Summary: Mr D says the Council delayed investigating disrepair at his private rental home. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council and have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council delayed investigating disrepair at his private sector rental home from 2022.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I have not investigated Mr D’s allegation that Officers were in collusion with the Landlord. If Mr D has evidence which he believes supports his complaint, then he should submit this to the Council to allow it an opportunity to formally consider his complaint in the first instance. My investigation looks at whether the Council dealt with Mr D’s reports about disrepair in line with procedures from 2023 through to August 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have spoken to Mr D and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. On 25 January 2023 Mr D contacted the Council, he reported damp and subsidence at his rental home. On 31 January a Private Sector Rental Team Officer contacted Mr D and booked an appointment to visit and inspect the property on 10 March. During February the Council obtained information about the ownership of the property. On 10 March an Officer visited Mr D’s home and carried out a Housing Health and Safety Rating System inspection (HHSRS). They found some rooms were damp and a range of other issues including a split in the bath seal. They were category two hazards. On 17 March the Council emailed the Agent managing the property and detailed the works needed to rectify the hazards this included work to address the possible causes of the damp. At the end of the month Mr D asked the Council why works had not taken place and he alleged there was a conflict of interests between Officers and the Agent/ Landlord.
7. On 3 April the Council advised the Agent about some additional works needed at the property including to check the guttering. On 11 April Mr D called the Council and was advised about his case and the Council would review matters at the end of the month to check on progress. On 17 April the Agent provided a schedule of works for the property to the Council. The Council updated Mr D two days later explaining works would start 24 April.
8. The Council contacted the Agent on 4 May for an update. The following day Mr D told the Council he believed an Officer was too friendly with his Landlord. The Council asked Mr D for evidence. The Council sent a chaser for an update to the Agent on 10 May and they replied the next day. They would be visiting the property the next week to check on works that had been done. On 14 June the Council asked the Agent for another update. On the same day an Officer spoke to Mr D who said he was unhappy with the work carried out. The Council arranged to visit on 23 June along with Mr D’s Social Worker. Also, that day the Agent advised the Council they had to rearrange appointments for access, but snagging issues should have been completed. They would visit soon and check and then update the Council.
9. On 23 June the Council visited the property. They confirmed their findings to the Agent that day. Some work had been completed but there was still damp in the property, and it was unclear if any roofing works had been carried out. They told the Agent to get their contractor to inspect the damp, given the works carried out had not resolved it, and to provide a start date to the Council. That information should be provided by the end of the month. Also, that day Mr D told the Council he had evidence of collusion between an Officer and his landlord. The Council explained it had never received any evidence from him, Mr D said he would not resend and would proceed to a formal complaint. He then lodged a formal complaint on 26 June. He said the Council had failed to communicate with him and was biased in favour of his Landlord. He provided no evidence to support the allegation about an Officer. On 27 June the Agent told the Council it had been unable to gain access to the property. Also, that day the Council told Mr D his complaint would be responded to separately. It had still not received any evidence to support his complaint. It said that works had been carried out at the property, but the cause of the damp needed further investigation. At the start of July, the Council notified the Agent and Mr D that it was reviewing the conditions at the property. It would carry out a formal visit. Officers inspected the property again on 14 July. They found the majority of works requested had been completed. Damp readings showed the damp persisted in some rooms. Officer also explained to Mr D about historic subsidence affecting the area and why it was not a problem, and no works were required for it.
10. On 21 July the Agent told the Council it had appointed a new contractor as Mr D did want the original person in the property. The contractor was not available until the end of the month, but they had agreed access with Mr D to inspect the flat. The Council updated Mr D on 25 July. During early August the Council exchanged emails with Mr D who did not want the contractor in his home to carry out an inspection. On 17 August the Council asked the Agent for an update, and they said Mr D had cancelled appointments. On 18 August the Council asked Mr D to allow access to the contractor. The works proposed by the Agent were reasonable. The Council offered to be present at the property when the contractor attended if Mr D would agree access. On 6 September the Council asked the Agent for an update and sent a further chaser a week later. On 18 September the Agent said Mr D was not allowing access. The Council sent Mr D a reply to his formal complaint on 19 September. It set out what had taken place and issues with lack of access. It was waiting for Mr D to give dates for the contractor to carry out inspections and works. On 25 September Mr D told the Council he was unhappy with its response and the Agent could attend anytime. On 6 October Mr D told the Council he had been in touch with the Agent about access. The Council asked if Officers and the contractor could visit on 11 October. The Council inspected the property on 11 October. They found there were still category two hazards including damp. On 26 October the Council issued an Improvement Notice requiring works to resolve the damp. The deadline was 16 January 2024. It also updated Mr D.
11. On 30 November Mr D asked for an update and the Council explained about the Improvement Notice. On 12 December Mr D emailed the Council that no works had been carried out. He then called and spoke to an Officer who made a contemporaneous note of the conversation. Mr D said he would not allow the contractor access, the Council advised he should allow entry. Mr D spoke in a threating manner to the Officer. Mr D says the record is false. On 14 December the Council wrote to Mr D that it could not accept threatening behaviour and he should communicate via email. On 18 December Mr D told the Council no works had been done.
12. On 18 January 2024 the Agent told the Council Mr D would not communicate with the contractor and works were at a standstill. The Council then discussed what to do. On 31 January Mr D told the Council about water leaking into the property. The Council contacted the Agent that day and offered to Mr D to visit when the contractors were on site. On 6 February the Council asked the Agent for an update and asked Mr D a week later if he agreed access. At the end of February, the Council visited the property and noted some works had been done. The damp was worse in one room and there was a new problem with the back door. They contacted the Agent the same day to fix the back door and emailed Mr D about allowing access to the contractor.
13. On 6 March the Council asked the Agent to ensure the contractors were working on the defects. The next day Mr D said he would allow the contractor access to the property. The Council then worked with the Agent to arrange a date for the works to be carried out. Some work was done on 18 March. The Council then liaised with the Agent and contractor to ensure the works continued and agreed to visit on 28 March. An Officer visited the property on 28 March and again found some works had been done but more was needed including repairs to the back door and the damp. A formal revisit was booked for April. On 10 April the Officer went back to the property, but the visit had to end because of Mr D’s behaviour.
14. On 19 April Mr D’s Mother (Ms X) contacted the Council as Mr D’s Representative. The Council explained its position and that it would not be seeking court action against the Landlord because the works were incomplete due to lack of access to the site. The Council said it was trying to progress the case. The Council attempted a further visit on 28 May but there was no access. In June the Council continued to communicate with Ms X and exchanged emails with Mr D and the Agent. The Agent confirmed what works had been done and what was planned. The Council arranged a visit. An Officer inspected the property on 1 August. There was damp in some rooms and the damp works had not resolved the problem. The Council asked the Agent for an update on how they intended to resolve the outstanding issues. They also sent an update to Mr D. Mr D sent the Council a lengthy email on 2 August detailing why he was dissatisfied with progress and Officer’s actions. On 7 August the Council asked the Agent for an update. The Agent replied on 11 August that specialist damp contractor had been booked to inspect the property, but Mr D did not agree access. On 14 August the Agent provided a further update, they were waiting for access, and this had been an ongoing problem.

What should have happened

15. A private tenant can complain to the Council about a failure by their landlord to keep their property in good repair. The Council has powers under the HHSRS (introduced by the Housing Act 2004, Part 1) to take enforcement action against private landlords where it identifies a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. An Officer from the Private Sector Rental Team will visit the property and carry out an inspection. If they find a category one hazard, they must take appropriate enforcement action in accordance with section 5 of the Act. However, if they find category two hazards the Council has discretion to take enforcement action. Usually, the Council will aim to work in co-operation with the landlord to resolve category two hazards. It will agree what works are needed, inform the landlord and set a timeframe for completion. Once that deadline has expired the Council will revisit the property to check if the hazards have been resolved. If the problems persist the Council will decide if the landlord is complying with its requests and whether there are any other issues impeding progress. The Council can issue an Improvement Notice which requires the landlord carry out remedial action within a set timeframe.
16. The Council requires private tenants allow access for inspections and repairs. Failure to prevent such access can result in the Council withdrawing from a case. It can also withdraw services if a client is threatening or abusive.

Was there fault by the Council

17. I have not seen evidence of fault by the Council. It has sought to progress the case through 2023 and into 2024.
18. Mr D referred to the problem starting in 2022 but the records show he first contacted the Council with a report at the start of 2023. The evidence shows the Council took prompt steps once it inspected the property and found category two hazards. Officers detailed the works required, including repairs that would usually address the common causes for damp. At the end of June, the Council found the repairs had not resolved the damp and the Landlord agreed to appoint a new contractor (as requested by Mr D) to look further at the damp problem. However, there were issues with access for the contractor from August through to the end of October. The Council then correctly issued an Improvement Notice allowing until January 2024 for additional works to address the damp issue. Unfortunately, the records show me that progress on the case was severely impacted by lack of access to the property. The Council was in regular contact with the Agent and updated Mr D at reasonable periods. It worked with both parties to try and resolve concerns and gain access for the damp inspections so the cause of the damp could be investigated by a specialist. I do not see the Council is at fault in this matter. It acted in line with procedures. I appreciate that Mr D wanted the Council to do more or escalate its enforcement action. However, there was no duty on the Council to do so because the Landlord/ Agent were complying with requests for work from the Council. Although deadlines were missed that was largely due to lack of access which was outside the control of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman