Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to take formal enforcement action against Mr X’s landlord following his report of disrepair in his accommodation.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council did not take enforcement action against his landlord after he reported disrepair. He said the landlord failed to complete improvement works within a reasonable time. He also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint including the case officer having a conflict of interest.
2. Mr X said the situation caused him and his wife avoidable distress, uncertainty and impacted on their health. He wants the Council to acknowledge its failures, carry out an independent review, take enforcement action against the landlord, apologise and make a payment and provide alternative accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

Background

7. Mr X and his wife have lived in a converted studio flat for several years and reported persistent disrepair, mould, and damp to their landlord. After the landlord failed to address these issues, Mr X escalated the complaint to the Council and ask it to rehome him and his wife, stating that the property had become uninhabitable and effectively left them homeless. Mr X further complained the property was an unlicensed house of multiple occupancy (HMO).
8. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about disrepair he reported to the Council and its failure to take enforcement action against his landlord between May and September 2025 and how the Council handled his complaint about the matter.
9. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaints relating to his homelessness application or about the property being an unlicensed HMO. We have already issued a decision about these elements on related complaints.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Disrepair

12. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair. Local authorities have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, (HHSRS), 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.
13. Where a council, for any reason, considers it would be appropriate to inspect a property to decide whether a hazard exists, it must arrange an inspection. If the council identifies a hazard which puts a tenant’s health and safety at risk, it must categorise the hazard.
14. Potential hazards could include: Hygrothermal (damp, excessive cold, and excessive heat); Accidents (Fire and electrical, falls, explosions, structure etc).
15. If a council considers a category 1 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 2 hazard is identified.
16. If a council considers there is a category 1 hazard, it must take appropriate enforcement action which could include:
• Serving an Improvement Notice.
• Making a Prohibition Order.
• Serving a Hazard Awareness Notice.
• Making an Emergency Prohibition Order.
• Making a Demolition Order.
• Declaring the area a Clearance Area.
• Taking emergency remedial action.

The Council’s private sector enforcement policy

17. The Council’s ‘Environmental Health and Building Control Enforcement Policy’ states fair and effective enforcement is essential to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents.
18. Where disrepair creates a hazard, landlords are expected to carry out necessary repairs to remove or reduce risks. This typically includes fixing structural defects, ensuring heating, hot water, and electrical systems are safe, addressing damp and mould, and remedying fire or safety hazards. If a landlord fails to act, the council can formally specify the works required through legal notices, clearly setting out what must be done and within what timeframe to bring the property up to acceptable standards.
19. The Council will decide what level of enforcement action to take. Where it decides to take formal action, it then considers whether that action is viable and appropriate. It can decide to take no action, to revisit premises, issue informal verbal warnings and advice, issue informal notices, as well as issuing formal enforcement notices, such as an Improvement Notice.

The Council’s complaints policy

20. The Council operates a two-stage complaints process:
21. Stage 1: The Council aims to provide a full response within roughly ten to 15 working days.
22. Stage 2: The final review is usually completed within 20 – 25 working days.
23. The Council aims to keep complainants updated, manage expectations transparently, and avoid unnecessary extensions.

What happened

Background

24. Mr X and his wife have lived in a converted studio flat, property A since 2021. Over a period of four years, Mr X said he repeatedly reported issues of disrepair, mould, and damp to his landlord. When no action was taken, he escalated the matter to the Council.

Matters subject to investigation

25. In May 2025 Mr X contacted the Council about disrepair in property A. The next day the Council allocated Mr X’s case to a case officer, Officer Y. A week later Officer Y inspected property A.
26. In early June, Officer Y issued her report, identifying several Category 2 hazards and one Category 1 hazard relating to fire safety. The report stated that the kitchen was too small and that its door was routinely kept open because it opened directly onto the cooker. She recorded this created a risk of scalding and burns.
27. Other category 2 hazards included:
• a gap in the floor surrounding the soil pipe outside a property on floor two;
• a gap to the rear of the cooker allowing spillage onto electrical connections;
• cracks in the ceiling around smoke alarm; and
• waste water reemerging through the drains in the shower indicating a drainage fault.
28. The same day the Council issued Mr X’s landlord with a Property Improvement Notice (PIN). This requested the landlord to take remedial action to remove or reduce the hazards in property A. Specifically relating to the Category 1 hazard, the Council instructed the landlord to carry out alterations to the design and layout of the kitchen to ensure the door would not open directly onto the cooker. The Council told the landlord to complete the works within three months, by end of September 2025.
29. About ten days later, Mr X’s landlord informed the Council they had appointed a contractor to carry out the remedial works.
30. In mid-June, Officer Y responded to Mr X. He wanted the Council to declare property A unfit for human habitation. Officer Y explained that, although the Council had identified hazards at property A and served a PIN requiring remedial works, the level of disrepair did not justify declaring the property unfit for human habitation. Officer Y confirmed the Council would continue to monitor the landlord’s compliance with the PIN.
31. In late June, Mr X contacted the Council and requested that the landlord pay him £42,000 to remedy the injustice the disrepair caused him, including loss of earnings, as the disrepair had made him too ill to work. He also stated he would not give the landlord access to property A to carry out remedial works until his compensation claim was resolved.
32. A few days later, Mr X's landlord submitted a work plan setting out the proposed scope of works, with a planned start date in mid-August 2025 and an estimated duration of ten working days. The landlord also requested earlier access to property A to address the shower drainage fault as a priority. As part of the proposed arrangements, the landlord offered to relocate Mr X to a hotel nearby for the duration of the works at their expense.
33. In early July Mr X complained to the Council about Officer Y. He said she downplayed the seriousness of the Category 1 hazard and refused to recommend alternative housing for him. He further requested a new case officer to be assigned to this case.
34. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and said it would aim to respond to him within 20 working days in early August. It further offered to arrange an inspection at property A for mid-July to review Officer Y’s findings at the property.
35. In July, as part of the repair works, the landlord installed new fire alarms and a second boiler, which Mr X said were fitted by unqualified workers and without Building Control approval.
36. In early August Mr X complained to the Council about how it handled his report of disrepair in property A. He said Officer Y failed to inspect his tenancy agreement and other licenses issued to the landlord when she carried out the site inspection. He said he did not want Officer Y to be further involved in his case and he would not allow her access to his property as part of the site inspection which was planned for mid-July.
37. A week later the Council confirmed it no longer planned to carry out the site inspection at property A which was scheduled for the next day. Instead, it would deal with Mr X’s complaint through its complaints process.
38. In mid-August, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It told him it considered Officer Y's actions to be appropriate and in line with its enforcement policy. It said it would continue to monitor the PIN but warned it might suspend it if Mr X continued to refuse the landlord access to carry out the required works.
39. A few days later, unhappy about the Council’s response, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint process. He said the Council:
• failed to act upon a Category 1 hazard which he said was a serious breach in the Council’s housing safety laws;
• involved a case officer with a conflict of interest and therefore he wanted an independent review;
• failed to issue a formal Improvement Notice or Prohibition Order; and
• failed to respond to his compensation request of over £42,000.
40. In September, the Council issued its stage two complaint response to Mr X. It stated that it encouraged Mr X to work with his landlord to provide access to the property so that the necessary repair works could be carried out. The Council explained that if Mr X continued to deny his landlord access, the disrepair would remain unresolved. The responding officer confirmed they had no previous dealings with the case.
41. Mr X told us that he eventually decided to vacate property A temporarily to allow the landlord to carry out the repair works. He also said the Council did not return to inspect the property after the works were completed and that he had not received any certificates or other documentation confirming the works had been completed to the required standard.

My findings

Mr X’s report of disrepair and the Council’s enforcement action

42. The Council inspected property A shortly after Mr X reported disrepair and identified several hazards, including a Category 1 hazard. It issued a PIN requiring the landlord to complete specified remedial works within a set timescale and monitored the landlord’s compliance. The decision to take formal enforcement action was available to the Council. It decided to take informal enforcement action instead in line with its enforcement policy, having considered the nature and extent of the disrepair at property A. It also made clear that, should the landlord fail or refuse to comply, it would consider escalating the matter by taking formal enforcement action. As the landlord complied with the instruction, there was no need for the Council to escalate the matter. This was not fault and, in any case, did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.

Delays in remedial works

43. In late June, Mr X's landlord complied with the Council's PIN by providing a schedule of works. The proposed timeframe ensured the landlord completed the remedial works in time with the Council’s set deadline. However, between late July and September, Mr X did not allow the landlord or its contractors access to property A to carry out the repairs. As a result, progress was delayed and the identified hazards remained at the property for longer than necessary. The evidence shows the delay primarily resulted from Mr X not providing access to property A and was not the fault of either the landlord or the Council.

Conflict of Interest

44. The officer responding to Mr X at stage two was independent and had no previous dealings with the matter. There is no evidence of any conflict of interest which would affect the outcome.

Back to top

Decision

45. I have not found fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman