Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with reports of private property disrepair. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council’s handling of her reports of disrepair in her privately rented accommodation. More specifically, Miss Y complains the Council:
1. failed to carry out a formal hazard assessment when inspecting the property;
2. refused to take enforcement action, despite the landlord failing to have valid gas and electrical certificates; and,
3. ignored her complaints about a Council officer’s handling of her case.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Within a week of Miss Y’s report of disrepair in her privately rented accommodation, the Council completed an inspection of her property. The Council Officers:

• noted Miss Y’s Landlord already had contractors onsite carrying out the necessary major repair works and had arranged alternative accommodation for Miss Y and her family;
• advised Miss Y’s Landlord on certain aspects of the works and asked it for copies of the latest Gas Safety Certificate (GSC) and Electrical Safety Certificate (ESC); and,
• decided there were no health and safety hazards at the property.

6. Miss Y complains about the Council’s inspection of her property and its failure to take enforcement action against her Landlord. It promptly inspected her property and took action it considered necessary. Within a week of the first inspection, a Council Officer returned to Miss Y’s property to check on the works and decided the Landlord had completed the necessary repair works. The Council confirmed to Miss Y that the Landlord had separately provided the Council with a valid GSC and ESC meaning it could not take any other action as the Landlord had met the relevant legal duties. The Council explained Miss Y had not previously reported issues with these certificates so could not consider their status prior to her recent report. For these reasons, we will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to take enforcement action against her Landlord.
7. To the extent Miss Y complains the Council should reimburse her for costs incurred while in alternative accommodations and hold her Landlord accountable for negligence causing injury to her children, we cannot achieve these outcomes. Given there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating Miss Y’s complaint, we would have no basis to recommend a financial remedy. In any case, Miss Y’s claims her Landlord has been negligent. Only a court can decide if her Landlord has been negligent and so should pay damages. We have no power to look at this matter.
8. It is not proportionate to look at the Council’s handling of Miss Y’s case and complaint when we will not consider the substantive matters.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with reports of private property disrepair. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman