Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take formal action against her landlord for harassment. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s lack of support when she reported harassment by her landlord. She said Council officers found excuses not to contact the landlord or take formal action against him. She said the Council’s failings had wasted her time and affected her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Period considered

7. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Ms X complained in April 2025 about events from November 2022. There is no evidence she could not have complained to us earlier and no good reasons for considering the period before April 2024, a year before the complaint to us.
8. We have not considered events after July 2025 when the Council issued its final complaint response. Ms X will need to make a fresh complaint to the Council if she has concerns about events since then because the law says we cannot investigate unless the Council has had a chance to respond to the complaints.

What happened

9. Ms X initially contacted the Council about problems with her landlord in November 2022. The matter was considered by Officer A and the case was closed in January 2023. Ms X contacted the Council again in April 2024 after her landlord had increased her rent, which she considered amounted to harassment. Officer A initially considered the matter but, following a complaint, Officer B took over in August 2024.
10. Officer B confirmed his role was to consider whether there were grounds for formal action under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Officer B advised her that because she had paid the increased rent, albeit under duress, the law treated this as her accepting the increase, even though the landlord had not served the correct notice. Officer B also gave general information about Rents Tribunal cases and suggested she contact the Citizen Advice Bureau or similar organisation for support in pursuing her case.
11. Ms X won her Tribunal case. However, apart from the rent increases, which had already been considered by the Tribunal, Officer B did not consider the grounds for formal action against the landlord for harassment were met. Officer B confirmed this advice in telephone calls and emails. They also discussed the case with their line manager, Officer C, who agreed with Officer B’s assessment.
12. In February 2025, after seeking legal advice, Ms X complained Officer B had not taken formal action against the landlord, such as issuing an improvement notice. Officer B explained they could not address concerns about disrepair or infestations. They made a referral for an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) to carry out an inspection, which was carried out in March 2025. In its final complaint response, in July 2025, the Council said the EHO had written to the landlord setting out the remedial action that was required, but the landlord’s agent had reported the actions could not be completed because Ms X had not allowed access. Ms X told us she had not refused access.

My assessment

13. It is not our role to say whether the decisions made by the Council were correct. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decisions reached.
14. In the period under consideration, Ms X’s complaint is primarily complaint is about the conduct and judgement of Officer B. She believes there was sufficient evidence of harassment by her landlord to justify formal action by the Council. The records show the Council has considered the information and evidence she provided but decided the threshold for formal action was not met. Council officers exercised their professional judgement when deciding this. Records show Officer B explained their reasons for reaching that conclusion. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation.
15. Ms X also complained about Officer B’s attitude towards her and said his conduct was unprofessional. From my review of a significant number of emails between Ms X and Officer B, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating this further.
16. I note the Council has already apologised for not responding to every email she sent and for a delay in responding to her complaint, which was appropriate. These faults did not cause sufficient injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman