Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint to Environmental Health about a mice infestation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a mice infestation in his social housing property. Mr X says his landlord caused the problem by ‘leaving a brick out’.
2. Mr X reports that he is a vulnerable person with breathing problems.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair. Local authorities have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (Housing Act 2004) to take enforcement action against landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. 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 enforcement action if a category 2 hazard is identified.
8. In the case, the Council has told us it referred the matter to Mr X’s landlord in the first instance. The Council says Mr X’s landlord told the Council it had been in contact with Mr X with a view to arranging a home visit by a Pest Control officer.
9. The Council advises that if Mr X is not satisfied with his landlord’s response, he needs to pursue this via his landlord’s complaints procedures and thereafter the Housing Ombudsman. The Council says it only gets involved if there is significant issue not resolved a social housing provider in which case it will review matters.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. The Council has acted appropriately by referring the matter to Mr X’s landlord as an initial response given landlords are generally responsible for maintaining a safe living environment. And as Mr X has referred to a ‘missing brick’ there may be an issue with the landlord’s repair obligations. Further investigation by us could achieve nothing more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman