Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s response to her request for help with disrepair in her private rented flat. 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 a council officer whom she says failed to help her when she reported disrepair at her rented home. She says the officer made the landlord carry out alterations which affected her use of the premises and that she accepted allegations made about her conduct by the landlord and another tenant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss X contacted the Council in early 2021 about a faulty boiler causing loss of heating and hot water. She also reported dampness and faulty appliances in her flat. She said that she was in fear of being evicted by her landlord despite having not being served with a legal notice.
6. The Council sent an officer to investigate and the report of the situation indicated that the boiler was not faulty but that there were some repairs which were required under the Housing Health and Safety rating System (HHSRS) guidance. The officer sent the landlord a hazard letter requiring him to fit safety closers to the fire doors in the property. The landlord and another tenant informed the officer that Miss X was responsible for tampering with the boiler and was also abusive towards the other tenant and the landlord.
7. The officer arranged for a registered independent heating engineer to inspect the boiler. He replaced a part but confirmed that the boiler had been tampered with and that this had been a source of problems with it. When the works had been completed the officer re-visited to inspect the work. She was satisfied with the safety measures, but Miss X says she now has difficulty opening the doors compared with previously and that they are incompatible with her disabilities.
8. The officer told her that the safety measures were a requirement under the Housing Act 2004 and that the safety of all the occupants of the HMO (House in multiple occupation) were paramount. Miss X made a complaint about the officer’s attitude following the referral by the officer to the Council’s Anti-social behaviour unit over her conduct with the other house occupants.
9. The Council did not uphold Miss X’s complaint and told her that the officer had followed government and council policy with regard to the disrepair works and the anti-social behaviour allegations. It confirmed that other issues between her and the landlord, such as rent payments and claims of interruption of internet and other services were civil matters between them.
10. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. In this case there is no evidence that the Council failed to investigate Miss X’s complaints or to take action where appropriate. Whilst she may disagree with the outcome this is not a matter which we would investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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