Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of disrepair in her property. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X said the Council closed its private disrepair case without carrying out an inspection to check the landlord had completed the work and without informing her the case was closed. She said the work had not been done properly so the property is still affected by damp, which is affecting her husband’s health, and by leaks from the roof.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Ms X first reported disrepair in her rented property in February 2023. The Council carried out an inspection using the Housing Health and safety Rating System (HHSRS) and identified category 1 and 2 hazards. It served an Improvement Notice requiring the landlord to carry out relevant works to address the hazards identified.
8. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained there were significant issues around negotiating access for the landlord or their agents to carry out the works. It also provided evidence the landlord changed their managing agent twice, which also caused delay. Council records show it advised Ms X that it could not pursue enforcement action if access was not given for works to be done.
9. In April 2025, a senior officer visited the property. The Council does not have a written record of that visit, but its complaint response said the officer was satisfied with the works done to the roof and gutters, and other repairs. They noted the only outstanding works were cosmetic damage to walls and ceilings caused by the previous roof and gutter defects.
10. After receiving further evidence from the landlord, including photographs and evidence of invoices paid, the Council revoked the Improvement Notice in May 2025 on the basis the hazards had been reduced to an acceptable level. It wrote to Ms X to inform her the notice had been revoked and said it hand delivered the letter to her property. Ms X said she did not receive it and only became aware the case was closed in late August 2025.
11. Ms X reported further concerns in August 2025. The Council advised she needed to report further disrepair to the landlord and allow them a reasonable period to respond before it could get involved.
12. Ms X complained to us in October 2025. She said the roof continued to leak and the damp and mould was recurring. At that stage, she had not made a formal complaint to the Council. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed the further concerns would be treated as a new report and repeated its advice about reporting them to the landlord before it could get involved.

My assessment

13. We expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Ms X complained to us in October 2025 about events from February 2023. There is nothing to indicate she could not have complained earlier and no good reason to consider the events before October 2024 now.
14. Even if there were good reasons, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating further. The Council carried out an HHSRS inspection, following which it issued an improvement notice. The delays in carrying out remedial works were not due to Council fault, and the Council advised Ms X it could not enforce the improvement notice if access was not given for works to be done.
15. The Council obtained appropriate evidence from the landlord to show the works done and did not need to make a further visit after April 2025 before deciding the improvement notice could be revoked. There is insufficient evidence of fault to investigate this aspect further.
16. It said it hand delivered its letter to Ms X to confirm the notice had been revoked. I note Ms X said she did not receive it. Further investigation would not establish the reasons Ms X did not receive it but, even if it was due to Council fault, this did not cause a sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
17. It was appropriate for the Council to say further concerns would need to be treated as a fresh case and reported to the landlord before it could get involved.

Back to top

Final decision

18. 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