Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council conducted a housing inspection at a property where he acts as the Landlord. He considered there may be racial discrimination in the way the Council acted. We did not find there was fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a landlord. He complains the Council failed to properly carry out an inspection of a property he rents. He complained the officer who conducted the inspection was biased towards the tenant and then failed to respond to his correspondence in a reasonable time. He complained the way the officer treated him and the subsequent failure to respond constituted discrimination on the basis of his race.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council for its files and background information, and I considered it.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. On 10 February the Council’s Environmental Health team received a report that there was a problem with conditions at a private rented property. Mr X was the Landlord for the property.
7. The report stated the drains were blocked, water was getting into the property via the pavement outside and into the electrical cupboard. Water had pooled in the property in places and there seemed to be sewerage in the shower. The Council contacted Mr X as the Landlord. I understand the blockage that caused these initial problems affected several properties and it was later cleared by the local water company.
8. On 15 March the Council conducted an inspection of the property. The initial issue (flooding) had been resolved. The Council told us there were no significant issues; there was an issue with a damaged smoke detector (which still worked) and a separate fire alarm panel registered a fault. The panel was not significant as it was part of an old system which was not necessary as there were working smoke detectors on the flat. It noted an issue with dampness appeared to have been resolved.
9. Following the inspection visit Mr X sent a copy of the electrical inspection certificate to the officer and commented on his tenant’s behaviour. Two weeks later Mr X chased a response in a second email. His second email made reference to damage caused by the tenant and the tenant’s unwillingness to clean the flat. He also referred to his tenant’s behaviour. Mr X later stated when an electrician attended to remove the non-functioning panel, the tenant had broken another fire alarm, all had now been fixed.
10. The officer responded, acknowledging both emails the following day. The officer reiterated the work agreed at the visit. She also asked Mr X to monitor the mould issue going forward (although work was thought to have resolved it). The officer confirmed in writing, as Mr X had requested, that the tenant had become verbally abusive at the visit.
11. Mr X told us the fire safety panel that was referenced by the Council was over and above what was needed for the flat and he had arranged its removal.
12. The Council registered no hazards at the property that needed to be addressed under Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
13. Mr X sent an email on 5 April to the officer requesting further clarification on several points and asking the Council to remind the tenant to clean his flat. He had to chase for a response on 15 May.
14. Mr X’s complaint was focussed on the way the officer dealt with him and the tenant during the visit in March. Mr X complained that the officer had appeared sympathetic to his tenant but questioned him harshly. He stated the visit was not carried out on an impartial basis. He stated the tenant was drunk at the time of the visit and abusive towards him. When Mr X had been explaining the wrongdoing of the tenant, the officer interrupted Mr X and defended him. Mr X considered the officer was not listening to him, did not make eye contact and, in his opinion, she favoured the tenant.
15. Mr X stated he had decorated the property to a high standard. His complaint to the Council suggested the officer’s report had not listed issues at the property caused by the tenant. For example, broken glass, wet flooring, the unclean state of the property, that he had a friend staying and that the tenant had broken the fire alarms.
16. As part of its initial response to the complaint the Council interviewed the officer and Mr X. It stated the officer did not recall Mr X being upset about the way the visit was conducted at the time. It noted the officer had recorded the tenant’s poor behaviour but had also noted Mr X’s behaviour in a positive way; noting he remained calm throughout. The Council stated Mr X’s recollection of events was different to the officer’s recollection. The Council explained that officers were required to consider risk and were entitled to determine when to end an inspection. They found there was no evidence to warrant upholding the complaint.
17. The Council noted some of the issues Mr X felt should be in the inspection report were either matters that were not witnessed (for example who damaged the fire alarm), some points Mr X raised were not identified by the officer (broken glass around a door) and others were not for officers to comment on. For example, who was in the flat. The Council noted its primary purpose when visiting was to identify if there were issues at the property that the landlord needed to address for accommodation to be safe and habitable. The Council acknowledged that in his correspondence Mr X made some requests for assistance about making a claim for possession. It noted the team could not have assisted with this but it found this could have been better explained. Mr X could also have been better informed about what timescales to expect responses in. It noted these as learning areas. However, it found no other fault.
18. At Stage Two of the complaints process the Council noted Mr X’s concern that his allegation of racial discrimination was not responded to. The Council noted while Mr X’s original complaint referred to bias, unequal treatment and favouring the tenant, it did not refer to race. So, it only partially upheld this. The Stage Two inspection did consider Mr X’s concern about racial discrimination. The Council noted Mr X’s concerns and what happened. It found the officer was mindful of risk awareness training she had when she decided to end the inspection and move outside. This was as a direct result of the tenant’s behaviour, and potential risk of escalation. It found no evidence to show that the officer treated Mr X in a discriminatory way. This was not upheld.
19. The Council noted there were delays in responding to some of Mr X’s correspondence, but there was no evidence this was due to his race. The delay was upheld. The Council did consider that the inspection report could have noted some additional issues; for example an inadequate door. However, overall, the inspection was undertaken as per the Council’s guidance.
20. The Council suggested Mr X had expected his tenant to be advised of his wrongdoing by the Council. It found overall that Mr X’s expectations of the visit were likely to not have been realised as a result of the Council’s focus being towards disrepair under housing legislation.

Was there fault by the Council

21. The key element of Mr X’s complaint is the way the March visit was conducted by the Council. I have read Mr X’s correspondence, and spoken to him about his recollections of the visit. I have looked at the Council records. This gave me an overall view of the differing information available about this visit.
22. It is undisputed that the visit was made difficult by verbally aggressive behaviour by Mr X’s tenant, who was reportedly drunk. It is recorded that the tenant was responding aggressively to Mr X’s comments to the officer about the tenant’s behaviour. So it seems likely to me that the officer’s response to Mr X was affected by the potential threat posed by the tenant, in what seemed a volatile situation. The officer commented they were acting on training about risk management. This led to the decision to cease the visit, having seen what she considered was appropriate. Decisions such as these in difficult situations must be ones that officers are entitled to make.
23. In addition to the conduct of the visit, Mr X draws conclusions from the fact that the officer’s report/findings do not comment on the tenant’s behaviour and Mr X’s dissatisfaction about the tenant not maintaining the originally high standard of his property. He saw this as a lack of impartiality, given the tenant had, reportedly, caused damage. However, it is not the Council’s role to investigate the cause of damage or to determine if a landlord or tenant have been responsible for the state of a property that they visit. Their role is to consider whether the property is safe and habitable for tenants. If there are issues with behaviour, these are for the landlord to address.
24. I understand that where tenants behave poorly and damage properties, this is obviously of concern to landlords and it can lead to expensive repairs. However, the Council’s housing inspections are not intended to mediate between tenants or provide evidence of who is to blame. So, I do not consider the report outcome could be considered biased because it does not detail Mr X’s concerns about his tenant. Issues of poor behaviour or damage would be for Mr X to take up with the tenant directly.
25. There was some delay in responding to Mr X’s correspondence. This appears to have been two separate incidents. However, I do not consider the delay was significant or that it caused any significant injustice to Mr X. I do not consider it justifies a finding of fault against the Council.
26. Having considered the available information, I do not consider there is evidence that there was any form of racial discrimination in either the conduct of the visit or the delays in correspondence.

Back to top

Final decision

27. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman