Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her complaints about disrepair and landlord harassment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her reports of disrepair in her rented property. She said it identified hazards but failed to take enforcement action. She also said it failed to take action after she reported harassment by her landlord, inappropriately shared her data with her landlord and others, and its complaint response was dismissive. Ms X said the Council’s failings meant she remained exposed to damp and mould that affected her health and suffered further harassment from her landlord.

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
• 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

3. I considered information provided by Ms X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Disrepair

5. Ms X reported disrepair in June 2025. The Council carried out an inspection and identified category 2 hazards. It asked the landlord to carry out works and told Ms X it would allow the landlord one to two months to do so. The landlord did carry out some works, but Ms X said some concerns remained outstanding. The Council carried out a further inspection in August 2025. It noted the landlord was not as cooperative as earlier and that the relationship between the landlord and Ms X had broken down. On that basis, it said it would start enforcement action.
6. It is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the property to an appropriate standard of repair. The Council’s role was to identify whether there were any hazards using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Where the Council identifies category 1 hazards, it has a duty to take enforcement action. Where it identifies category 2 hazards, it has a power but not a duty to do so.
7. In this case, the Council identified category 2 hazards and initially, the landlord was willing to carry out the necessary works, so there was no need for it to take formal enforcement action. When the situation changed, the Council reconsidered its position, which was appropriate. On this basis, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Data breach

8. In the context of trying to arrange for the landlord to carry out works, the Council told the landlord Ms X was away for a two-week period. It said Ms X agreed orally that the information could be shared. Ms X disputes this and says she was not away but was not able to allow access to the property in that period. She said this risked further harassment from her landlord, who had previously threatened to enter the property without authorisation. However, she has not said this did happen in that period, although I appreciate she may have felt anxious about it.
9. There is a conflict of evidence in relation to whether Ms X gave oral consent to the information being shared and it is unlikely further investigation would resolve this. Further, Ms X has not suffered a sufficient injustice to justify investigating this aspect further.
10. Ms X also said the Council’s response to a subject access request indicated further inappropriate data sharing. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider complaints about information sharing and data protection, so we will not consider this further.

Harassment

11. Ms X said she had suffered harassment from her landlord, which she reported to the police and the Council. She said the landlord threatened to evict her within days of her reported disrepair, but the Council failed to protect her.
12. The Council considered whether the behaviour reported amounted to anti-social behaviour (ASB). It decided one report was ASB and it contacted both the landlord and Ms X about that. It said it signposted Ms X to an organisation that could support her with her tenancy issues, advised her she could report issues to the police and also advised her to consider getting legal advice about any civil remedies open to her.
13. The Council has a role where a landlord starts the eviction process after it has issued an enforcement notice but that was not the position here. It has considered the reports made and whether it could exercise any of the powers it has and gave appropriate advice to Ms X. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Complaints handling

14. Ms X said the Council’s complaints handling was dismissive and indicated bias towards the landlord. The Council addressed the concerns Ms X raised and its responses set out its reasons for taking or not taking action. There is no indication from its account of what happened, which Ms X has not disputed, that the Council acted with bias towards the landlord. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. 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