Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to properly assess disrepair in his private rental accommodation. I have found fault because the Council delayed progressing and closing the case. The Council has agreed to service improvements and will apologise to Mr D.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council did not investigate his reports about disrepair (at his private rental property) in line with procedures. He says the Environmental Health Officer handling the case failed to update him or respond to contact.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as a property management company. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mr D refers to dissatisfaction with the actions of the property management company which manages his rental home. I have advised Mr D that we cannot consider the actions of that company as it is not acting as an agent of the Council.
6. I have considered what happened from October 2023, when Mr D reported the disrepair to the Council, through to March 2025 when the Council responded to his complaint and the case was referred to our Assessment Team. I have not looked at events after that date. If Mr D is dissatisfied with the Council’s actions, including the property inspection after March 2025 he would need to make a new complaint about those issues to the Council before he can bring them to the Ombudsman.
7. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

2023

10. On 6 October 2023 Mr D contacted the Council to report disrepair at his private rental home including an ongoing rook leak. The Council replied by 9 October that due to staffing shortages there might be a delay in handling the case. On 5 December the Council allocated the case to an Environmental Health Officer (Officer X). Officer X carried out Land Registry searches in December for details of the property owner. On 13 December Officer X noted they called Mr D. Mr D said he believed the leak would be fixed. Officer X offered to visit the property and Mr D said that was not necessary at that time. Mr D disputes this conversation took place. The case was then closed.

2024

11. On 23 February 2024 Mr D contacted the Council. Despite attempts to repair the roof the leak was still happening. The Council allocated the case to another Environmental Health Officer (Officer Z) who contacted Mr D on 6 March to arrange a property inspection. An inspection was booked for 14 March but then rearranged by Officer Z. On 19 March Officer Z inspected Mr D’s home and completed a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment. Officer Z found no Category 1 hazards and one Category 2 hazard (Grade G) for damp and mould related to a roof leak which had caused staining and mould in a cupboard housing a boiler. The next day Officer Z contacted the Agent who agreed to follow-up on repairs.
12. On 31 March Mr D left a voicemail for the Council stating he had not had an update from Officer Z. The Council says Officer Z tried to call Mr D but did not get a reply. I have no note to corroborate that action. On 31 May Mr D asked the Council for an update on his case. On 6 June Officer Z emailed Mr D that he wanted to carry out a “full inspection of the property to proceed with further enforcement action” as he had been unable to resolve the issue informally. Officer Z inspected the property on 14 June with the Agent also present. His HHSRS notes show only one Category 2 hazard (Grade G) was found, as before, for mould in the cupboard area. He found there were no other hazards to warrant enforcement action. The Agent would check if there were any outstanding repairs.

2025

13. I have no record of any further action on the case until 7 January 2025 when I understand Mr D left a voicemail for the Council requesting an update. He then submitted a complaint on 13 January that disrepair in the property had not been resolved, and his case had been poorly handled. The Council lodged the complaint and also raised a “new disrepair case”. The case was assigned to Officer Z. On 24 January the Council issued its first stage complaint response to Mr D. It accepted that Officer Z had failed to return calls or keep Mr D updated. It said “your case has not been progressed as it should have been”. The Council apologised and said it had spoken to Officer Z about good practice. Mr D requested the Council escalate his complaint on 28 January.
14. On 31 January Officer Z visited the property and carried out a third HHSRS assessment. The Agent was also present. Officer Z noted the same Category 2 hazard (Grade G) remained with no additional hazards. The Agent would take forward checks to monitor if the leak had recurred. There were “no actionable hazards". On 14 February Officer Z told Mr D the Agent would check to see if the leak in the cupboard was still active. He advised that no actionable hazards had been identified, and the Agent and Freeholder were responsive, so enforcement action was not required. The same day Mr D reiterated his request for an escalated complaint. He said there had been multiple inspections confirming there were Category 1 hazards, but the Council had failed to take enforcement action.
15. On 24 February the Council issued its second stage complaint response. A Senior Officer had reviewed the evidence on file and agreed that no Category 1 hazards had been found at the property. The Council said it had been “naive” for Officer Z to offer updates every two to three weeks and it apologised. It also said Officer Z’s naivety had led to “protracted” involvement. The Council was limited in what action it could take in the case, and it should have advised Mr D about this and “closed this case much sooner”. The Council said it would get a Principal Environmental Health Officer to visit the property and determine if there were any Category 1 hazards. It had also amended the operating procedures for Officers. An email would now be sent to all clients setting out what, if any, action the Council would take in their case. The Council had also spoken to Officer Z about better management of cases and client handling. In March the Council issued a further complaint response to Mr D mainly about the same issues already considered under the two stage complaints process. It reiterated its offer to carry out a further assessment of the property to check if there were any Category 1 hazards.

Events after my investigation

16. A Principal Environmental Health Officer inspected the property on 10 April. They did not find any additional hazards and no Category 1 hazards.

What should have happened

HHSRS process

17. Private 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 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. 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. They will take account of the severity of the Category 2 hazard and the co-operation of the property owner/ managing agent.

The Council’s procedures

18. When the Council receives a report about private housing disrepair and potential hazards the case is logged and subsequently allocated to an Environmental Health Officer (EH Officer) to consider. The EH Officer can inspect the property and use the HHSRS to determine if there are Category 1 or Category 2 hazards. Where a Category 2 hazard is identified, this is then graded from band D to J (J is the lowest level). The Council’s policy is that enforcement action for grade D and E hazards is discretionary. It will not take any enforcement action on hazards below grade E. For low scoring Category 2 hazards the Council can decide to assist with an informal resolution by working with the property owner/ landlord.

Was there fault by the Council

19. There is evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of the case which I set out below. However, there is no fault in the HHSRS inspections which took place. I understand that Mr D feels the HHSRS assessments were incorrect, but I have no evidence to show the actual assessments in 2024 and 2025 were in breach of procedures. 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 the Council followed to make its decisions. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decisions were right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr D disagrees with the decisions the Council made. In this case I am satisfied the correct process at the inspections was carried out.
20. The evidence shows me there were periods of significant delay in this case. From 20 March 2024 through to early June Officer Z failed to update Mr D about the case. Given this followed on from a HHSRS assessment it would have been good practice for Officer Z to write to Mr D with information about the hazards identified at the site visit and set out what limited role the Council had in regard to Grade G Category 2 hazards. Instead Officer Z told Mr D on 6 June that he needed to carry out another HHSRS assessment “to proceed with further enforcement action”. This email inferred that some enforcement action had been taken, which was not the case, and that enforcement action would be pursued despite only previously identifying a low level Category 2 hazard.
21. There was further delay from mid-June 2024 through to early January 2025. No action was taken on the case. It is unclear whether this was because of staff absence but in any event the Council should have realised the case had not been actioned for several months. If Officer Z was absent the case should have been reassigned. If the case was simply not progressed the Council should have had a system in place to flag up where an open case had not been moved on. This lack of action also meant Mr D did not receive any information about the status of the case.
22. It is unclear to me why a new case was opened in January 2025 given the previous 2024 investigation was never formally closed and a decision letter issued to Mr D. It is my view the Council could and should have considered closing the investigation after March 2024 when only a Grade G Category 2 hazard was identified. The Council says Officer Z wanted to seek out a resolution for Mr D however, after a second HHSRS assessment in June found the same level of hazard, I consider it reasonable that Officer Z should have closed the case and issued Mr D with a clear decision letter.
23. The Council was entitled to decide to close the 2023 case. However, it should have notified Mr D of the decision in December 2023. I have no evidence a written decision was issued to Mr D and I consider that to be fault by the Council.

Did the fault cause an injustice

24. Mr D did not receive a decision letter in 2023 and was left uncertain about what action the Council would take during 2024 and early 2025. He did not receive a clear explanation from Officer Z about the HHSRS outcomes and the limited role the Council had. This meant Mr D had raised expectations which were not effectively managed. Mr D also had to wait much longer than necessary to receive a decision on his case.

Back to top

Action

25. I note the Council in its complaints responses to Mr D has already accepted there were some inadequate communications with Officer Z and the investigation was unnecessarily protracted. The Council has amended its procedures to ensure all future complainants receive information about what action the Council will take where an HHSRS assessment is conducted. That is a positive step and a service improvement I would have requested.
26. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed with my recommendation and will issue Mr D with an apology letter for the failings identified in this case.
27. To remedy the service failures the Council will tell me how it will prevent cases not being progressed in a timely manner and provide guidance or training to staff about when to close a case.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice. I have completed the investigation because the Council agrees to the recommended actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman