Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to serve an Improvement Notice in 2023 and the Private Sector Housing Team did not follow procedures. The Council has already acknowledged some fault in its communications with Mr B and taken steps to prevent the fault happening again. We have not found any evidence of additional fault. We have upheld the complaint, because of the fault already accepted by the Council, and completed the investigation because there is no outstanding injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr B) says the Council failed to serve an Improvement Notice on the owner of his rental property in 2023. He also says the Private Sector Housing Team (PSH Team) at the Council did not act in line with procedures.
2. Mr B also referred in his complaint to issues with his housing band, alleged illegal eviction and money for a deposit on a new rental home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I explained to Mr B at the start of the investigation that I would not look at parts of his complaint. His concerns about housing bands and a deposit for a new property need to be put in formal complaints to the Council before he can come to the Ombudsman. Issues about the eviction are for the courts to consider.
6. I am looking solely at the actions of the PSH Team from December 2022 to November 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered the information provided by Mr B. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. On 15 December 2022 Mr B contacted the Council about disrepair at his private rental property. The next day a PSH Team Officer made some initial checks and considered additional evidence from Mr B. On 4 January 2023 the Officer asked Mr B if they could carry out a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) inspection; this was agreed. The Officer also notified the property agent. The Inspection took place on 17 January. The Officer found evidence of Category 1 and 2 hazards including problems with damp and mould and thermal efficiency. A subsequent HHSRS inspection report was compiled listing the defects.
10. On 27 February the Council sent a consultation letter and a schedule of deficiencies (schedule) to the property agent/ landlord. It also wrote to Mr B using a standard letter template. The Council told Mr B it was proposing to take enforcement action. It had written to the landlord with the schedule to give them an opportunity to advise about the reason for the deficiencies in the property and how they planned to address them. The landlord was given 14 days to provide suitable proposals for completion of the works. The Council said it “expected most works should be completed within 28 days of the date of this letter”. If the landlord provided reasonable proposals within 14 days of the letter the Council would monitor compliance and carry out another visit. However, if the landlord “fails to provide acceptable proposals in writing within 14 days…or fail to keep to those…[an Improvement Notice] will be served”. On 28 March the Officer contacted the landlord stating they had failed to reply to the Council. Two days later the landlord responded about works done which were not in the schedule and asked about the eviction of Mr B to install gas central heating. On 11 April the Council asked the landlord about the works carried out and stated the schedule should be complied with. It also said that all the works in the schedule could be done whilst the property was occupied, and it could not advise on eviction matters. On 15 April Mr B asked the Officer for an update and said no works had been carried out. On 28 April the Officer revisited the property and noted the works in the schedule had not been carried out.
11. On 9 May the landlord told the Council he was getting quotes for the required works. On 11 May the Officer told Mr B the Council was yet to serve an Improvement Notice. Mr B says the Officer told him an Improvement Notice was being served, I do not have any contemporaneous evidence to verify this recollection. On 15 May the landlord sent the Council information about the quotes and set out what works were being done. On 18 May Mr B told the PSH Team his landlord had served a notice to evict him. He was referred to the Housing Solutions Team. From 23 May to 13 June the Council and landlord exchanged emails about evidence for works being done.
12. On 19 June Mr B asked the Officer if an Improvement Notice had been issued. He asked again on 26 June. At the end of June, the landlord provided more details to the PSH Team about works. On 29 June the Officer told Mr B an Improvement Notice was not being issued because the landlord was complying with the Council. During July Mr B corresponded with the Council disputing its decision to not serve an Improvement Notice. The landlord continued to provide quotes and invoices to the PSH Team.
13. On 5 July Mr B formally complained to the Council. On 6 July Mr B received a notice to vacate his property from the landlord so that works could be completed (including installing gas central heating). On 21 July the Council confirmed to Mr B it was investigating his complaint. A response to the complaint was issued on 28 July. The Council said it looked for informal cooperation with landlords rather than enforcement action where possible. The Council had considered whether to serve an Improvement Notice but because the landlord was complying it was not appropriate to take formal action. The landlord had decided to install gas central heating which was more disruptive than the options set out the schedule. The Council had never advised the landlord to evict Mr B. It also explained that even if an Improvement Notice had been issued it would not prevent the landlord serving a Section 8 Notice to gain vacant possession of the property. The Council did accept it was at fault in the 27 February letter which was misleading and raised expectations about the likely timeframe. The Council apologised and said it had amended the letter template.
14. In August Mr B escalated his complaint. On 24 August the Council responded and said the correct actions had been followed but the case was not progressed to “an acceptable timeframe”. There was delay from the second inspection. This would have caused raised expectations that an Improvement Notice would be issued. The Council said it could have communicated better with Mr B.
15. I understand the Council inspected the property in November and confirmed the schedule of works had been completed.

What should have happened

16. The Council’s Private Sector Housing Enforcement and Civil Penalties policy sets out how the Council considers reports from tenants about allegedly unfit private accommodation. The case is allocated to a PSH Team Officer to investigate. They will gather some initial information and contact the tenant and the property agent/ landlord to arrange an inspection. The Officer will inspect a property using the HHSRS method to determine whether there are hazards, the likely harm they pose and the severity of that harm. If Category 1 or 2 hazards are identified the Council has a duty to take action. The Officer will complete a schedule of the deficiencies in the property. The schedule is sent to the landlord allowing them an opportunity to explain why the defects exist and how they plan to remedy them. The landlord should reply within 14 days.
17. Unless emergency action is needed to reduce risk of imminent harm the Council will usually allow a minimum of 28 days before any works to the property need to start. The policy states that in practice it may be a longer timescale to start and complete works depending on factors which include the type of hazard, likely cost and circumstances of the occupant. If the landlord does not comply with the Council, it can consider serving a formal enforcement notice including an Improvement Notice. This requires woks be carried out to an acceptable level within a set timeframe. When deciding on whether to take formal action the Officer should consider representations from the tenant and landlord, evidence of works being progressed and then use their professional judgement to decide if formal enforcement is appropriate. Where a landlord is considered to be cooperating the Council would not usually take formal action.

Was there fault by the Council

18. The Council has already accepted it was at fault in this case when it responded to Mr B’s formal complaints. Its standard letter issued to Mr B on 27 February was poorly worded and did not mirror the actual Council policy. It said works should likely be completed within 28 days when the policy notes that “in practice a longer timescale” may be given. It also incorrectly stated that it would serve an Improvement Notice if the landlord failed to respond to the 27 February letter within 14 days. In fact, the decision on whether to serve an Improvement Notice is far more complex. This error was compounded by the Officer failing to manage Mr B’s expectations and taking too long to progress the case. As the second complaint response from the Council correctly stated the Officer should have notified Mr B by 23 May that it would not be appropriate to serve an Improvement Notice. Instead, he had to wait until the end of June to find this out.
19. I have not found any additional, fresh, evidence of fault by the Council. I understand Mr B feels the Council should have served an Improvement Notice. However, there was no duty on the Council to take that course of action, it was at the Officer’s discretion to informally resolve the case if they considered the landlord was cooperating. In this case the Officer was satisfied the landlord would carry out works which meant it was not appropriate to issue an Improvement Notice. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly overall, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr B disagrees with the decision the Council made: that applies to this case. We cannot say an Improvement Notice should have been served, only that the Council should have been much clearer and prompt in its communications with Mr B.

Did the fault cause an injustice

20. Mr B was left with raised expectations about what action would be taken due to the faults already accepted by the Council. The Council has apologised and taken steps to prevent a similar failing happening again. In view of this I do not see there is an unremedied injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have upheld the complaint, because of the fault that occurred, and completed the investigation because the Council has already taken action to remedy the fault and injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman