Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response after the complainant reported he was living in poor accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response after he reported the poor quality of his privately rented accommodation. Mr X wants compensation and for the Council to do a full investigation.

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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I watched a video which shows the accommodation. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X was renting a room in a house from a private landlord. In April he complained to the Council about the condition of the property. He said there were leaks, electrical faults and pests. He also said the communal areas were dirty and there had been a fire on the stove. Mr X said his room had been constructed within the kitchen and was a fire risk. Mr X sent photographs.
5. The Council replied immediately and told Mr X how he could get housing advice. The Council also contacted the landlord who explained she did not know the room in the kitchen had been built. The landlord demonstrated to the Council that she had obtained all the required documents and that there were adequate fire precautions in place. The landlord arranged for the room to be dismantled; this led to Mr X being asked to leave in August.
6. The Council viewed a video taken by another tenant. The Council closed the case. This was because the Council found that the flat was fit for habitation and there were adequate fire prevention measures in place. In addition, the landlord had said she would remove the room.
7. The Council explained to Mr X that an officer would usually have visited but, due to lockdown, this was not possible. However, it was satisfied it had enough information to deal with the case.
8. Mr X says the Council did not investigate properly. He says the Council used false reports and his room was a fire risk. Mr X wants the Council to prosecute the landlord and he wants compensation for the trauma caused by being evicted.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council responded promptly and appropriately to Mr X’s reports. Due to lockdown rules it could not visit but it viewed photographs and a video, gave advice to Mr X, reported the room in the kitchen to the landlord and checked that the landlord had all the required paperwork. The Council was satisfied the property had adequate fire precautions and was fit for habitation. I have viewed the video and the Council’s assessment is consistent with the evidence. Given that officers could not visit, but were satisfied Mr X was not under any undue risk, there is nothing more I would have expected the Council to have done. And, even if the Council had been able to visit, it is doubtful the outcome would have been very different. This is because the outcome of Mr X’s report was that his room was deemed to be unsuitable and it was dismantled.
10. It is unfortunate Mr X was evicted. However, the Council had to report the room to the landlord who explained she knew nothing about it because it had been built by another tenant. Once she became aware of the room she arranged for it to be removed. I appreciate Mr X found being evicted traumatic but this was not due to fault by the Council but was the consequence of Mr X reporting his concerns. Mr X would need to take action against the landlord if he thinks the eviction was unlawful. However, the complaint correspondence says Mr X was a lodger which, if correct, would mean he had few housing rights.
11. Mr X is distressed that he was living in a room which he believes was unsafe. I appreciate this would have been worrying but, from a positive perspective, Mr X did not come to any harm and he is no longer living in that environment. Mr X also says the communal areas and the fridge were dirty; but that was an issue he needed to raise with the other tenants or the landlord.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman