Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing disrepair reports. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and it is unlikely we could achieve more than the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s initial assessment of hazards in his rented home. He says this delayed enforcement action, which prolonged his time living with disrepair and worsened his health. He also complains about poor complaints handling. Mr X wants the Council to explain its decision-making, apologise, and provide a financial remedy for the harm caused.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Private tenants may complain to their council if their landlord fails to keep the property in good repair. If it considers it appropriate, the Council should carry out an inspection to identify whether there are any category 1 or 2 hazards using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). If a council identifies any category 1 hazards, it has a duty to take formal action against the landlord. If it identifies category 2 hazards, it has a power (but not a duty) to take action.
6. In 2024, the Council completed an inspection of Mr X’s property and found damp and mould which it assessed as a category 2 hazard. It issued a Hazard Awareness Notice to his landlord. Six months later, Mr X complained to the Council. He said his landlord had not acted to address the disrepair. He said he believed the conditions now met the category 1 hazard criteria and requested the Council take enforcement action against his landlord.
7. The Council said it would inspect Mr X’s property again and consider whether to take further action.
8. Mr X said he did not receive any further updates from the Council so he escalated his complaint.
9. In its response, the Council confirmed it had since inspected Mr X’s property again and assessed the damp and mould as a category 1 hazard. It said it had served Mr X’s landlord with a Prohibition Order, requiring them to act to address the disrepair.
10. In response to our enquiries, the Council provided copies of the Hazard Awareness Notice issued after the initial inspection and the more recent Prohibition Order. Each outlined details of the hazards the Council identified in Mr X’s home, their categorisation using the HHSRS, and required remedial action. Each also outlined options available to the Council for formal action and the reasons it had decided for or against each one on each visit.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not correctly assess the hazards in his home until its second inspection. The Council’s records for each inspection include relevant information explaining its categorisation of the hazards and its decision making. These are matters of professional opinion. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matter and reached its decisions on each visit to justify investigation.
12. In its complaint response, the Council apologised for its poor communication after his first complaint. It also identified it had not met its timescales when it responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint. It offered Mr X £75 for its lack of communication and delays, and signposted him to his caseworker to discuss any concerns he had in future.
13. We will not investigate this remaining part of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint handling. The Council has upheld this part of Mr X’s complaint, and its apology, financial remedy, and signposting are an appropriate response. We are unlikely to achieve anything more than this so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and it is unlikely we could achieve more than the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman