Summary: We will not investigate Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of their reports of disrepair in their rented property. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X & Ms Y complained about a delay in the Council inspecting Ms Y’s property after they reported high humidity, damp and mould. They said a pipe had burst causing significant damage and the resulting high humidity after their children’s health. They said the Council should have told their landlord the property was uninhabitable and asked the landlord to rehouse them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as registered social landlords. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, Ms Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. On 6 February 2025, Mr X and Ms Y reported a leak in Ms Y’s property, which she rents from a registered social landlord. They said the leak had caused concerns about the bathroom floor/kitchen ceiling and affected the electrics in the property. The landlord arrange alternative accommodation for one night whilst some work was carried out, including installing dehumidifiers, but Mr X reported that humidity levels remained high. He also said the property was affected by damp and mould, which was affecting the children’s health.
7. Mr X asked the Council to carry out an inspection under the Housing Health and safety Rating System (HHSRS) as he said the property was uninhabitable due to category 1 hazards. The Council initially advised Mr X and Ms Y to raise their concerns with the landlord and said they could make a complaint (and escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service) if they were unhappy with the action the landlord was taking. It also contacted the landlord, who said works had been completed and the property was safe.
8. In response to a number of contacts from Mr X about the safety of the property, the Council agreed to carry out an inspection and two officers visited the property on 11 February 2025. There is a dispute about what the officers said during the visit. Mr X said the officers had promised to increase Ms Y’s priority on the Council’s housing register to band 1 due to severe overcrowding and poor housing conditions, and to ask the landlord to arrange alternative accommodation for the family if the landlord did not produce, by the end of the day, a surveyor’s report confirming the property was safe. Council records state the officers agreed to ask the landlord to produce its report of a survey carried out to confirm the property was safe and to review Ms Y’s priority on the housing register. The Council told us it had not identified any category 1 hazards so did not carry out a full HHSRS inspection.
9. The same day, the Council asked the landlord to produce a surveyor’s report, but the landlord say there was no written report, only a visual inspection. The Council suggested the landlord arranged a check to confirm the electrics were safe to use and that the bathroom floor was stable. It also asked the landlord to arrange a gas safety check, which was outstanding.
10. The following day, the Council reviewed Ms Y’s housing register application and wrote to Ms Y with its decision. It said that, under the allocation scheme, two of Ms Y’s children were required to share until age 16 as they were the same sex. Therefore, band 3 was appropriate because the household needed three bedrooms and was short of one bedroom. It advised Ms Y to add the baby to the housing register application to sure the household details were correct. The Council said it would contact the landlord to see if the family were eligible for an internal management move.
11. The Council advised Ms Y the landlord was arranging for a senior surveyor to inspect the property and to arrange a gas safety check. When the Council asked the landlord for an update, the landlord said the visit was refused.

My assessment

12. The Council has powers under the Housing Act 2004 to take enforcement action where it identifies category 1 hazards using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). In this case, the Council carried out a visit within one week of the report of a leak by Mr X and Ms Y. It did not identify any category 1 hazards, but it did identify some actions points to raise with the landlord and subsequently did so. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the way it considered its obligations under the Housing Act to justify further investigation.
13. Whilst it would have been good practice to carry out a full HHSRS inspection, having said it would do so, there is no requirement for the Council to take enforcement action unless it identified any category 1 hazards, which it did not identify on this occasion. Therefore, any failure to provide an HHSRS inspection report has not caused Mr X or Ms Y a sufficiently significant injustice to justify further investigation.
14. There is a dispute about what action the Council agreed to take at the visit on 11 February, which I cannot resolve. However, the Council’s records show it carried out the action its visit record and email to Mr X and Ms Y said it would do.
15. The Council gave appropriate advice about reporting disrepair to the landlord, making a complaint and escalating to the Housing Ombudsman Service. We cannot investigate complaints about the actions (or inaction) of registered social landlords as this is not within our remit.
16. The Council also agreed to carry out a review of Ms Y’s priority on its housing register. It carried out an informal review the next day and sent an email with its decision. Since Ms Y had not provided any additional evidence for the Council to consider, I do not consider the failure to provide a formal decision letter amounts to fault and, in any case, this did not cause Ms Y a significant injustice because the email clearly set out the reasons for deciding the priority band was correct.
17. I would expect the Council to review the application when Ms Y has made a change of circumstances request and provided relevant evidence to add her new baby to the application.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman