Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate his complaints about disrepair, harassment, and fire safety issues in his privately rented accommodation between May 2024 and October 2025. I ended this investigation because Mr X filed a claim with the Court about the same matter which puts the complaint outside of our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate his complaints about disrepair, harassment, and safety issues in his privately rented accommodation between May 2024 and October 2025. He said the Council failed to fully and impartially consider the evidence he provided.
2. This caused him avoidable distress and worsened his health. He wants the Council to carry out an independent review of his complaints, make an apology, a financial remedy, and service improvements to ensure housing safety concerns are taken seriously.

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. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
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:
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. In 2024 Mr X moved into property A - private rented sector accommodation which he shared with other tenants. Shortly after moving in, Mr X complained to the Council about disrepair in property A and said it was uninhabitable. The Council carried out a site inspection and issued an improvement notice to the landlord instructing them to start repairs.
9. Later in 2024 Mr X’s landlord served him a section 21 notice which was due to expire in January 2025. A section 21 notice allowed a landlord to serve a valid notice on an assured shorthold tenant requiring them to leave, usually giving at least two months’ notice.
10. Shortly after receiving the section 21 notice, Mr X reported harassment concerns about the property’s caretaker and another tenant to the police. He said the neighbour installed a surveillance camera and recorded him without his consent. He also complained to the Council in December 2024 about the same matters. In January 2025, the police reviewed the evidence but decided that the matter did not meet the threshold for investigation and considered it a dispute with the landlord. Around the same time, Mr X received court proceedings from his landlord seeking possession of his room following its section 21 notice.
11. In August 2025, Mr X submitted a counterclaim asking the court to also consider the matters of disrepair, harassment, fire safety concerns and the conduct of the landlord. Following the court proceedings, he moved out of property A.
12. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s handling of the matter and so he complained to us.

My findings

13. The matters raised in Mr X’s complaint are substantially the same matters for which Mr X has sought a remedy through his counterclaim. Therefore, I intend to end this investigation because Mr X’s complaint falls outside of our jurisdiction. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law and we have no discretion to do so.
14. In the case that any parts of Mr X’s complaint could be regarded as separable from the matters raised in the court proceeding, I have also considered whether discretion can be exercised for those aspects. Mr X’s complaint about harassment was investigated by the police and he reported the matter of illegal surveillance footage to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). In line with paragraph five above, both are the correct bodies better placed to consider these matters, and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Decision

15. I ended this investigation. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because it falls outside of our jurisdiction and we have no discretion to consider it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman