Summary: Mr X complained about the Council sending him a warning notice by post which he says he did not receive. He also complained about the Council charging a fee for serving an improvement notice for a property which he rents to tenants. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. We would not exercise discretion to investigate the issuing of an improvement notice or a prohibition notice because it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal these matters to the First Tier tribunal which is the proper authority to consider such challenges.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about being a sent a notice by post which he says he did not receive. He says the Council also charged him for the serving of improvement and prohibition notices which he disputes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. 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
• 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)

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 have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X is a landlord of a property which the Council had inspected in March 2020. He says he did not receive a consultation warning notice which the Council sent to him in March. He says the letter should not have been sent by post during a national lockdown with limited access to collect post. The Council says the letter was posted prior to the lockdown and that the mail was unaffected by the situation. Mr X’s tenant received her copy of the letter within a reasonable time.
6. Mr X says he was served with an improvement notice and a prohibition order following the letter and charged a fee for the procedures. The Council says the charge is a standard charge for such notices and it included details of the fee with the original letter and the notices.
7. There is no fault in the procedure which the Council followed for issuing the warning letter and the notices. Mr X’s business could have made provision for collecting mail once the restrictions were in force, but he says that he did not receive the letter in any case. Standard Royal Mail postage is an accepted means of serving notices by local authorities and other official bodies.
8. As a landlord Mr X is expected to be aware of his statutory duties and to respond to notices served by the Council. In this case he had a right to challenge both the notices served on him by way of an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. We would expect a landlord to use this remedy if they disagree with the content of the notices.
9. The legislation allows councils to charge a fee for serving improvement notices. Even if he did not receive the warning letter it was reasonable for Mr X to be aware of such fees and the legislation as a property company landlord.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. We would not exercise discretion to investigate the issuing of an improvement notice or a prohibition notice because it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal these matters to the First Tier tribunal which is the proper authority to consider such challenges.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman