Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of reports of disrepair in her private rented sector flat. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained she had made multiple reports about disrepair in her private rented sector flat to the Council, but it failed to respond. When the Council eventually allocated an officer, they went on leave for 10 days, leaving Ms X without support. She also complained Council officers would not discuss the case with her by telephone. She says that, due to Council failings, she was left without electricity and the shower was not working properly.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I have considered the period from April to November 2025.

What happened

6. Ms X said she first contacted the Council on 2 April 2025, but it did not respond. In a formal complaint on 21 April, she said that, although an officer had been allocated, they had not spoken to her by telephone, as requested.
7. The Council said it had contacted Ms X and her landlord. It had advised Ms X she needed to allow access to the landlord’s contractors to carry out repairs and had advised the landlord they needed to give reasonable notice of visits. It had asked Ms X to provide evidence the landlord had been harassing her and the police were involved for it to consider. It communicated with Ms X’s advocate, and a councillor was also involved to assist Ms X. It warned her the case would be closed if she did not allow the Council access to carry out an inspection.
8. In June 2025, the Council closed its case because Ms X had not allowed access for contractors to carry out repairs and had not allowed the Council to inspect the property. It issued a Hazard Awareness Notice to the landlord, highlighting the matters Ms X had reported that may amount to category 2 hazards.
9. In its stage 2 response in August 2025, the Council explained that, due to different interpretations of the content of telephone calls, and the length of those calls, it had decided to communicate with Ms X in writing to avoid confusion. It said it was satisfied Ms X was able to manage written communications. It said the property was a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and was due a compliance visit, which it would prioritise.
10. The Council carried out an HMO inspection in early September. It identified minor repairs needed in the kitchen and a repair needed to Ms X’s shower. It told Ms X it could let the landlord know about the repairs needed straightaway or it would carry out a full inspection of the entire property before doing so. Ms X opted for a full inspection, which was carried out on 2 October. This identified that changes being made to the property may mean it no longer needed an HMO licence.
11. In November, the Council sent a full list of the works needed to the landlord. But later that month, the landlord reported Ms X had not allowed access to carry out repairs. Ms X said she did not allow access because the landlord had not given adequate notice and had not provided the information she wanted about contractors in advance of visits.

My assessment

12. There was an initial delay in the Council contacting Ms X after she reported disrepair in April. However, when it did contact her, she did not allow an inspection, nor did she allow access to contractors to carry out works. Therefore, the initial delay did not cause a sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
13. Once an officer was allocated, they took the action we would expect. The Council identified category 2 hazards only. This means it had a power but not a duty to take enforcement action. It continued to try to work with Ms X and the landlord through to November 2025. It is the landlord’s responsibility to carry out repairs, but they cannot do so without access. The landlord has said they will work with an advocate since Ms X will not communicate with them by telephone or email.
14. The Council tried to support Ms X to get repairs done and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
15. The Council did have some telephone calls with Ms X initially but later said it would communicate in writing only. It considered whether she could manage communications in writing when making that decision and explained its reasons for restricting communication. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating this part of the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman