryout pest control treatment and secure the basement to prevent the access of rodents.
18. In response to Mrs Y’s stage two complaint dated 31 January 2020 the Council said the rat infestation had been professionally treated. It said all entry holes had been blocked, the cellar floor re-concreted and bait treatment installed and checked on a three monthly basis over a period of two years. The Council said the bait inspection revealed no further evidence of rodents and so it was removed.
19. Mr X responded to the Council asking it what evidence was provided by the landlord to show the bait treatment was installed and checked on a three-monthly basis over a period of two years. In response to my enquiries the Council says the landlord confirmed this had happened but said that no documentary evidence was provided to the Council. It did visit the property in June 2017 and January 2020 and so noted the works had been completed in the basement.

Analysis

Installation of handrail

20. Mr X complains the Council failed to take further enforcement action to install a handrail after serving an improvement notice in July 2017. He says the handrail was not actually installed until October 2018, over a year after the compliance date for the improvement notice.
21. The property is a listed building in a conservation area and so planning permission and listed building consent was required. This means it was a more complicated and lengthy process than would normally be the case. The information provided shows the landlord took action within the compliance period but that due to the nature of the works proposed and the standard of the information presented to the Council, the process was delayed. I am not persuaded this was due to fault by the Council but can be attributed to the actions of the landlord.
22. The planning department was in contact with the landlord about what was required and it sent him helpful information about what was required including photos and details of similar applications. The Council kept Mr X informed of progress and explained that it could not take enforcement action in respect of the improvement notice because of the conservation and planning issues. I consider the Council did therefore consider taking further action in October 2017 and decided it was not appropriate to do so which is a judgement it is entitled to take.
23. However, the listed building consent was granted in March 2018 and the handrail was not installed for a further six months. I consider the landlord would need a period of time to have the handrail made and installed and consider about eight weeks would be a reasonable timescale. The Council did contact the landlord about eight weeks after the consent was issued seeking an update. The Council has not provided any further information past this date.
24. In response to my enquiries the Council says that further enforcement action was contemplated but deemed inappropriate. It says that the landlord had shown willing to comply with the improvement notice and was working with the relevant departments to seek a resolution. It also says that further enforcement action would only have served to protract and exacerbate matters further.
25. The Council has not been able to provide any evidence to support its claim that it considered enforcement action. It is not clear when it considered taking further action and if it only did this once. It seems to me the considerations would be different in October 2017 when the matter was ongoing from the situation in March 2018 after consent had been granted.
26. The lack of evidence to show the Council’s consideration is fault. It is essential that proper records are kept of important decisions. The failure to have records causes uncertainty and the Council cannot show that it properly considered the situation. It has to be noted that the lack of a handrail was considered a category one hazard. As a result, Mrs Y was unable to leave the house unaided and so was distressing, frustrating and caused social isolation. It seems to me that when the Council made contact with the landlord in May 2018, this was an appropriate time for the handrail to have been installed and the Council should have done more to ensure it happened as quickly as possible. The lack of proper case recording means we do not know if the Council dealt with the situation properly. The only thing we do know is that Mrs Y continued to be significantly affected. I consider a remedy for the injustice suffered is appropriate in this case.

Pest control action

27. The Council served a notice in May 2017 because there was a rat infestation in the property. The information provided shows the Council visited the property in June 2017 and that most of the required works had been carried out at that time. The notes provided by the Council show some items were still in the basement but that the landlord agreed to remove. The Council says the landlord had fully complied with the notice by 16 June 2017.
28. Council accepts that it had not seen evidence from the landlord that three monthly visits were carried out by a pest control company for a period of two years. It says the information was provided by the landlord but there is no evidence to support this claim. The Council also points out that there is no statutory duty on it to monitor ongoing pest control treatment.
29. Mr X says his mother could still hear and smell rats in the cellar until she moved out in January 2019. The cellar was locked and she couldn’t gain access to it. Mr X is not convinced the landlord took the action claimed for two years and so this is why he questioned what evidence it had seen to support is claim.
30. Mr X has provided photographs of dead rats and droppings in the property. I am unable to see what dates the pictures were taken. It is accepted there was a rat infestation at the property. The Council visited the property after the notice was served and action taken by the landlord. The Council’s professional judgement is that the landlord complied with the notice. I do consider the Council could have been clearer in its letter of 31 January 2020 that it had not seen evidence of the three-monthly monitoring but was reporting what the landlord had told it. However, I am not persuaded this caused Mrs Y a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation or a remedy. I accept Mrs Y is very scared of rats but there is nothing to suggest the rats entered Mrs Y’s property after the notice was served.

Agreed action

31. To remedy the injustice caused to Mrs Y as a result of the fault in this case the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:

Apologise to Mrs Y; and

Ensure it has proper systems in place to be certain sufficient case notes are recorded.

32. I also recommended a payment of £200 to Mrs Y to recognise the uncertainty caused because the Council cannot show it properly considered taking further enforcement action regarding the installation of the handrail. In response to my draft decision, Mr X said he appreciated the offer but a written apology would be more than sufficient. I am therefore no longer including the payment in the agreed action.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

34. Mr X’s complaint covers various problems at his mother’s rented property. I have identified two issues that I consider should be investigated further. The other issues either date back several years or do not cause Mrs Y a significant enough personal injustice. I appreciate Mr X considers the landlord should be held accountable on all issues but that is not the basis on which the Ombudsman determines which complaints to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman