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

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s lack of support after she reported serious disrepair in her private rented sector housing. She said the Council’s failings meant she remained exposed to hazards and its delays caused anxiety and stress.
2. Ms X also complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments when she asked for them. She said this caused her to have multiple panic attacks.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

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

4. 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)

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

Initial delay

7. Ms X contacted the Council in January 2025 about disrepair in her private rented sector property. The Council explained she needed to report the disrepair to the landlord or their agent and give them a reasonable chance to address the issues raised before it could get involved. It is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the property in good repair, and this was a reasonable requirement by the Council.

Delay arranging an inspection

8. In early March, after Ms X reported the landlord had still not addressed her concerns, the Council started arranging an inspection. There is an unexplained delay by the Council from early March to the inspection date at the end of April. However, I will not investigate because any delay at this stage did not cause significant injustice. This is because works are still not complete and we cannot say if or when they will be complete.
9. Ms X said she wanted only one person to be present at the inspection due to her anxiety. The Council told her it could not take enforcement action unless it had given the landlord the chance to attend (or be represented at) the inspection. It suggested various options, such as the support of an advocate, staggered arrival times and reducing the time the landlord was present. Ms X did not agree to these proposals and so the Council did not complete the inspection as planned.
10. The Equality Act requires councils to consider making reasonable adjustments to allow those with disabilities to access their services. This does not mean it must agree to the adjustment requested. The Council explained why it wanted the landlord to attend the inspection and proposed various ways to make the process easier for Ms X. This shows it had due regard to its responsibilities under the Equality Act. However, the Council erred in its decision making because it was not correct to say the landlord had to attend. There is no such requirement in law or policy.
11. I will not investigate because any fault in decision making and any additional delay at this stage did not cause significant injustice. This is because the Council carried out an inspection without the landlord present at a later date. And because we cannot say delay has caused injustice when we do not know if the works will ever be completed.

Delay in issuing an Improvement Notice

12. An inspection was carried out on 27 May 2025. The officer identified a category 1 hazard (damp and mould) and some category 2 hazards. They explained they were about to go on holiday but would issue an improvement notice on their return. An improvement notice was issued on 12 June 2025 and required specific work to be done by 11 August 2025. Ms X says she was not told an improvement notice had been served and was not sent a copy until 4 August 2025.
13. There was no undue delay in issuing the improvement notice. Whilst it would have been good practice to send her a copy straightaway, this did not cause her a sufficient injustice to justify further action. This is because the landlord was aware of the work needed and its agent had been in touch with Ms X about it.

Further enforcement action

14. In mid-July, the Council asked the landlord’s agent for an update on the works done. In July and August, the agent provided evidence of the difficulties they were having contacting Ms X, who was not answering the phone, and in getting access to the property to carry out the work needed.
15. In August, the Council’s panel considered the case and decided it could not take enforcement action against the landlord because the landlord would have a reasonable defence due to the lack of access. It noted that, under the terms of her tenancy, Ms X had a legal duty to allow access to the landlord and their contractors to carry out repairs.
16. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision not to take further enforcement action was correct. We can consider its decision-making but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
17. The Council considered relevant evidence and concluded that legal action against the landlord would not be successful. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.
18. Ms X also complained about poor complaints handling. We do not investigate a council’s complaints handling unless we are considering the underlying complaint.
19. For all the above reasons we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

20. 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