Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council enforcing the conditions of an improvement notice by proposing to take remedial action and charge the building owner. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council informing her company that a property which it owns and is subject to an improvement notice will be subject to work carried out directly by the Council and charged to the company. She says the Council is acting unreasonably following problems with builders and access by the tenants which has led to delays in repairing the building.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says the Council has acted unreasonably towards her company by advising it is to take remedial action to completed outstanding repairs which were specified in an improvement notice served on the property. She says her company inherited the notice when they purchased the building. Delays by builders and the tenants in occupation have led to delays in their being able to complete the works within the notice timeframe.
6. The Council says that following the expiry of the notice in 2023 it gave the company a six-week extension to complete outstanding work. This was not complied with and in February 2024 it advised Miss X that it would take remedial action to complete the works itself and make a charge for them under Schedule 3 of the Housing Act 2024. It said that the company had been aware of the disrepair for 12 months and no further extension would be granted.
7. 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 the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. The Council followed the provisions in the Housing Act 2004 and Miss X’s company has been informed of what action the Council is taking at various stages of the process since they inherited the improvement notice terms. If the Council carries out work and the company disagrees with the extent of the works it may appeal to the First-Tier Property Tribunal. This includes the ground that reasonable progress was being made towards compliance with the improvement notice when the local housing authority gave notice of their intention to enter and take the action.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council enforcing the conditions of an improvement notice by proposing to take remedial action and charge the building owner. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman