Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y’s complaint about it failing to take prompt action against the owner of the building his rented flat was in which suffered serious damp and mould from leaks. It failed to carry out an assessment under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, and issue an Improvement Notice, sooner than it could have done. There was other delay. It failed to keep him properly informed about its enforcement investigation. The Council agreed to send a written apology, pay £250 for the injustice caused, remind relevant officers dealing with this type of case to keep reviewing whether a Housing Health and Safety Rating assessment is needed and to keep tenants updated at key stages. It will review the need for issuing officers with guidance and remind officers of the need to take formal action when the assessment identifies a category 1 hazard. It also agreed to identify why delays happened and review when officers should advise tenants of options when such a hazard is found.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains that despite his reports about disrepair in his privately rented accommodation, the Council failed to:
1. take prompt action against the owner after a property inspection in December 2023 and after issuing an improvement notice in August 2024;
2. provide him with regular updates; and
3. respond to his emails.
2. As a result, these failures caused him a great deal of stress and anxiety as he continued to live in unsafe and unsanitary conditions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. The law says we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. What this means is usually, we would only look at Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s actions from March 2024. This was because we received his complaint in March 2025.
8. As he made his report to the Council about the disrepairs in November 2023, I took account of the fact he needed to allow the Council a reasonable amount of time to investigate the report and decide whether to act against the owner. For this reason, I exercised discretion to investigate the complaint from November 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr Y, the notes I made of our telephone call, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s Housing Standards Enforcement Policy (April 2021)

10. Priority will be given to addressing poor housing conditions that threaten the safety and wellbeing of occupiers. Resources will be targeted particularly at situations where occupiers have little influence over the condition of the accommodation they occupy.
11. The policy aims to ensure housing enforcement decisions are consistent, balanced, fair, transparent, proportionate, and relate to common standards.
12. The range of enforcement action includes: no action, informal action and advice; charges for enforcement; works in default; prosecution or financial penalty.
13. Most Notices allow carrying out work in default as this ensures work is completed if the recipient of the Notice does not carry out the works required. An invoice would be sent to the appropriate person requesting payment.
14. If there is enough evidence for a prosecution or financial penalty, it will decide which course of action to take. All enforcement activity will be monitored regularly.
15. It will use its discretionary enforcement powers depending on the circumstances of each case which will take account of the views of occupiers, proportionality, and the nature of the hazard. The Council must take some action where there is a category 1 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
16. Notices available to under the Housing Act 2004 include: Power to require documents to be produced, which would help it decide what action to take (section 235): Power of Entry, which allows officers to enter to inspect (section 239); Improvement Notice, which can be used for category 1 or 2 hazards and is placed as a charge on the property and set out the repairs needed, for example (section 11 and 12); Emergency Remedial Action is used where immediate action is needed to remove an unacceptable and imminent risk to occupiers which allows the Council to do the works itself and recover all expenses. There must be a category 1 hazard and an imminent risk (sections 40 and 41).

Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)

17. The Housing Act 2004 sets out a council’s duties and powers to address hazards in houses rented out by private landlords in its area.
18. Where a council, for any reason, considers it would be appropriate to inspect a property to decide whether a hazard exists, it must arrange an inspection. If the council identifies a hazard which puts a tenant’s health and safety at risk, it must categorise the hazard.
19. The HHSRS was developed to allow assessment of potential housing hazards. It allows the assessor to generate a numerical score and compare a full range of hazards to determine minor and major hazards. When carrying out an assessment, two factors should be considered. These are: the likelihood of occurrence and the potential outcomes. The assessment should also consider whether the tenants’ actions have contributed to the hazard.
20. Potential hazards could include: Hygrothermal (damp, excessive cold, and excessive heat); Accidents (Fire and electrical, falls, explosions, structure etc).
21. The HHSRS sets out relevant matters to help determine the likelihood of a hazard occurring for all potential hazards.
22. If a council considers there is a category 1 hazard, it must take appropriate enforcement action which includes:
• Serving an Improvement Notice.
• Making a Prohibition Order.
• Serving a Hazard Awareness Notice.
• Making an Emergency Prohibition Order.
• Making a Demolition Order.
• Declaring the area a Clearance Area.
• Taking emergency remedial action.
23. If a council considers there is a category 2 hazard, it can, but does not have to, take enforcement action which could, for example, include:
• Serving an Improvement Notice.
• Serving a Hazard Awareness Notice.

What happened

24. Mr Y moved into his privately rented flat more than 5 years ago. He was a tenant as he rented it from the owner (landlord), who was a leaseholder. A leaseholder owns the flat on a lease for a fixed period of time (over 100 years, for example) but does not own the shared parts of the building (staircases, for example) or the structure of the building itself. A leaseholder usually has to contribute to the costs of maintaining and insuring the building. The freeholder usually owns the structure of the building.
25. Problems started about three years ago. By October 2023, Mr Y started to get mould and damp in the flat so moved belongings out of the main bedroom where there was a leak. He reported the problems. The agent for the landlord said it was the freeholder’s responsibility. According to Mr Y, when notified, the freeholder took no action.
26. In December, the Council visited after he reported the problems to its Housing Standards team. This team regulates the private rented sector to ensure accommodation provided has no hazards under the HHSRS.
27. The officer found damp in several rooms with readings as high as 90%. The same day, contractors attended to apply a liquid membrane to part of the roof area. The officer wrote to the landlord, the freeholder, and the management agent (the agent) for the freeholder. Later that month, the landlord told the Council he was aware of the issues which had also been brought the attention of the freeholder through its the agent. The landlord said there was a ‘reluctance or inability to get it resolved’ and he felt very sorry for the tenants and would charge no rent until this was resolved.
28. In January 2024, Mr Y asked the Council for an update and said the temporary repair to the roof failed within days. He explained he was told by the agent that section 20 consultation notices under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were needed because of the significant cost of repairing the roof. This was because the law says leaseholders paying variable service charges must be consulted before a landlord carries out qualifying works. Qualifying works include works on a building such as repair, maintenance, or improvements costing each leaseholder more than £250. There is a process to be followed.
29. The same month, the Council served a section 235 Notice on the agent requiring copies of reports or quotes for the roof. Arrangements were made to access flats and inspect the roof.
30. The Council received a copy of an inspection report which said the damp was caused by water penetrating the junction of a concrete slab on the roof. The roof needed re-layering and would need section 20 consultation. Quotes for the works were needed.
31. In February, Mr Y chased the Council as he had heard nothing. Later that month, the Council did a HHSRS assessment and found a category 1 hazard (damp and mould growth) and category 2 (electrical and fire). On the issue of damp and mould, it said the leak was ‘likely to cause respiratory issues to the occupants’. On the electrical issues, it said damp to the front bedroom wall, where there was an electrical socket, ‘increases the likelihood of electrical shocks’.
32. In March, the agent told the Council there was a problem accessing two properties by its surveyor which was delaying the process.
33. In April, the Council sent the agent a copy of a Schedule of Works needed with a request for comments by the end of the month. It wanted the works to start in May and completed in June. The letter said the Council was considering taking enforcement action.
34. Towards the end of the month, the agent responded. It said it was taking steps to replace the roof and had appointed a surveyor who would provide a Schedule of Works. Sampling of the roof was done and the agent set out what other works identified in the HHSRS had been carried out.
35. In June, the agent chased the Council as it had not heard anything further since its April letter.
36. In July, Mr Y chased the Council twice as he had not heard anything since April when he was sent a draft Schedule. He confirmed no works were completed by the end of June as required.
37. In August, the Council served an Improvement Notice as there were category 1 hazards. This was sent to the agent and stated works previously listed had not been done. Mr Y was told the problem was with the roof, which was the freeholder’s responsibility. The Council wanted the section 20 consultation to start as the works exceeded £200,000. The Improvement Notice required the works to start by 16 September and be completed by 14 October.
38. The Council sent Mr Y a copy of the Improvement Notice issued who wanted a further inspection of his property because of worsening conditions.
39. The agent wrote to occupiers in Mr Y’s block about the cost of the works.
40. Mr Y again chased the Council as no works had been done. The Council said it would need to re-visit his home and said some issues were resolved.
41. The Council sent Mr Y its stage 1 response in October. The Council explained it was a complicated matter which it was trying to respond to. It was policy to work with owners to remedy disrepair and only escalate intervention after a reasonable time had passed. This was because it needed to show it acted proportionately. It accepted it needed to improve communication with complainants.
42. It also sent another section 35 Notice to the agent requiring a copy of the head lease agreement and gave a deadline for this to happen.
43. An officer visited Mr Y again after the October date in the Improvement Notice had expired.
44. The Council chased the agent in November for evidence and information needed including works to the roof. It also gave Mr Y an update.
45. The agent replied in December stating it had no record of receiving the Improvement Notice. It was looking to recover funds for the works from leaseholders. It asked whether the Council would wait until the end of May 2025. Mr Y chased the Council about progress.
46. In January 2025, Mr Y complained to the Council again, wanting to go to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. He had no response to his email sent the previous month. He also emailed the agent directly about the roof and failure to provide dehumidifiers.
47. The Council acknowledged his complaint and revised the deadline to March for sending its stage 2 response.
48. The Council revoked the Improvement Notice in March. This was because some of the work required was not the responsibility of the person on whom it was served. In addition, other works were done. The Council issued a second Improvement Notice, a copy of which I have not seen.
49. In March, the Council also sent its stage 2 response to Mr Y. It explained the freeholder had not done the works as it wanted to replace the whole roof and asked for further time to do this as there was a legal process to follow. The Council also considered the patch repair the freeholder had attempted which had not worked. Some of the other works listed on the Improvement Notice were done. It also told him he could claim compensation from the landlord under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. The landlord could also take action against the freeholder if he preferred.
50. Later the same month, it sent Mr Y’s councillor an update. It explained the freeholder had carried out a number of items set out on the Improvement Notice and was willing to complete the roof replacement in May. The Council continued to monitor the situation. It explained the costs were about £200,000. It also explained action the freeholder had taken and having to give it the required legal time to deal with it, otherwise it could be at risk of costs on any appeal. An appeal would only suspend the Improvement Notice until it was heard. The tenants had the option of taking their own action, finding alternative accommodation, or applying to go on the Council’s housing register. It warned about the financial, and resource impact, of an appeal which would be huge on a small team of three full time enforcement officers.
51. The agent told the Council none of the leaseholders, who had appointed solicitors, had paid the money for the works needed as they disputed the charge. This meant it was no closer to starting the works.
52. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained it had since employed an officer to deal with this block of flats and cladding defects with funding from the government. Another officer was employed to deal with service requests, for example, another came back from sick leave, and another from maternity leave.
53. Mr Y left the flat in June.

My findings

54. I found the following on this complaint:
1. The Council was not responsible for the disrepair to the flat. It was the responsibility of the freeholder to make repairs, carry out maintenance to remove hazards, and improve Mr Y’s living standards.
2. The Council visited Mr Y’s property in December 2023 following receipt of the photographs he sent showing the condition of the flat. The photographs show extensive damp and mould on the ceilings and walls of his rooms. They appear to show water on the floor from the leak. There was no fault with the Council’s initial response to his report as it promptly went to view his flat.
3. The Council wrote to the agent before visiting asking what works had been done and what remained to be done. It told Mr Y an officer would visit if it received no response, which is what happened. I found no fault on the Council’s informal approach at this stage as it needed to put the problem to the freeholder through the agent and find out what, if anything, had been done.
4. The landlord had also contacted the Council who confirmed the leak had been ongoing and the freeholder had been frustrating to deal with. The landlord had brought the problem to the agent’s attention many times but there was a reluctance or inability to get it resolved. The Council was, therefore, aware that this problem had existed for some time without any efforts by the freeholder or the agent to resolve it.
5. While no HHSRS was done following the officer’s visit, in all the circumstances, I am not satisfied this failure was fault. This was because on the day of the visit, contractors were present attempting to make a repair to the roof. It was appropriate for the Council to await the outcome of this repair as this may have resolved the situation without the need to take any further action.
6. In January 2024, Mr Y told the Council the repair had failed. Water was flooding his flat because of recent poor weather. In response the Council asked the agent for reports and quotes for the roof. Again, there was no fault in the Council continuing with informal action at this point and seeking this information. The evidence shows there was movement by the agent to arrange for the roof to be inspected.
7. As water was leaking into his flat, the Council should have considered whether it now needed to carry out the HHSRS assessment. This was because it knew the repair had failed. It was also aware of the extent of the damp and mould not only from Mr Y’s photographs sent the previous month, but also from the observations of the officer who had visited and witnessed the extent of the problem. There was enough evidence available to the Council at this point to strongly suggest the presence of a category 1 hazard through damp and mould. The failure to consider whether it ought to have carried out the assessment sooner than it did was fault.
8. I am satisfied this caused Mr Y an injustice. He lost the opportunity to have the assessment done a month sooner.
9. In February, Mr Y chased the Council again. I am satisfied there was a failure to keep Mr Y updated. This was because he heard nothing from the Council following the officer’s visit in mid-December despite sending emails, updating it about the failure of the repair, and the further leak into his flat.
10. I am satisfied the failures to respond to correspondence and keep Mr Y updated caused him an injustice. He experienced frustration and uncertainty as he was not aware of what was happening.
11. The same month, the Council visited and identified category 1 and 2 hazards in the flat. The law says the Council must take enforcement action on finding a category 1 hazard. It had to take one of the actions set out in paragraph 22. It failed to do so. The failure to do so at this point was fault.
12. I am satisfied this failure caused Mr Y an injustice. He had the frustration that formal enforcement action was not taken sooner. On balance, I am not satisfied the eventual outcome of this case would have been significantly different had the fault not happened.
13. Instead, in April, the Council sent the agent a letter warning it was considering taking enforcement action and sent a Schedule of Works it required doing by the end of June. As well as falling short of the enforcement action it should have taken, the Council took too long to send the Schedule following identifying a category 1 hazard.
14. I am satisfied this delay caused Mr Y some distress in the form of frustration and lost opportunity.
15. In April, the agent confirmed it was taking steps to replace the roof and had appointed a surveyor. It also confirmed what works had been done in response to the other hazards identified by the Council. The Council had, therefore, received information from the agent that steps were being taken to remove the category 1 hazard.
16. In July, Mr Y chased the Council twice about what was happening as no work was done by the June deadline. I consider there was a failure to keep Mr Y updated, particularly after the June deadline passed, and respond to his emails.
17. I am satisfied the failure caused loss of confidence in the Council and added to his growing sense of frustration with its dealings.
18. The Council served an Improvement Notice in August which, as already noted, it should have considered issuing in February, six months earlier. A copy of it was sent to Mr Y which served as an update.
19. The Improvement Notice gave the freeholder until the end of October to do the work. There was no fault with the actions the Council decided to take after the expiry of the deadline. An officer again visited Mr Y and contacted the agent the following month as the work was not done.
20. In December, the agent said it had no record of receiving the Improvement Notice. In addition, it explained there was a problem getting the funds for the work because the leaseholders had not paid as they disputed the sum and had seen solicitors instead.
21. Failure to comply with an Improvement Notice, without a reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence. The Upper Tribunal held where an Improvement Notice was not served at a landlord’s current addressed, the landlord had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with it. This meant no offence was committed. I found no fault with the Council’s decision not to pursue the failure to comply in these circumstances.
22. The agent asked the Council for more time to do the work because of the problems it faced with the leaseholders and funding. It asked to be given until May 2025 to do it. In March, the Council revoked the Improvement Notice issued and decided to issue a revised Improvement Notice which took into account the works already done. I have not seen the new deadline given to do the work.
23. At this point in time, on balance, I found no fault. This was because the evidence showed the freeholder had attempted to make some repairs and carried out some of the other work needed. In addition, there was clear evidence the freeholder intended to do the work but faced procedural and legal difficulties as the leaseholders were disputing the payment. A surveyor had been instructed and contractors considered to do the work. The Council had given the freeholder time to resolve the problem.
24. In its response to Mr Y’s councillor, the Council explained the various options Mr Y had which included applying to join its housing register, looking for an alternative property, or taking his own action. There was no evidence showing the Council gave Mr Y this information sooner. I consider this failure was fault.
25. I consider this failure caused Mr Y an injustice as he lost the opportunity to consider this much sooner than he did.

Back to top

Action

55. I considered our guidance on remedies.
56. The Council agreed to take the following action within eight weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mr Y a written apology for the injustice caused by the failure to: consider whether it ought to have considered a HHSRS assessment sooner; keep him updated with progress on his case; take enforcement action when it identified a category 1 hazard; ensure delays were avoided; give him information about available options sooner than it did.
2. Pay £250 to Mr Y for the injustice caused by the fault found.
3. Remind relevant officers dealing with private tenant disrepair cases to keep under review whether a HHSRS assessment was needed throughout a case.
4. Remind relevant officers dealing with private tenant disrepair cases of the need to keep tenants updated about key stages and progress on their case.
5. Review whether it needs to produce guidance to relevant officers about when to provide private tenants who have reported disrepair, with updates at identifiable key stages of a case.
6. Remind the relevant officers of the statutory duty to take formal enforcement action when a category 1 hazard has been identified.
7. Identify why delays happened and take steps to ensure the cause cannot be repeated in future.
8. Review when information should be given to a private tenant about available options when category 1 hazards have been identified in a property.
57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

58. I found the following on Mr Y’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): fault causing injustice;
• Complaint b): fault causing injustice; and
• Complaint c): fault causing injustice.

59. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman