Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate and take appropriate action in relation to reports of disrepair and safety concerns at his privately rented property. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated or responded to reports of disrepair at Mr X’s home.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate and take appropriate action in relation to reports of disrepair and safety concerns at his privately rented property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• 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

5. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
6. Mr X rented a property from a private landlord in November 2022. He lived at the property with his son, Mr Y. In November 2023 Mr X and Mr Y complained to the Council about disrepair at the property. Mr Y provided a copy of the inventory compiled before they moved into the property which identified a number of necessary repairs. He complained that a year later the landlord had still not carried out any of the works.
7. The main issues were:
• The failure to install a carbon monoxide alarm;
• The boiler flue had been installed correctly but had been registered with the Council as safe;
• Gas safety certificates in October 2022 and 2023 list the same fault, which has remained unrepaired
• There had been a drip from the tap since November 2022;
• The water pressure was extremely low;
• There was a flood in the building because the stop cock failed to work;
• Water inlets, outlets and electricity services in the washing machine cupboard were potentially hazardous;
• Mould was growing in the bathroom due to the drip from the sink
8. Mr Y asked the Council to carry out a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) inspection. He said Mr X had been admitted to hospital earlier in the year and was still receiving treatment for a lung disorder which he believed was related to the disrepair.
9. A Private Sector Housing (PSH) officer and an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) visited the property on 6 December 2023. The Council’s records say the officers noted deficiencies but no serious hazards. The PSH officer agreed a list of deficiencies with Mr X and Mr Y and wrote to the landlord on 7 December 2023.
10. The officer set out the list of deficiencies and asked the landlord to provide a copy of the current gas safety certificate and electrical condition report. The officer explained that if the landlord completed/ arranged the necessary remedial works informally there would be no need to take matters further.
11. The landlord responded on 12 December 2023 to advise their solicitors were trying to arrange access to the property. They advised Mr X’s tenancy had ended in early November 2023 and they were awaiting a court date for a possession hearing.
12. The landlord contacted the Council again on 15 December 2023 and advised it was unlikely they would be allowed access to the property before Christmas. Their solicitor had written to Mr X on 12 December 2023 asking for confirmation contractors could access the property to inspect and carry out any required works on 16 December 2023. The landlord said Mr X had acknowledged receipt of the email but confirmed he had not opened it so could not comment on it. Mr X advised he was obtaining a Gas Safe report and then intended to make a Rent Repayment Order application.
13. On 27 December 2023 Mr Y sent the Council a copy of a Gas Safe report dated 21 December 2023. Mr Y said their concerns were not just that necessary repairs had been neglected for over 12 months. They was also concerned about their personal safety from the lack of a carbon dioxide monitor, the incorrect installation of the boiler and flue, and that the front door does not offer any fire protection. Mr Y asked the Council to serve formal notice on his landlords at the earliest opportunity.
14. The PSH officer contacted Mr X’s landlord for an update on 3 January 2024 and advised they must make reasonable attempts to gain access and address the issues. The landlord confirmed they had contacted Mr X that morning to request access for the heating engineer in the next two days. They also asked Mr X to confirm access the following week for other works to be completed.
15. The officer also contacted Mr Y to acknowledge the Gas Safe report and to ask them to allow the landlord’s contractors reasonable access to carry out the repairs. Mr X responded and advised the Council he had made a Rent Repayment Order application and intended to pursue a civil claim for harassment, a personal injury claim and a private criminal prosecution against his landlord.
16. Mr X said he had told his landlord that once a full, independent inspection of the house had been recorded he would leave and their respective legal action would take their course. Mr X said the landlord would have full access in due course.
17. The landlord requested access again on 4 January 2024. Mr X responded to the landlord’s solicitor requesting that the landlord not contact him directly or attend the property. The landlord’s solicitor then contacted the Council querying how the landlord could carry out the work required by the Gas Safe inspection or identified by the Council when Mr X refused to respond to access requests. They asked what powers the Council had to require access to the property or to permit the landlord to enter without Mr X’s consent.
18. On 9 January 2024 the landlord told Mr X they planned to carry out works on 10 and 11 January 2024 and that the contractors would require unfettered access. They asked Mr X to confirm he would permit access. As Mr X did not confirm he would allow access the contractors and electrical engineer were cancelled.
19. The PSH officer wrote to Mr X on 10 January 2024 to advise the Council would not take any further action in this case. The considered Mr X was not being reasonable and allowing access to the property for workpeople to attend to the deficiencies.
20. Mr X disputed his actions were unreasonable. He said the landlord was aware he had medical appointments in London. Mr X said he was now back in Brighton and asked for a date for works to commence. He then made a formal complaint about the Council’s decision not to take further action.
21. The Council responded on 24 January 2024 and noted the landlord/ their solicitor had contacted Mr X asking for access on 12 December 2023, 3 January 2024, 9 January 2024, and 12 January 2024. Mr X had either not responded or where he did respond had not given permission for access.
22. The Council concluded it did not need to take any further action as the landlord had arranged contractors and was willing to undertake the works when they were able to access the property. The Council advised Mr X to contact the landlord or their solicitors to advise them of dates when contractors can obtain access and carry out the works.
23. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for his complaint to be considered further. He said that when the landlord had made contact he was in hospital and unable to attend. Mr X was unhappy he had been blamed for not allowing access when he had made it clear he could not be available. He was also unhappy the Council had copied his landlord and their solicitor in on correspondence relating to access difficulties.
24. The Council’s records note Mr X had an outpatient appointment in London on 8 January 2024. Officers did not consider this would affect Mr X’s availability to provide access on 10 or 11 January 2024. They also noted that Mr Y also resided at the property and could have provided access if Mr X was unavailable.
25. In its response the Council said issues of access were between Mr X and his landlord. The landlord had agreed to carry out the work and had kept the Council up to date of attempts to access the property. The Council did not consider it was at fault in corresponding with the landlord’s solicitor as the solicitor was actively involved with arranging access.
26. The Council explained its role was to inspect and report to the landlord. It was not acting as Mr X’s agent to arrange access. The landlord had evidenced their attempts to access the property and the Council did not feel further enforcement action was necessary. It suggested Mr X contact the landlord with dates he could provide access to the property.
27. As Mr X remains unhappy he has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He would like the Council to take action against the landlord and to ensure the property does not pose a health and safety risk.
28. In response to my enquiries the Council has reiterated that it told Mr X to contact his landlord and their agents to arrange access for the works to be carried out. As the landlord and agents state the are willing to carry out the remedial work, subject to access being provided by Mr X, the Council will take no further action at present. It is essential that Mr X provide access so that work can be carried out.

Analysis

29. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the Council should take enforcement action in relation to issues of disrepair; that is the Council’s job. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made, and where we find fault, to determine whether a significant injustice was caused to the individual complainant. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
30. The Council has investigated Mr X’s concerns of disrepair at his home. PSH and EHO officers visited Mr X’s home and have advised his landlord on the works needed to address the problems. The documentation shows Mr X’s landlord agreed to the Council’s requests and instructed contractors to carry out the works. However, Mr X did not respond to requests or allow his landlord access to the property to complete the works. We would not in these circumstances expect the Council to pursue formal action.

It is unfortunate that the identified works could not be completed, but there is no evidence this was due to fault on the part of the Council. These works cannot be completed unless and until Mr X allows access to the property.

Back to top

Final decision

31. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated or responded to reports of disrepair at Mr X’s home.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman