Summary: Mx X complains the Council failed to take appropriate action about housing repairs they reported and an officer acted inappropriately at an inspection visit. We found the Council’s decision about what action to take was one it was entitled to. We did not investigate the conduct of the meeting concerned, but we found some delay in following up repairs which could have prevented an earlier resolution to the key issues. We recommended an apology and a modest payment as a result.

The complaint

1. Mx X complains the Council failed in their duty of care to them when they reported disrepair issues at a property they privately rent.
2. They told us at a site visit in June 2023 a council officer appeared biased towards landlords. They also complain that the Council failed to take formal enforcement action against the landlord to require repairs.
3. They complain that because of the lack of action, repairs were not carried out and Mx X was not protected from eviction under the Retaliatory Eviction and Deregulation Act 2015.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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 considered Mx X’s complaint and the information they provided. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint.
7. Mx 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

Housing Act 2004

Section 1, Part 5

8. Section One of the Housing Act relates to the enforcement of housing standards. The Act introduced the Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). It requires local authorities to inspect properties and to decide whether Category One or Category Two hazards are present. The decision as to whether a defect is a Category One or Two hazard is made by scoring both the likelihood of harm from a defect and the extent of the probable harm it will cause.
9. Part 5 of the Act states that, where a council has decided that a Category One hazard exists in any residential premises, they must take the appropriate enforcement action regarding that hazard.
10. Section 5(2) sets out courses of action the Council may take. This includes serving an improvement notice (Section 11) or serving a hazard awareness notice (Section 28). In emergencies the Council may take other actions.
11. The Act says that where only one course of action is available to the Council to deal with the hazard, they must take that course of action. Where two or more courses of action are open to them, they must take the course of action they consider most appropriate.
12. Section 8 of the Act places a duty on local authorities to give a statement of reasons to explain how it decided to take the action it did. The Act places no obligation on local authorities to share their inspection reports.

Retaliatory Eviction and Deregulation Act 2015

13. Section 21 of the Housing Act allows landlords to repossess their properties from assured shorthold tenants without establishing fault on the part of the tenant. This is commonly known as a ‘no-fault eviction’.
14. Retaliatory eviction is where a tenant makes a legitimate complaint to their landlord about the condition of their property and, in response, instead of making the repair, their landlord serves them with an eviction notice.
15. For all tenancies that started on or after 1 October 2015, the rules in the Deregulation Act 2015 apply. Section 33 of the Act says, where a tenant makes a genuine complaint about the condition of their property that has not been addressed by their landlord, their complaint has been verified by a local authority inspection, and the local authority has served either an improvement notice or a notice of emergency remedial action, a landlord cannot evict that tenant for six months using the ‘no fault’ eviction procedure under Section 21 of the Housing Act.

What Happened

16. In late May 2023 Mx X made a complaint to the Council about their landlord’s failure to address long-standing disrepair issues. Ms X stated there were electrical issues; fuses and plugs often burned out and two storage heaters upstairs no longer worked. There was also mould and decayed wood in the bathroom.
17. A council officer (Officer A) visited Mx X in early June 2023 to inspect their property.
18. As at June 2023 Mx X’s landlord had already served a Section 21 eviction notice. On 11 June the landlord wrote to Mx X stating the notice would be placed on hold.
19. The landlord visited the property in mid-July and engaged a property agent. The agent subsequently contacted Mx X to arrange access for an electrician and an energy efficiency surveyor to visit on 21 July. This was needed for certificates required for a licensing application. There was a disagreement about the length and timing of the visit. When the electrician arrived, they left without entering the property due to a disagreement about removing their footwear.
20. At the end of July and in early August the Landlord tried to agree further dates for the electrician’s visit. This was agreed for 18 August.
21. On 2 August Officer A emailed the landlord and Mx X. He noted the agreed visit date. He stated the Council was not required to become involved in disrepair complaints where the landlord was being cooperative and was agreeing to carry out required repairs. If there were difficulties in access being provided, this would also be taken into account. He appealed to all parties to remain flexible to accommodate each other and to achieve the required repairs. He attached the schedule of repairs from the June visit so both parties would be informed about the works required.
22. The repairs schedule stated the Council could consider formal action under the Housing Act, but as the landlord seemed willing to carry out repairs, informal measures seemed more appropriate. The document went on to list a number of repairs. It proposed these were completed within four months. The list included three Category One hazards and eight Category Two hazards. The Category One hazards were related to fire safety and excess cold.
• Category One repairs required the installation of an automatic fire detection and alarm system, installing draught excluders to a letterbox, and repairing and installing storage heaters so as to provide an electric heating system for the whole property capable of maintaining an appropriate temperature.
• Category Two repairs included repairs to kitchen cabinetry, replacement of the cooker, repair of a window sash, laying suitable washable flooring and fixing a defective socket and ceiling rose.
23. The document stated the landlord should complete the works within four months of their contractor(s) gaining entry to the property.
24. It is unclear if the visit the landlord planned for licensing work on 18 August took place.
25. On 27 September the tenant reported finding dead mice. Officer A noted that as the tenants had cleared away the evidence of the infestation, they may be unable to require action by the landlord, but in any event, they asked the landlord to arrange a pest control visit.
26. In October the Council sent the landlord a notice for refusing to send pest controllers. The following day the landlord confirmed they had engaged a pest control contractor.
27. The landlord subsequently provided evidence that the contractor had attempted to make appointments to access the property without success. I understand Mr X explained to the Council why they had declined appointments.
28. The Council told us it had no record of making any contact with the landlord or Mx X between 17 November 2023 and 27 February 2024. The four‑month timescale Officer A provided to the landlord to carry out repairs ended during this period (in early December). The Council provided no evidence this was followed up.
29. On 27 February 2024 the Council allocated a new officer. They sought an update from the landlord at the end of March 2024 and resent Officer A’s schedule of required works. Following correspondence with Mx X, a visit took place in May 2024.
30. At the visit the new case officer found that some works had been completed. These resolved the Category One hazards found by Officer A. Some other disrepair was noted. However, as these were not Category One hazards, the Council will not take formal action.
31. In May the tenant also reported a lack of hot water to the Council. This was subsequently resolved by the landlord.
32. The Council told us it had no grounds to take formal action against the landlord in respect of pest control. Its own pest control service is not normally available to private landlord. However, it made the decision to arrange for its pest control team to arrange to visit Mx X’s property as an exception to its usual policy to help resolve the situation. This was ongoing at the time of our investigation.

Complaint about the conduct of the inspection visit

33. At the end of July Mx X made a complaint about Officer A, the time he arrived and things he had said at the visit on 1 June. Mx X considered Officer A was biased to the landlord.
34. On 14 August the Council responded to Mx X’s complaint about Officer A. The Council did not agree that Officer A was biased towards landlords.

Licensing

35. The Council identified that the landlord did not have the required licence for the property at the outset. Officer A followed up with the landlord. This prompted the landlord’s actions in late 2023. The Council stated the landlord applied for a licence in mid-August 2023. The lack of license did not prevent the Council taking enforcement action about housing repairs in the meantime.

What should have happened

36. Councils should carry out inspections where reports of disrepair are received. Where they find Category One hazards, they must take appropriate action. However, councils have discretion to determine whether they should serve an improvement notice or a hazard awareness notice. We would expect councils to explain their decision.
37. In Mx X’s case Officer A visited to inspect the property and decided an informal hazard awareness notice was appropriate. He explained his reasons for this in the notice. As the Council has discretion to determine what action to take, we have no grounds to question it. There was no fault with the initial action taken by the Council.
38. I note Mx X raised concerns that, had the Council served a formal improvement notice, this would have protected them from retaliatory eviction from their landlord within 6 months of this. Councils are not obliged to take formal action, and I understand no further Section 21 notice was served within six months of the in formal action taken by the Council. Mr X remains living at the property concerned, so I have not considered this further.
39. However, there was a period of delay in this case. Officer A had issued an informal notice to the landlord requiring action to be taken within four months. This was not followed up and there was a period between November 2023 and February 2024 when no action was taken. There was a lack of communication about who was overseeing the situation, as Officer A had left the Council. This was fault by the Council. It led to Mx X chasing to understand what was happening and was likely to have added to delays to key repairs.
40. The Council told us it does not consider any injustice was caused to Mx X and it stated officers has been subjected to animosity, obstructiveness and abusive behaviour from Mx X. It stated officers had continued to respond professionally in any event. While I note the Council’s view of Mx X’s behaviour, the Council has a policy on unacceptable customer behaviour which it could adhere to in the situation it describes. I found the delay and lack of communication set out in the paragraph above did cause injustice to Mx X.
41. I note, following interactions with officers, Mx X’s landlord had submitted a licence application, and by May 2024 the Category One hazards at Mx X’s property had been resolved. Councils are not obliged to take action to resolve any remaining repairs issues, as it found these were not Category One hazards.
42. We have recommended a remedy for the impact of the delay and the uncertainty that exists about whether the repairs to Category One hazards may have been resolved sooner, had the Council taken action to follow up the situation sooner.
43. We have not investigated what was said or made any findings regarding Officer A’s conduct at the 1 June inspection visit. While I note Mx X was unhappy with comments made by Officer A, he did go on to address the repairs issues he found. He followed up licensing and pest issues while at the Council. I do not consider any further consideration of the conduct at the 1 June visit is warranted as it is unlikely it caused any significant injustice to Mx X and the officer is no longer in post.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. Within four weeks of my final decision:
45. To recognise the delay and lack of appropriate follow up action between November 2023 and February 2024 I recommend the Council apologises to Mx X and pays them £100.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

47. There was fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman