Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to take effective action against her former landlord for disrepair at her rented home. We found the Council to have acted with fault because it failed to provide information to Ms X, investigate some areas of disrepair and acknowledge her initial complaint. This caused distress and uncertainty to Ms X. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a modest symbolic payment to Ms X. We did not find fault with the Council’s overall assessment of disrepair and lack of formal enforcement action.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to take effective enforcement action in respect of Category 1 hazards at her privately rented property in 2024.
2. She says the Council’s lack of action caused considerable distress and physical harm to both herself and her disabled children.

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 have investigated what happened from 2024. I have referred to earlier events for contextual reasons only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

Private housing disrepair

8. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair. Councils have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) (introduced by the Housing Act 2004, Part 1) to take enforcement action against private landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. The hazards are categorised as:

• Category 1 hazards which are hazards which could cause serious harm such as death.
• Category 2 hazards are less serious hazards which may need remedial work by the landlord.

9. The HHSRS is a risk assessment tool used to assess 29 potential hazards and risks to the health and safety of occupants in homes. The assessment method is used to identify hazards most likely to be present in homes. The aim is to tackle these hazards to make homes healthier and safer to live in.
10. The government has published guidance titled ‘Housing Health and Safety System Enforcement Guidance’ which outlines councils’ duties and powers under the Housing Act with regards to housing fitness and disrepair.
11. The guidance states councils should arrange an inspection of a property if, following a complaint or other reason, to determine whether a category 1 or 2 hazard exists in the property.
12. The guidance says it is good practice for councils to carry out as full an inspection of the property as possible. The law requires an accurate record to be prepared and kept of the inspection in written or electronic form.
13. If a council considers a category 1 hazard exists in residential premises they must take appropriate enforcement action in accordance with section 5 of the Act. Councils have discretion to take action if a category 2 hazard is identified. This could be in the form of a hazard awareness notice to the landlord or an improvement notice. Councils can take action against the landlord if they ignore these notices.
14. The Council’s enforcement policy echoes this government guidance

What happened

Contextual information

15. Ms X rented a property (the Property) from Mrs Y (the Landlord). In 2022, Ms X contacted the Council to report the central heating was not working and other areas of disrepair. Ms X said she had not had any effective heating since 2021. Throughout 2022 and 2023, Ms X continued to report disrepair issues at the Property. The Council carried out several inspections and issued an Improvement Notice.

Events I have investigated

16. In February 2024, Ms X contacted the Council about several areas of disrepair at the Property. Of particular concern was water leakage from an upstairs wet room through a kitchen downlight. She also raised concerns about heating, mould, damp and other areas of general disrepair.
17. The Council liaised with the Landlord about these matters. Ms X was dissatisfied with the remedial action taken by the Landlord and complained to the Council. The Council did not respond.
18. The Council carried out an inspection of the Property in March 2024 (the March Inspection).
19. The Landlord carried out further remedial works. Ms X advised the Council the property remained unsafe. In May 2024, she provided the Council with information about her family’s medical conditions. She says her children’s health was affected by the condition of the Property.
20. She complained again about the continued failure to address her concerns. Shortly afterwards, she advised the Council she had suffered an electric shock.
21. The Council carried out a further inspection in June 2024 (the June Inspection). Ms X was advised whilst there were several areas disrepair within the Property, they were assessed as Category 2 hazards. The Council explained would not take formal enforcement action against the Landlord.
22. Instead, it issued a Hazard Awareness Notice to the Landlord. This identified Category 2 hazards relating to fire, damp and mould, lighting and structural/falling elements.
23. Ms X strongly disagreed with this assessment and instructed a surveyor to obtain a second opinion (the Survey). This was reviewed by the Council’s property services department. This review confirmed there were no Category 1 hazards and it was not necessary to carry out a further full assessment.
24. Ms X moved out of the Property in August 2024.

The Council’s position

25. In response to both Ms X’s complaint and the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council’s position is summarised below.

• Enforcement officers took appropriate action in response to Ms X’s reports of disrepair by regularly liaising with the Landlord and trades personnel.
• The Survey was obtained for the purpose of a civil action taken by Ms X against the Landlord. It was not a HHSRS inspection report. The latter considers the likelihood of harm arising from a hazard, not just its presence. There were no Category 1 hazards within the Property.
• It was aware of the medical conditions of family members, however, the HHSRS inspection does not take account of current occupiers, instead will consider any relevant vulnerable group.

26. However, the Council acknowledged it had not done everything correctly. It says it failed to:

• provide Ms X with hazard rating information after the March Inspection;
• respond to the formal complaint raised by Ms X in February 2024;
• provide Ms X with feedback from its review of the Survey in order to explain why it remained of the view there were no Category 1 hazards;
• include the kitchen light in the Hazard Awareness Notice;
• respond to the report in the Survey about sparks coming from a mirror light;
• follow up the report of non-flush electrical sockets, defective doors and windows;
• failed to reinspect persistent leaks in the bathroom; and
• assess a blocked kitchen drain under the correct category of disrepair

Analysis

27. 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 whether there was fault in how a council 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.
28. Specific to this complaint, it is not the role of Ombudsman, to determine whether Category 1 hazards were present at the Property, as claimed by Ms X.
29. What I must consider is whether the Council followed the correct procedure when making this decision.
30. Following Ms X’s ongoing concerns about disrepair issues at the Property, the Council appropriately agreed to carry out the March Inspection. Based on this, the Council determined there were no Category 1 hazards that required compulsory action by the Landlord. This was the professional determination of the inspecting officer, and the Ombudsman cannot interfere with this type of professional judgement, not matter how strongly Ms X may disagree. Instead, the case records show the Council took informal action by liaising with the Landlord, as it had been doing previosuly. In the absence of any Category 1 hazards, this was a course of action the Council was allowed to take.
31. Similarly, I have not found fault with how the Council responded to Ms X’s report that she had received an electric shock. The records show it contacted both Ms X and the Landlord’s electrician who confirmed he would be visiting the Property that day. Along with Ms X continued reports of disrepair, this electric shock, also prompted the June Inspection. As with the earlier inspection, it was for the Council to decide the category of disrepair, and in line with its policy whether to take any formal action against Category 2 hazards.
32. Nor was the Council obliged to concur with Ms X’s interpretation of the Survey. She claims this supported her position that several Category 1 were present. In my view, it did not. I accept the Council’s argument that the Survey was commissioned for a different purpose and did not use the same criteria as the HHSRS. The Council was not at fault.
33. While I have not found fault with Ms X’s main area of complaint, which was failure to acknowledge and take action to address Category 1 hazards, the Council has accepted it should have provided a better service in several areas (paragraph 26 above). Having reviewed the Council’s case records, my assessment is there was some fault by the Council in its handling of her case. It failed to respond to her first complaint, failed to provide proper feedback from the March Inspection and the Survey and did not follow up on several areas of disrepair.
34. While I welcome the Council’s honest analysis of its own practice, I am satisfied Ms X suffered distress and frustration as a result of these omissions. This injustice requires a remedy

Back to top

Agreed action

35. The Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision.
1. Apologise in writing to Ms X.
2. Pay Miss X £200. This is a symbolic payment to acknowledge her frustration and uncertainty caused by failing to follow up issues raised by the Survey and provide an explanation about the category of hazard.
3. Share this decision statement with relevant enforcement officers with a view to ensuring appropriate follow up action is taken following an inspection.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to action my recommendations to remedy the injustice to Ms X. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman