Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to reports of disrepair in his privately rented home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s processes to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not take sufficient action to require his landlord to carry out repairs to address damp and mould in his rented property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under the Housing Act 2004 (the Act) Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) provisions, councils have powers to take enforcement action against private landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. If a council considers a category one hazard exists in residential premises, they must take appropriate enforcement action in accordance with the Act. Councils have discretion to take enforcement action if a category two hazard is identified.
7. The Council inspected Mr X’s property and identified a category two hazard for damp and mould growth. It explained the hazard did not present a significant enough risk to justify formal enforcement action. The Council said it would write to the landlord informally to recommend improvements.
8. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
9. In this case, the Council inspected the property, assessed the hazard, and used its professional judgement. Because no category one hazard was identified, it was not under a duty to take formal enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault in its decision‑making to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s processes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman