Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of disrepair in a property he owns and rents out. This is because he had a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) if he disagreed with the improvement notice the Council served.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained about the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council’s handling of disrepair in a property he owns and rents out. He said the Council started a draconian process to force him to make improvements to his property. Mr Q said the Council’s actions cost him money.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr Q. I considered the information provided by the Council. I invited Mr Q to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. A council may serve an improvement notice on a landlord under sections 11 and 12 of the Housing Act 2004 (the 2004 Act) requiring him to do works to his rental property and setting the time limit for doing so. If the landlord does not agree with the notice or does not think the time allowed to do the works is sufficient, he may appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
6. Section 239 of the 2004 Act gives a council the power of entry to inspect a property. The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the Council) calls this a notice of intended entry.

What happened

7. Mr Q owns a property which he rents to Ms X. In November 2019 Ms X complained to the Council about disrepair in the property. An environmental health officer (EHO) wrote to Mr Q advising him of the complaint. She invited Mr Q to investigate and remedy the alleged disrepair. She said she would inspect the property if Mr Q did not complete the works. Mr Q emailed the EHO asking for information about the inspection.
8. In December 2019 Ms X told the EHO some repairs were outstanding. On 23 January 2020 the EHO sent Mr Q a notice of intended entry saying she would inspect the property on 27 January.
9. The EHO later served an improvement notice on Mr Q requiring him to complete a schedule of works to his property. The notice told Mr Q of his right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Mr Q said he could not complete the works in the time allowed. He did not appeal.
10. Mr Q completed the works and the Council revoked the notice.
11. Mr Q later complained to the Council. He said the EHO had not responded to his email contact and he did not receive the notice of intended entry until after the EHO inspected his property. Mr Q said he thought the Council’s enforcement action was invalid. The Council accepted the EHO did not respond to his email, but said she had already apologised for this. It said the EHO sent the notice of intended entry by email and post, so he would have received it before the inspection. The Council also said Mr Q could have appealed against the improvement notice.
12. Mr Q complained to us. He said the EHO did not meet him at the property to discuss the matter and had only taken account of Ms X’s point of view. He maintains he did not receive the notice of intended entry in time. Mr Q said the Council’s actions had upset him and his wife. In addition, he had lost money because the Council forced him to do works to his property and Ms X stopped paying her rent.

Analysis

13. We will not investigate this complaint.
14. At the heart of this complaint is Mr Q’s belief that the works the Council required him to do to his property were not necessary. If he thought this, or if he thought the improvement notice did not allow him enough time to do the works, he could have appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). It is best placed to decide such matters, so it would have been reasonable for Mr Q to appeal.
15. Mr Q maintains he did not receive the notice of intended entry until after the EHO inspected his property. This is unfortunate but, in my view, would not have prevented the EHO from serving an improvement notice. I say this because the EHO had already given Mr Q the opportunity to complete the works, but he had not done so. In any event, as I said above, if Mr Q disagreed with the improvement notice it would have been reasonable for him to use his right of appeal.
16. Mr Q said Ms X stopped paying her rent. That was a private matter between Mr Q and his tenant.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint. This is because he had a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman