Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with disrepair in Miss X’s private rented property. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. We could not achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating Miss X complaint about the Council not assisting her when her landlord evicted her. The Council provided a sufficient remedy for avoidable time and trouble caused to Miss X by the delay in responding to her complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council:

• Failed to take sufficient action against her landlord to ensure he dealt with disrepair in her property.
• Failed to provide assistance when her landlord illegally evicted her.
• Delayed in dealing with her complaint.

2. Miss X says that as a result she had to live in unsafe conditions for longer than necessary and she lost her tenancy.

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)

We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X contacted the Council about disrepair in her private rented property. The Council asked Miss X for her landlord’s details. Miss X then advised that her landlord had visited and undertaken some minor works.
7. Miss X then told the Council that part of the ceiling in her property had collapsed. The Council visited Miss X’s property and carried out a Housing, Health and Safety Rating inspection of her property. This was to check if there were hazards in her property. The Council decided the disrepair at the property was a category 2 hazard. The Council has said it considered the risk to Miss X to be moderate due to the position of the disrepair. The affected area of the ceiling had already collapsed so the Council considered it would not reoccur. It therefore decided the disrepair did not meet the threshold for a category one hazard. So, the Council did not have a duty to serve an improvement notice on Miss X’s landlord.
8. The Council decided not to exercise its discretion to serve an improvement notice. It has said it did not consider such action was proportionate as Miss X’s landlord was in the process of addressing the disrepair.
9. It is not our role to decide if the disrepair in Miss X’s property amounted to a category one hazard and whether the Council should have taken enforcement action. Our role is to consider if there is any fault in how the Council reached its decision.
10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council failing to act against her landlord for the disrepair. The Council carried out a site visit to assess the hazards in the property. It could therefore assess whether the disrepair met the threshold of a category one hazard. The Council provided a reasoned explanation for why the disrepair was not a category one hazard. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to justify an investigation.
11. The Council explained it was not proportionate to take enforcement action against Miss X’s landlord as he was addressing the disrepair. This decision is in accordance with its enforcement policy which provides the Council can resolve issues through informal action. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into how the Council decided not to take enforcement action.
12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council did not assist her when her landlord evicted her. We cannot know, even on balance, what the outcome would have been for Miss X if the Council had provided assistance. So, an investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome for her.
13. In response to Miss X’s complaint the Council acknowledged fault in how it handled her complaint. It delayed in responding to Miss X’s councillor’s enquiry on her behalf, delayed in escalating her complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure and delayed in responding to her stage two complaint. The Council apologised for the substantial delay and offered a payment of £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused.
14. We will not investigate how the Council considered Miss X’s complaint. The Council’s apology and offer of £100 is a sufficient and proportionate remedy for the avoidable time and trouble caused to her. The remedy is also in line with our guidance on remedies. An investigation would not achieve any more for Miss X.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. We cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating Miss X’s complaint about the Council not assisting her when her landlord evicted her. The Council provided a sufficient remedy for the avoidable time and trouble caused by the delay in responding to Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman