Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s inspection of disrepair at his rented property under the Housing Act 2004. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any fault causing injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council delayed inspecting his rented property after he made a complaint about a roof repair in March 2020. When the Council inspected, he says he was not given details of a second officer present. He also was not given a copy of the inspection report which he asked for at the time.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. 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

4. Mr X asked the Council to investigate his complaint about disrepair at his rented flat. The Council was unable to arrange a visit at the time because the country had just been placed under restrictions on social contact under the COVID-19 restrictions. The Council’s risk assessment policy did not allow officers to visit during this period. They were able to contact Mr X’s management agent and advise what works may be done. These were also delayed because of restrictions on contractors working in occupied property.
5. When the Council’s policy on risk was revised in September an inspection was arranged. The case officer visited Mr X with a colleague who says he introduced himself. Mr X says he was unsure what the second officer’s role was or why he attended.
6. The Council informed Mr X when he enquired that the other officer was a more experienced housing officer, and he was employed by the housing department. Mr X says he wanted a copy of the inspection report but this was denied him on the day.
7. The Council says there is no requirement to provide copies of the inspection report to a tenant where no notice is served, which was the case here. If Mr X wished to see a copy of the report the Council said he should put the request in writing or in a Freedom of Information request. It is not unreasonable for Mr X to do so.
8. The Council concluded that there were no remaining works to be completed by the landlord following the inspection. Mr X says he did not receive a final inspection following completion of the works. Officers contacted Mr X about completion of the work and follow-up decoration in October. He informed them that he has taken the matter to the County Court.
9. Mr X complained to the Council and asked for compensation for the distress caused. There is insufficient evidence of any injustice caused by fault here which would require a remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any fault causing injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman