Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her reports of harassment by her landlord. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify further action.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s lack of support when she reported harassment by her landlord and another tenant in her shared property. She said the Council’s lack of support aggravated an existing health, which meant she was unable to keep working, resulting in lost income. It also meant she continued to suffer harassment, which had been ongoing for five years.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(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

What happened

5. Ms X contacted the Council in October 2024. She said she was suffering harassment from her landlord and another tenant in the house in multiple occupation (HMO) she was living in. The Council checked its records but identified no previous concerns about the landlord. It contacted the landlord, who agreed to participate in mediation. Ms X also agreed mediation would be helpful but said she was not well enough to engage with it at the time.
6. In November 2024, a Council officer helped Ms X to make an online housing application. The Council asked Ms X to provide relevant evidence so it could consider whether she was homeless (because it was not reasonable for her to continue to occupy her property) or was at risk of homelessness (due to the landlord taking steps to evict her).
7. In late December 2024, Ms X made a formal complaint. The Council spoke to her by telephone twice in January and gave her advice. It explained it did not offer a mediation service itself. In its complaint response, it said its initial response was reasonable and proportionate but apologised if Ms X felt the matter had not been handled sufficiently sensitively.
8. In February, the Council provide a link to a free mediation service and responded to questions about her housing situation. Later in February, it issued its decision, which was that she was not legally homeless. Its letter explained Ms X could ask for a review of its decision if she disagreed with it.
9. The Council issued its final complaint response in April 2025. It confirmed it did not have evidence to show the landlord was not a fit and proper person to hold an HMO licence.

My assessment

10. The Council took appropriate action to consider the concerns Ms X raised in October 2024. It responded to questions Ms X had about her housing situation in February 2025. There was a delay in providing a link to a mediation service, but this did not cause Ms X significant injustice because she said she was not well enough to participate in mediation when this was first raised. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify investigating further.
11. The Council considered the evidence it had but decided this was not sufficient to show the landlord was not a fit and proper person to hold an HMO licence. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.
12. It was reasonable for Ms X to ask for a review if she disagreed with the decision that she was not legally homeless.
13. For these reasons, we will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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