Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about private housing disrepair. Part of the complaint are late, and we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for the rest of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not issue a prohibition order, at the earliest opportunity, on a property he was privately renting. This meant he had to live in unsafe conditions.
2. Mr X also complains the Council has not found him accommodation that accepts his dog.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X privately rented a property between 2003 and 2025. In May 2023, he reported his disrepair concerns to the Council. In May 2024, the Council visited the property. On each occasion the Council decided not to issue a prohibition order and took informal action instead. Mr X complained to us in October 2025. This was 29 months after he first reported disrepair to the Council, and 17 months after the Council visited the property. I see no good reason Mr X could not have complained to us sooner, so the restriction in paragraph 4 applies.
9. In May 2025, the Council visited the property again and decided to issue a Prohibition Order. Mr X was then legally homeless, so the Council had a duty under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 to find suitable interim accommodation for him. The Council does not have a duty to house his dog, but should be sensitive to the importance of the dog to Mr X. The information I have seen shows the Council has been sensitive to Mr X’s needs and has tried to find suitable accommodation for him and his dog. So, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate ’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late and we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman