Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to housing disrepair issues she reported. She says the Council took no action against her landlord to resolve the disrepair. She also complains about comments made by a Council officer who referred to her as a serial complainant. We find some fault with the Council’s actions. We have made recommendations.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to housing disrepair issues she reported in March 2020. She says she provided the Council with evidence of the serious disrepair issues in the property, but the Council has taken no action against the landlord to resolve the disrepair. She also complains about comments made by a Council officer who referred to her as a serial complainant.

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’. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I spoke with Miss X and considered the information she provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Miss X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS)

8. The HHSRS is a risk based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings.
9. The HHSRS assesses 29 housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of current or future occupants of the property. The HHSRS provides a way that hazards can be assessed and the best way of dealing with them identified. If a hazard is a serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety, this is known as a Category 1 hazard. If a hazard is less serious or urgent, it is a Category 1 hazard.

Council’s corporate enforcement policy

10. This policy sets out the Council’s approach to enforcement action. It notes enforcement may include advisory visits, information gathering, site visits, monitoring, licensing, as well as interviews under caution and other formal enforcement action.
11. The policy sets out the Council will, wherever practical, work with business and others being regulated to advise on compliance. The Council will offer help, where possible, to help them meet their obligations balanced against the need to achieve adequate protection for those being affected by unauthorised or illegal activities.
12. The policy also highlights initial action in pursuing the enforcement of matters will usually (but not exclusively) be by taking informal action.
13. Regulatory services will, where possible, attempt to resolve matters amicably without recourse to formal notices and legal actions. Advice from officers will be put clearly and simply and will be confirmed in writing, as appropriate, explaining why any remedial work is necessary and over what time scale it should be completed. Officers will make sure that requirements are clearly distinguished from advice.
14. Where there is evidence of intent, negligence, significant public concern and/ or impact on quality of life, health or safety is at risk, or there is a legal duty, then formal action, either through the service of formal notices or a prosecution will be considered by the relevant service.

What happened

15. Miss X lived in a privately rented property. Miss X’s landlord, Mr A, leased the property from the freeholder, Ms B.
16. In March 2020, Miss X contacted the Council to raise issues of despair with her property. The Council said it contacted Miss X but told her it would need to contact her landlord. The Council said Miss X did not want it to contact her landlord, so it closed the case.
17. Miss X said the Council put her at risk as it contacted her landlord and told them about her complaint. Miss X said at this point she had asked the Council for information about the process of reporting disrepair.
18. In May 2020, Miss X contacted the Council again to raise issues with disrepair with her property. The Council said it again told Miss X it would need to contact her landlord. The Council said Miss X said she was only looking for advice and did not want the Council to act. The Council closed the case. Miss X denied this and said she never told the Council she did not want help.
19. At the end of May 2020, Miss X chased the Council for an update on her concerns.
20. In June 2020, Miss X again chased the Council and asked it what action it was taking against Mr A. Miss X also arranged for a charity to represent her.
21. In July 2020, the Council told Miss X it needed to contact Mr A to inform him of the inspection before the Council could complete an inspection of her property. The Council said this was so Mr A could be present at the inspection if he wanted as he was responsible for any repair works. The Council told Miss X it could not get Mr A to resolve the matters unless this happened.
22. In August 2020, Miss X told the Council it did not need to give Mr A notice of an inspection as he did not need to give permission or be present. The Council took legal advice which confirmed the Council could complete the inspection without Mr A being present.
23. In September 2020, the Council completed an inspection under the HHSRS. The inspection identified a potential category 1 hazard due to assumptions of the electric heaters not working.
24. Following the inspection, the Council issued a letter to Mr A setting out the action he needed to take to fix the issues identified:
• Install a fixed heating system as the free standing heaters were allegedly not working.
• Provide an energy performance certificate (EPC) to Miss X and the Council. Letter notes unless certificate is provided within next 14 days, the Council would refer the matter to trading standards.
• Obtain an electrical installation condition report (EICR).
• Provide the adequate number of socket outlets.
• Complete works to ensure front door was well fitting with the doorframe and suitably draught proof. Or fit replacement door.
• Move the cooker away from thoroughfare. Or provide and fit a guard plate of non-flammable material to the cooker edge.
• Reroute sink drainage to foul water pipe.
• Investigate source of damp and take necessary remedial action.

The Council asked Mr X to provide details of his plan to carry out works within 14 days. The Council noted failure to do so could result in it taking formal action.

25. In October 2020, a new officer took over the case. The Council said Mr A told it he had not received the letter in September 2020. The Council resent the letter to Mr A.
26. At the end of October 2020, contractors attended to measure the property for new windows and doors. Miss X said she had no notice of this appointment. Miss X refused access to the contractors.
27. In November 2020, the Council emailed Miss X’s representative highlighting Miss X had refused the contractors access to the property. Miss X’s representative confirmed Miss X had refused access because she had not been given any notice and did not know who they were.
28. At the end of November 2020, Mr A told the Council his electrician had accessed the property but could not test the heaters or complete an EICR. Mr A told the Council this was because of an issue with Miss X’s electricity meters. Miss X commissioned her own electrician to complete the EICR.
29. In December 2020, Miss X chased the Council for an update on her complaints about the disrepair issues. The Council told Miss X it could not progress the matter until she had spoken with her energy supplier and resolved the issue with her meters. Miss X told the Council she had contacted the energy supplier who confirmed she had no account with them. She asked the Council to investigate.
30. Miss X provided the Council with a copy of her EICR. The EICR noted some electrics in the property were dangerous. The report recommended urgent remedial action.
31. The Council said Miss X’s EICR conflicted with Mr A’s electrician who noted it was not possible to complete an EICR. The Council said it did not know how Miss X’s contractor could complete the EICR.
32. Two weeks after receiving Miss X’s EICR, the Council shared the report with Mr A.
33. In January 2021, Miss X’s representative chased the Council for an update on whether works were going to go ahead. The representative also told the Council Miss X had a non-molestation order against Mr A. The Council told the Ombudsman this was a barrier to Mr A completing the remedial works because he could not contact Miss X to arrange contractors to complete the works. There is no evidence the Council told Miss X of this.
34. Ms B contacted the Council in January 2021 and told it she was trying to install the new windows as soon as possible but that Miss A had cancelled several contractor appointments. The Council told Ms B it would contact Miss X. There is no evidence the Council did so.
35. In February 2021, Miss X representative told the Council they were having difficulty arranging a suitable time with the contractors to fit the new windows. The contractors had told Miss X it would not work on the property unless there was a third party present.
36. The Council spoke with Ms B who said Miss X wanted the window works completed over two half days. Ms B told the Council this was not feasible due to health and safety concerns. The Council contacted Miss X’s representative to confirm a full day was needed to fit the windows.
37. In March 2021, Miss X told the Council it had wrong information about the problems with arranging the window fitting. Miss X said she never offered half days for the windows, but for the door fitting. At this point, Miss X also retracted consent for her representative to deal with the matters on her behalf.
38. The Council said Miss X reported a leak and imminent structural collapse at the end of March 2021. The Council said it contacted Mr A early April 2021 to tell it of the leak. The Council said the slightly delay was due to the officer in charge of the case being on annual leave. The Council said the landlord did not organise an inspection and so the officer liaised with Mr A to arrange one.
39. The contractor was due to inspect Miss X’s property at the end of April. The Council told Miss X of the appointment the day before the appointment. Miss X told the Council she was not available at the time the contractor had been arranged. Miss X also told the Council she had already asked a contractor to investigate the leak. The Council asked Miss X to provide a copy of the report.
40. Miss X sent the Council a copy of her report from the contractor. The report noted the source of the leak was from a stopcock in a toilet being set to a wrong level. The Council said it did not think Miss X provided this report to Mr A to action.
41. The Council again told the Ombudsman the non-molestation order Miss X had against Mr A was a barrier to what it could do.
42. In May 2021, Miss X raised a complaint with the fire service about the EICR she commissioned. The Council told the fire service the situation was complex. There is no evidence the Council took any further action on the EICR at this point.
43. In June 2021, Ms B told the Council she had arranged an electrician to visit the property but the inspection did not go ahead because of disagreement with Miss X.
44. In October 2021, Miss X commissioned a surveyor to inspect the property. The surveyor’s report listed several issues with the property, including:
• leaks;
• no EPC;
• no evidence of electrical testing;
• inadequate heating; and
• windows in poor condition.
45. The Council said Miss X never provided it with a copy of this survey. Miss X provided evidence the survey was shared with the Council near the end of October 2021.
46. In November 2021, Miss X moved out of the property. The Council said after Miss X moved out, Ms B installed the new windows and door, repaired the leak, and was installing a new heating system. The Council also said Ms B completed an EICR which provided contradictory findings to the one Miss X commissioned.

Comments made by a Council officer

47. In February 2021, Miss X became aware a Council officer had referred to her as a serial complainant in an internal email. The context of the internal email was to deal with a complaint made by Miss X about the actions of the Council.
48. The Council confirmed it had not determined Miss X to be a serial complainant at this point. The Council said the officer intended to outline the service’s priority as there was a backlog of cases to deal with because of the Covid-19 pandemic and reduced staffing levels.
49. The Council said the officer recognised the poor choice or works and accepts it could have been interpreted negatively. The officer has apologised for the upset caused.

Analysis

50. There is clear evidence Miss X first contacted the Council about the disrepair problems in March 2020. The Council told Miss X it needed to contact her landlord about the issues. There is some evidence to suggest Miss X did not want the Council to contact her landlord because she said the Council put her at risk when it did contact Mr A.
51. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council did close the case as Miss X had likely indicated she did not want the landlord contacted.
52. Miss X raised the disrepair issues again with the Council in May 2020. The Council closed the case again because it said it needed to contact Mr A. However, as established in August 2020, the Council did not have to contact Mr A to inspect Miss X’s property. Therefore, the Council could have made the decision to take action to inspect Miss X’s property in May 2020. The Council did not decide this until August 2020, a delay of 3 months. This is fault.
53. We consider the fault has caused some uncertainty. This is because while we are satisfied the Council could have made the decision to act earlier, we are mindful May 2020 was still during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown. Therefore, we cannot say, even on balance, whether the Council would have arranged for an inspection to take place. We also consider the fault will have caused Miss X some frustration because the Council could potentially have inspected her property earlier when lockdown was eased in June 2020.
54. We are satisfied the Council arranged and completed its inspection without delay once it made its decision in August 2020. It is clear the Council identified some issues that needed remedying. This is evidenced by the letter the Council sent Mr A in September 2020. We are satisfied this letter was not a formal notice.
55. We do not consider there was any fault at this stage with the Council sending Mr A an informal letter. This is because this is in line with the Council’s enforcement policy which notes the Council will first take informal action and work with landlords to rectify any issues.
56. The Council gave Mr A 14 days to provide information as to what works he would complete to remedy the issues identified during the inspection. However, Mr A did not provide this as he told the Council he had not received the letter in September 2020.
57. We are satisfied the Council took appropriate action by reissuing the letter to Mr A in October 2020. We do not consider the Council was at fault for allowing Mr A more time to address the concerns. Again, this is because this is inline with the Council’s enforcement policy which focuses on informal action and cooperative working with landlords.
58. Throughout the case, the evidence suggests the delays with the works to replace the windows and front door of the property was due to difficulties arranging a suitable time with Miss X for the contractors to attend. There were also problems with Mr A’s electrician completing the EICR because of an issue with Miss X’s meters.
59. We are satisfied the Council did not act with any fault by not chasing Mr A on the electrical issues or windows because it had evidence he was trying to rectify the issues. As the Council’s enforcement policy places an emphasis on informal action and working with landlords, we are satisfied the Council acted in line with its policy.
60. However, we have not seen any evidence of the Council chasing Mr A about what action he intends to take regarding the other issues identified, such as the heating system, cooker, and drainage.
61. Further, the Council’s enforcement policy notes the Council can consider taking formal action where there is evidence of impact on quality of life, or health and safety is at risk. Given the Council had potentially identified a Category 1 hazard, the highest level possible under the HHSRS, the Council should have considered whether it needed to take formal action against Mr X. This is fault.
62. We consider the fault identified caused Miss X some distress. This is because she had expectations the Council would help her with all the disrepair issues, not just some.
63. Miss X provided the Council with her EICR in December 2020. The Council said Miss X’s EICR conflicted with the fact Mr A’s electrician could not complete the inspection.
64. However, Miss X’s EICR is clear evidence of disrepair from a licensed professional. It is not good practice for the Council to take no action just because it is inconvenient to them or conflicts with the narrative provided by the other party. If the Council was uncertain of the integrity of the report, then it should have acted to interrogate this further. However, there is no evidence it did so.
65. The Council should evidence a clear decision making process to show why it decided to take no action after it received Miss X’s EICR. The Council has not been able to show this. Therefore, we are satisfied the Council was at fault for not properly considering the evidence Miss X provided.
66. Further, the Council’s enforcement policy notes the Council can consider taking formal action where there is evidence of impact on quality of life, or health and safety is at risk. Given Miss X had provided evidence the electrics in the property was unsafe, the Council should have considered whether it needed to take formal action against Mr A. There is no evidence the Council considered this. This is fault. We consider the fault identified has caused Miss X distress and frustration.
67. We also acknowledge the Council said Miss X’s EICR conflicted with the EICR provided by Ms B in December 2021. The Council should make decisions based on the information available to it at the time. Therefore, the Council would not have known about the findings of Ms B’s electrician when Miss X first shared her EICR report in December 2020. Therefore, we do not accept this was a relevant consideration for the Council in December 2020.
68. We note in January 2021, the Council said the non-molestation order Miss X had made it difficult for it to act. This was because it could not tell Mr A to contact Miss X to arrange the remedial works. We consider this to be a reasonable position. However, there is no evidence the Council explained this to Miss X. It would have been good practice for the Council to tell Miss X of this position. This would have set some expectations for Miss X.
69. We have considered whether the Council could have acted an intermediary between the two parties. This is because there is evidence the Council did step and liaised with Mr A to arrange an inspection in April 2021 when Miss X reported a leak in the property.
70. We do not consider we can say the Council should have acted as an intermediary. This is because there is no policy or guidance that states the Council should have acted as an intermediary in such situations. However, we are of the view the Council should have considered and decided whether it would mediate between the two parties. This is especially given it knew of the strained relationship between Mr A, Ms B, and Miss X. There is no evidence the Council did this. This is fault.
71. We consider the fault identified has caused Miss X some distress. This is because she had expectations the Council would help her with her disrepair issues given it had identified there was disrepair in the property.
72. Finally, Miss X commissioned her own surveyor to inspect the property in October 2021. We note the survey identified several disrepair issues. The Council said Miss X did not provide a copy of the survey to it. Miss X has provided evidence she sent the Council a copy of the survey at the end of October 2021.
73. As Miss X moved out of the property in November 2021, we do not consider the Council would have had a reasonable amount of time to act on the survey report. Further, we also note the Council received evidence Ms B had completed the required remedial works after Miss X moved out.

Comments made by a Council officer.

74. The Council has confirmed it had not decided Miss X was a serial complainant when the officer made the comment referring to her as a serial complainant.
75. We accept it is likely the Council officer made the comment to explain to her officer how the Council will deal with the complaint Miss X had made. Nevertheless, the Council should not have referred to Miss X as a serial complainant where the Council had not deemed her to be one. This is fault.
76. We consider the fault identified caused Miss X distress. The Council has acknowledged this and accepted the comment caused Miss X upset.

Back to top

Agreed action

77. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following:
• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the faults identified.
• Pay Miss X £500 to recognise the distress, frustration, and uncertainty caused by the faults identified.
• Remind staff of the importance of:
1. recording its decision making when it receives new information; and
2. communicating with all parties to set out clearly what enforcement action the Council has decided to take or not take, and its reasons why. The Council’s decision should be in line with its enforcement policy.

It is for the Council to decide how it completes the above recommendation. However, we will expect the Council to provide evidence it has completed this.

78. The Council should complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

79. We find some fault with the Council’s actions. The faults identified has caused Miss X an injustice. The Council has accepted our recommendations. Therefore, we have completed our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman