Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce the Improvement notice it issued to his landlord in May 2024 and did not take appropriate action in response to his subsequent reports of disrepair. We find no fault in the Council’s actions or decision-making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate enforcement action after issuing an improvement notice to his landlord to address Category One and Category Two hazards at his rented property.
2. He also said the Council failed to respond properly to further reports of disrepair made since the notice was issued.
3. Mr X says this has caused him and his family physical, mental and social hardship, and has negatively impacted their mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Disrepair

8. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair.
9. Local authorities have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (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.
10. If a council considers a Category One 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 Two hazard is identified.

The Council’s enforcement policy

11. The Council’s enforcement policy, “Enforcing Standards in Private Sector Housing”, states that enforcement action will be proportionate to the level of risk and in line with statutory guidance and government advice. The Council will work with responsible landlords to resolve issues and improve standards, but will take formal enforcement action where landlords fail to meet their legal obligations.
12. If a landlord fails to comply with a formal notice requiring remedial works, the Council may carry out the works in default and recover its costs. This power can be used in addition to prosecution for non-compliance.
13. Where a Category One hazard presents an imminent risk of serious harm, the Council may take emergency action, including serving an Emergency Prohibition Order or carrying out emergency remedial works.

What happened

14. Below is a summary of key events based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.  
15. Mr X lives in a rented property owned by a private landlord. He previously reported disrepair to the Council. The Council decided to carry out the required works in default of the landlord.
16. In May 2024, following further reports from Mr X about the condition of the property, the Council carried out a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment. It identified one Category One hazard and seven Category Two hazards and served an Improvement Notice on the landlord. The Notice required works to begin within one month and be completed within three months.
17. In September, the Council carried out a compliance inspection and found no works had been completed. It then sought to engage with the landlord and considered its enforcement options.
18. In November 2024, Mr X contacted the Council again to report that the disrepair remained unresolved and to raise further concerns about the condition of the property. The Council informed him the matter remained under investigation. It also provided signposting advice in relation to one of the issues raised.
19. In December, after continuous attempts to engage the landlord, the Council reviewed the landlord’s failure to comply with the Improvement Notice. It considered whether to carry out the required works in default, taking into account the seriousness of the Category One hazard and other relevant factors. It decided not to carry out works in default at that stage and instead to pursue formal enforcement action for non-compliance.
20. In July 2025, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. He said it had disregarded his reports of disrepair since November 2024 and had been unduly lenient with the landlord. He also requested a further HHSRS assessment of the property.
21. In its response, the Council said that after the September compliance inspection it had followed its enforcement processes and taken formal action, although it could not share full details. It explained the case remained active and the additional reports Mr X had submitted were logged within that ongoing case. It advised him to contact the allocated case officer directly with any further concerns, rather than submitting multiple new service requests.
22. Mr X escalated his complaint. He said the Council’s position appeared to suggest that the existence of the Improvement Notice meant new issues would not be considered.
23. In its final complaint response in August 2025, the Council reiterated it was pursuing appropriate action against the landlord for failure to comply with the Improvement Notice. It explained the landlord had appealed the enforcement action to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the appeal was pending and could not share any more details. The Council clarified that it was not discouraging Mr X from reporting new concerns but was seeking to manage the case efficiently through a single ongoing investigation.
24. Shortly after, the Council carried out a further HHSRS assessment. It wrote to Mr X with the outcome, explaining that it would not take additional enforcement action in relation to the newer concerns raised since November 2024 because either no defect was identified, or the issues were minor and did not affect the previous hazard scoring.

My findings

Enforcement of the Improvement Notice

25. After the September 2024 compliance inspection identified that works had not been completed, the Council considered its enforcement options and made a formal decision in December 2024 to pursue enforcement action rather than carry out works in default.
26. I have seen no evidence of avoidable delay between the compliance inspection and that decision. The Council was entitled to take time to review the case, engage with the landlord, and consider the proportionality of the available enforcement options.
27. The Council’s records show a clear rationale for its decision not to carry out works in default at that stage and to pursue enforcement action. That was a decision it was entitled to make under its policy and the relevant legislation. I find no fault in its decision-making.
28. I also note the landlord appealed the enforcement action to the Tribunal. While that appeal is ongoing, there are legal and procedural limits on the action the Council may take and on the information it is able to disclose. This provides relevant context for the Council’s approach during this period.

Handling of subsequent reports of disrepair

29. Mr X continued to report that disrepair remained unresolved and raised additional concerns.
30. The evidence shows the Council logged the additional reports and incorporated them into the ongoing case. It explained to Mr X that the matter remained under active enforcement and later asked him to raise further concerns directly with the allocated officer to support efficiency. This was an administrative approach to case management and did not amount to a refusal to consider new issues.
31. Following Mr X’s request, the Council carried out a further HHSRS inspection. It considered the additional issues raised and concluded that either no hazards were present or the defects were minor and did not alter the previous hazard assessment. I find no fault in the Council’s handling of the subsequent reports.

Impact on Mr X

32. I recognise that living in a property affected by disrepair, particularly where enforcement action is ongoing and compliance has not been achieved, is likely to have caused Mr X and his family distress and frustration. However, the Ombudsman may only make a finding of injustice where it results from administrative or service failure. As I have found no fault in the Council’s actions or decision-making, I cannot conclude the distress Mr X describes was caused by maladministration by the Council. I therefore do not recommend any remedial action.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman