Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of reports of disrepair at the property Mr X rents out to tenants. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the actions of a Council Housing Enforcement Officer who he says was abusive and threatening towards him and who said there was disrepair at the property he rents out when there was not. He says as a result he had to waste money calling out an emergency contractor who found no fault.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its responses to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X owns a property which he rents out privately. His tenant contacted the Council to complain they had been without gas, heating and hot water and that the landlord was not responding.
7. A Council officer visited the property the same day and, finding there was no heating or hot water, contacted Mr X to request he undertake works to ensure the restoration of the heating and hot water system.
8. Mr X said he had had to pay for an emergency contractor who had found no fault and that the Council should cover this cost. It refused to do so and addressed his complaint about these events under its complaints procedure. It did not uphold his complaint, finding the officer had taken proportionate action.
9. While Mr X may not agree with the action taken by the Council, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. The officer responded to the report made by the tenant and took the action he thought necessary when he found no heating or hot water at the property. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
10. There was delay by the Council in responding to the complaint at Stage 2 of its complaints procedure but we will not investigate complaint handling here when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman