Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to give her suitable protection as a tenant and serving a notice on her for failing to keep the premises in good repair. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council failing to protect her from harassment by the owners of a house which she leases from them and sublets to tenants. She says she was forced to leave the property, but the Council served her with an improvement notice even though she paid the owner to lease the property.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X says she paid a property owner to take over the whole of the rented house in which she lived. She paid £10,000 deposit and a monthly rent in exchange for controlling the whole building and collecting the rents from other tenants as a management company.
5. In 2019 the Council inspected the property and considered it required a licence as a house in multiple occupation (HMO) and work to bring it up to standard. Miss X was considered to be the person ‘having control’ of the premises because she took rent from other occupiers. Miss X was required to submit a licence application which she agreed to.
6. The licence could not be processed because there was insufficient agreement about the validity of the lease to prove she or the owners were in control of the premises. The Council took legal advice, and this indicated that a licence could not be granted to Miss X’s company. However, she did remain a responsible party for the repair required to the property to make it safe for other tenants.
7. The Council served notices on Miss X and the owners in 2020 because substantial work was required. She says that she had paid for the required licensing work, but the owners forced her and other tenants to leave the premises through harassment. She believes that she is no longer responsible for the repairs to the property.
8. The Council says that because the lease agreement was incomplete it served notices on all parties who may be liable for the repairs to ensure they remained valid in the courts. Miss X had a right to appeal to the Residential Property Tribunal against any notice which she believed she was not a party to.

Analysis

9. The Council could not determine who is the party in control of the property from the evidence which Miss X provided with her licence application. However, it had sufficient information to consider that she was one of those responsible for the repairs required because she collected the rent from tenants. It had a duty to ensure the property met the safety requirements of the Housing Act 2004 and took action against Miss X and the owners on this basis.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman