Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s lack of support to him as a landlord when his tenant reported disrepair. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to a property he owns that was let to a tenant. He said the Council condemned the property, but the tenant continued to live there and did not pay rent. He said the Council’s handling of the matter made the situation worse, which affected his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X owns a property that was let to a tenant. The tenant reported disrepair in January 2025, and the Council contacted Mr X about this two days later. Mr X told the Council he had learning and health difficulties. He said the tenant was a friend and they could move out if they wished to. At the end of January, the Council carried out an inspection using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). It identified category 1 and 2 hazards.
6. In February, Mr X contacted his MP because he said he could not afford to carry out electrical rewiring. The Council replied to the MP setting out the relevant electrical safety standards and the options open to Mr X. Also in February, Mr X told the Council his mental health was affected by Council communications, and a manager called him to address his concerns.
7. In March 2025, the Council issued an Emergency Prohibition Order (EPO) in relation to damp and mould. An EPO is issued where there are category 1 hazards and an imminent risk of harm, but where it is not practical or too costly to carry out urgent work to address the hazards. The order requires the tenant to leave the property, but they did not do so until May.
8. In April 2025, the Council issued two Improvement Notices to address other hazards identified during the inspection. The action Mr X was required to take under the Improvement Notice was suspended until the tenant left the property.
9. In May, the Council issued a demand for expenses to recover £885 of enforcement costs. Mr X contacted his MP about this and also made an enquiry through a local councillor. The Council replied to both enquiries and also spoke to Mr X at its offices.
10. Mr X subsequently instructed a letting agent to address the disrepair and advise him on his responsibilities as a landlord. The Council reinspected the property in October 2025 and agreed to revoke the EPO. Mr X was required to complete the works set out in the Improvement Notices before reletting the property.

My assessment

11. It is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure the property let to a tenant is maintained to appropriate standards. The Council’s role is to inspect and identify whether there are any hazards. The law says it must take enforcement action where category 1 hazards are identified. The Council is not required to give advice to landlords but will help them to understand their rights and obligations.
12. The Council carried out an HHSRS inspection without delay after the tenant reported disrepair. It contacted Mr X appropriately and issued formal notices in line with its enforcement policy. It responded to enquiries from his MP and a local councillor and gave Mr X advice when he attended its offices. Following a reinspection in October 2025, it revoked the EPO. The Council has taken the action we would expect and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
13. The tenant remained in the property until being rehoused by the Council. Any delay in rehousing the tenant did not cause a sufficient injustice to Mr X to justify further investigation. What rent was due, given the poor condition of the property, is a private matter between Mr X and the tenant and it would be reasonable for Mr X to take court action in relation to any rent he considers was due.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman