Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of property disrepair at his mother’s (Mrs Y) private accommodation. We found the Council was at fault in delaying inspecting the accommodation and issuing the outcome of that inspection. It was also at fault in attempting to arrange a re-inspection later in 2024. It was not at fault in declining to commence formal legal action against the landlord. The Council’s faults caused Mrs Y injustice in the form of uncertainty for which we are recommending a remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of property disrepair at his mother’s (Mrs Y) private accommodation. He said Council officers provided false and misleading information and failed to enforce an improvement letter that was issued to his mother’s landlord for numerous category 1 and category 2 hazards.
2. Mr X said that due to Council failures, his disabled mother suffered an injury as a direct result of the disrepair issues. He wanted the Council to compensate his mother for the distress and inconvenience she suffered and take various actions against the landlord.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. 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

8. I discussed Mr X’s complaint with him, and I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr 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

Legislation and guidance

Private housing disrepair

10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. The Council’s enforcement policy echoes this government guidance.

What happened

17. Below is a summary of events and accounts provided by both parties that are either relevant to my investigation or are included to provide context. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. In the interests of clarity, some of the more detailed exchanges of correspondence are included (or repeated) in the analysis section of this statement.
18. Mr X submitted some complaints about Mrs Y’s living conditions in his own name. In other instances he authored the correspondence as though he were Mrs Y. For the sake of simplicity, I have referred to all correspondence as having been written by Mr X.
19. Mr X raised disrepair concerns with the Council’s property regulation team in December 2023.
20. The Council provided evidence that the landlord contacted Mrs Y four times in January 2024 to attempt to gain access to her property to undertake some repairs, but she would not allow access. The landlord stated that the tenant told him (after he served her with a Section 21 eviction notice) not to visit the property until she had left, and later told him not to contact her again.
21. A Council officer carried out an HHSRS inspection in April 2024. She identified three category 1 hazards and numerous category 2 hazards.
22. More than 3 months later, on 23 July, the Council officer sent the landlord a letter of “intention to serve an improvement notice”. That letter said:

“If you would like to make representation in person at the Council offices or if you would like to meet on site, please contact me within 7 working days of the date on this letter to propose a convenient time and date. If you wish to meet on site, please ensure that you have arranged access with the tenants. If you fail to contact me within 7 working days then the notice will still be served and a fee of £350 will be charged.”

23. The letter also included a suggestion that the landlord should join the Property Licensing Scheme (but I note he had done that the day after the inspection).
24. In response to receiving a copy of this letter, Mr X submitted a complaint to the Council on 24 July, asking why no action had been taken in the months since the inspection.
25. The Council responded at stage 1 of the complaints procedure on 29 July, saying that the landlord had been notified of hazards in the property which needed to be resolved, and “if they fail to take appropriate action the Council will consider taking enforcement action in accordance with our Enforcement Policy.”
26. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 14 August, saying that no action had been taken regarding the hazards identified, and no action had been taken regarding the landlord.
27. The Council’s stage 2 response of 3 October said that the landlord had told them that Mrs Y had not allowed access to contractors to carry out the required works on several occasions during June, July and August. The Council said:

“Since the landlord has taken reasonable action, namely engaging contractors, but this has been frustrated by issues with access, it was appropriate that this matter did not move to legal enforcement action and hence, no legal action has been taken to date. It is also of note that any enforcement hearing in relation the action you have identified in your complaint would insist on the landlord being given a reasonable opportunity to access the property to effect a repair as part of their decision making”

28. Also in October, the Council tried to arrange a new inspection to “determine the property’s current condition”. Mr X said this was unnecessary as nothing had changed since the previous inspection.
29. Mr X approached us in early November. Mrs Y moved into social housing in December 2024.

Analysis

The first property inspection, and action taken following it (December 2023-July 2024)

30. The Council investigates reports from tenants in private rented accommodation about disrepair. When a report is received, it should be allocated to an Officer to investigate. They will gather some initial information and contact the tenant to arrange an inspection as soon as possible. The Officer will inspect a property using the HHSRS method to determine whether there are hazards, the likely harm they pose and the severity of that harm. The Officer will complete a schedule of the deficiencies in the property. The schedule is sent to the landlord allowing them an opportunity to explain why the defects exist and how they plan to remedy them.
31. In this case, the sequence of events was carried out correctly but too slowly. Mr X complained of disrepair in December 2023, the Council Officer carried out the HHSRS inspection in late April 2024 and informed the landlord of the findings and the associated schedule of works required in late July, seven months after the initial complaint.
32. The Officer who carried out the inspection (which resulted in a detailed written record) cautioned Mrs Y that she would likely be delayed in progressing her case, due to a “backlog” of cases. This indicates that the delay was, on the balance of probabilities, a consequence of service failure rather than maladministration. However, as set out at paragraph 4, service failure is, nevertheless, fault. The Council was at further fault in that, while the stage 1 complaint response set out the events that had occurred, it neither explained the reasons for the delay nor apologised for it.
33. These faults caused Mrs Y injustice in that she lived with unresolved issues of disrepair – in some aspects, dangerous disrepair – for longer that she should have done. She also experienced the uncertainty of not knowing how long the delay would be, nor the reasons for it. I will recommend a remedy for this injustice. However, I also find that, on the balance of probabilities, Mrs Y contributed to her own injustice by refusing to allow the landlord access to undertake repairs, and the level of remedy I have recommended reflects this.

Council action following the issuing of the letter (July-September 2024)

34. As set out at paragraph 15, the Council has a duty to take enforcement action against a private landlord if it identifies a category 1 hazard, that is a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. If the landlord does not comply the Council can consider issuing formal enforcement notices including s.11 and s.12 Improvement Notices. They require works be carried out to an acceptable level within a set timeframe.
35. In this case, the Council identified three category 1 hazards and numerous category 2 hazards, and issued the landlord with an “intention to serve an improvement notice” letter in late July. That letter included that the landlord must contact them to discuss the matter within seven working days, including if he wished to meet at the property to view the hazards and agree the work required.
36. It is not clear to me whether the landlord did contact the Council within the timeframe specified, but I have seen evidence that, from early September at the latest, he made repeated attempts to arrange a meeting with the Council at Mrs Y’s property, to agree which of the scheduled works he was responsible for. He explained to the Council that no work had been carried out since the letter of 23 July had been issued because Mrs Y would not permit access to himself or to contractors.
37. I have also seen evidence that the landlord had made several attempts to contact Mrs Y, and that she had sometimes responded with very specific short timeslots during which she would be available, rather than the half- or full-day availability that is often required by tradespeople. The Council wrote to Mrs Y informally in late September to ask that she “provide suitable times and dates upon which works can be carried out”, or allow her landlord to access the property in her absence.
38. The Council’s stage 2 response of 3 October reiterated this position, and said that it had not moved to formal enforcement action because “the landlord has taken reasonable action, namely engaging contractors, but this has been frustrated by issues with access”.
39. In the circumstances described, I do not find the Council at fault for declining to commence formal legal action against the landlord during Summer 2024.

The proposed re-inspection (September-November 2024)

40. The landlord emailed Mrs Y several times in September, asking her to agree to “the joint inspection with Ealing Council to agree the works and remedial action”. Mr X responded, copying the Council into the email, that he was confused as to why there was a need to re-inspect.
41. The Council replied to both parties, saying “the council have already given your landlord a list of the required works therefore another inspection is not required at this point.”
42. On 17 October the Council wrote to Mrs Y to arrange a new inspection to “determine the property’s current condition”. Mr X said this was unnecessary as nothing had changed since the previous inspection. The visit did not take place and Mrs Y moved into social housing in December 2024 without any remedial work having taken place.
43. There was clearly some confusion about the purpose of the proposed visit, caused partly by the landlord using the word “inspection”. He was, in fact, referring to the “on site” visit suggested by the Council in its letter of 23 July, which was intended to allow him to make representation in person about the Council’s proposed schedule of works.
44. As the “on site” visit to Mrs Y’s property had not taken place, I find that the Council should have sought to assist the landlord in arranging that, and its failure to do so was fault. Instead, the Council added to the confusion by saying that another inspection was not required, and then, three weeks later, that it was. As all parties agreed that no remedial work had taken place since the April inspection, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that a further inspection was not required, and would have led only to further drift and delay. And so, I find that the attempt to arrange a further inspection was fault on the part of the Council that caused injustice in the form of uncertainty to Mrs Y, for which I will recommend a remedy in the form of an apology.

Back to top

Action

45. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
• Provide a written apology to Mrs Y for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies, and
• Make Mrs Y a payment of £150 in recognition of the injustice it caused her by delaying in inspecting her property and considering enforcement action against her landlord between December 2023 and July 2024. This is a symbolic payment recommended in line with our Guidance on Remedies, that is reduced to reflect the fact that Mrs Y contributed to her own injustice by refusing the landlord access to carry out repairs.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to the recommended actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman