• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Agreed action
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has delayed serving an improvement notice about his home and not dealt with enforcement properly regarding his landlord. The Council is at fault because it delayed dealing with problems Mr X reported about the condition of his home. Mr X had to live in substandard accommodation for too long and has been evicted earlier than he should have been. The Council should apologise and pay Mr X £400 for distress and uncertainty.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has:
   • has failed to take enforcement action against his landlord under 1977 Protection from Eviction Act; and
   • delayed serving an improvement notice against his landlord about problems with his accommodation.
2. Mr X says he has suffered avoidable distress and had to live in deficient accommodation and should not have been evicted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
7. 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

Law, guidance and policies

Protection from Eviction Act 1977

8. The law says it is harassment if a landlord or his agent does anything to interfere with the peace or comfort of a tenant, or acts with the intention of making them leave. Harassment can come in many forms, for example:
   • Threatening to evict someone without going through the correct legal procedure.
   • Threatening violence.
   • Disconnecting the electricity, gas or water supply.
   • Entering the home without permission.
9. If a tenant is being harassed and believe their landlord may want to evict them illegally, they can ask the council for help. The council should advise them about their housing rights and options. Some councils also have tenancy relations officers who deal specifically with harassment and illegal eviction cases.
10. The council has powers under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to investigate complaints of harassment and illegal eviction, and to prosecute a landlord where he or she commits an offence.

Deregulation Act 2015

11. The law says landlords can be prevented from taking action to evict a tenant in circumstances where an improvement notice in respect of housing disrepair has been issued by a Council.

The Council’s Enforcement Policy

12. The Council should use an evidence based risk assessment procedure, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) when considering whether to take action in respect of poor housing conditions.

What happened?

13. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
14. Mr X contacted the Council in April 2023 telling it that his landlord was trying to illegally evict him.
15. The Council engaged with Mr X’s landlord about Mr X and the eviction process.
16. Mr X contacted the Council again in May 2023 telling it further information about his landlord and complaining about the condition of his home.
17. Mr X contacted the Council again in August 2023 telling it further information about his landlord and again complaining about the condition of his home.
18. The Council then forwarded the information Mr X had provided to its Environmental Health team. The Council visited Mr X’s home in September to make an assessment and then completed a formal inspection under HHSRS. Category 1 hazards were identified and an improvement notice was served on Mr X’s landlord.
19. Mr X’s landlord won a possession order for the property in November 2023. Mr X appealed the decision and lost. He has now left the property.

Analysis

20. Mr X says the Council should have taken action against his landlord for harassment. The Council has the power to do so but is not under an obligation.
21. Emails and communication records show that the Council considered whether it could take action, including the outcome of a police enquiry, and concluded that there were no grounds to take action and there was insufficient evidence that Mr X’s landlord was behind issues Mr X had described.
22. Mr X does not agree with the Council’s decision, but this is a decision they Council are entitled to make. This is not fault by the Council.
23. Emails and communication records show that Mr X first contacted the Council about disrepair problems in May 2023.
24. The Council did not act on this information until August 2023 when it passed his information to its Environmental Health department. This is fault by the Council. Mr B suffered a three month delay in getting disrepair issues addressed.
25. Mr X is unhappy that the Council suspended an improvement notice. The Council says it took this decision because it needed to ensure the timescales in the notice were reasonable otherwise the notice may be challenged if it had to be enforced.
26. Mr X does not agree with the Council’s decision, but this is a decision they Council are entitled to make. This is not fault by the Council.
27. However, the Council’s delay in addressing Mr X’s disrepair issues had a further impact on his housing situation.
28. The Council issued an improvement notice to Mr X’s landlord about category 1 and 2 hazards two months after its Environmental Health department became aware of Mr X’s situation. If it had addressed them without the three month delay, on the balance of probabilities, it would have issued its improvement notice in July, not October.
29. The Council’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that, “had the improvement notice been served before the notice to quit then that would have prevented the LL from serving such a notice, in order to prevent a retaliatory eviction notice being served. However once the notice to quit has been served, the improvement notice does not prevent the Landlord from putting the matter into court after the notice seeking possession is served.”
30. Mr X’s landlord would have been prevented from seeking to evict him for a period of 6 months. On the balance of probabilities, Mr X would still have been evicted, but this process would not have been able to take place until January 2024. Mr X therefore would have been able to remain in the property for longer.
31. Mr X suffered distress and uncertainty about his housing conditions.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision:
    • Apologise to Mr X for the delays to addressing disrepair issues. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
    • Pay Mr X £400 for distress and uncertainty.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page