Summary: There was fault by the Council when it considered Mr X’s reports of damp and mould at his property. It got evidence of damp and should have considered whether it had a duty to take enforcement action. The Council also should not have shared with the managing agent that Mr X had made complaints against it, as set out in its complaints policy. The Council caused Mr X uncertainty, but it is not possible to say whether it would have taken enforcement action if it had properly considered its duties. The Council should apologise to Mr X, and remind its staff to consider its legal duty, and that complaint details cannot be shared with third parties.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly deal with his complaint about damp and mould at his private rented property.
2. Mr X says his health was affected by the damp and mould and that his landlord served an eviction notice on him soon after the Council inspected the property

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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

The law and guidance

7. Local authorities have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) (introduced by the Housing Act 2004, Part 1) 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 1 hazard exists in residential premises it must take appropriate enforcement action.
8. Councils have a range of powers including an Improvement Notice which requires the landlord to make repairs or improvements.
9. Prior to 1 May 2026, the law prevented landlords from serving a notice on the tenant to leave (a section 21 notice) for six months, where the council had served a relevant notice, such as an Improvement Notice. (The Deregulation Act 2015, section 33). This was to make sure that the landlord does not try to evict the tenant for reporting potential hazards.
10. A council has discretion to take enforcement action where it has identified a category 2 hazard.
11. The Council’s complaints policy says that the identity of the person making the complaint only needs to be shared with those who need to know in order to consider the complaint, and it must not be shared more widely.

What happened

12. Mr X was a private tenant of a property for many years. He complained to the Council that his property was affected by damp and mould, and that he suspected this was making him ill.
13. The Council’s Environmental Protection Service visited Mr X’s home towards the end of May 2025. I have seen the Council’s site visit notes and photographs. The Council did not find any visible damp or mould, nor detect any smell of damp. A bathroom tile had come loose and there was a black substance behind it.
14. Based on the information it had so far, the Council could not say there was a category 1 or 2 hazard, and so it started informal action to help Mr X. The Council sent the landlord’s managing agent a letter asking that they investigate the black substance, arrange an independent damp survey, and report back to the Council.
15. The managing agent got a specialist damp survey. This said that there was damp in the bathroom, possibly due to a leak or poor seals. The specialist recommended the landlord replace the shower and the nearby wall.
16. Towards the end of June, the agent told the Council that the landlord had decided to renovate the whole flat, including the kitchen and bathroom. They had served a notice on Mr X to leave because they could not carry out the work with him living there.
17. Mr X complained to the Council that it should have served an Improvement Notice when damp was detected, and this would have stopped the landlord from serving a notice for him to leave.
18. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said that it did not serve an Improvement Notice because there was no visible mould. It also said that it could not stop the eviction. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider this because he said thick black mould had been visible.
19. The Council reviewed its information, but maintained that no mould was visible at the time of its inspection. It said that even if it had found mould it would not have served a notice but would have required the agent to instruct a specialist. The Council explained that it had not carried out a full inspection and so it could not identify whether there was a category 1 or 2 hazard. It said that as the landlord had cooperated, it would use its discretion to take informal action in line with its policy.
20. In mid-December, the agent told the Council that Mr X had not moved out but the bathroom tiles and shower unit had been replaced in line with the specialist recommendations. The Council acknowledged the update from the agent, and shared that Mr X had complained to the Council about its service but the complaints had not been upheld.
21. The landlord’s notice asking Mr X to leave the tenancy had expired and so they served another notice. Mr X moved to a different property.
22. Mr X told me that he considered the damp to be obvious from the smell and that it had made him ill. He also said that he had not wanted to move and had been living in the flat for some years.

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr X?

23. The Council inspected Mr X’s flat promptly. It was not wrong for the Council to ask the landlord to investigate possible damp and mould further with a specialist survey. The Council did not have enough evidence at that time to decide if there was a category 1 or 2 hazard.
24. However, when the Council got evidence of damp it should have considered whether it needed to do an HHSRS assessment to identify category 1 or 2 hazards. The Council says the landlord was cooperating and so informal action was appropriate. However, I note that the work took more than six months to complete and moreover, if the Council detected a category 1 hazard, it would have a duty to take enforcement action of some kind, regardless of whether the managing agent was cooperating. The Council cannot show that it has properly considered whether it had a legal duty to take enforcement action.
25. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
26. I cannot say from the evidence that there was a category 1 hazard, nor that the Council should have taken enforcement action. However, the Council’s shortcoming caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration.
27. Furthermore, if the Council had taken enforcement action, this may not have protected Mr X from eviction. The landlord served a second notice which allowed it to require Mr X to move from the flat. This later notice would have been available to the landlord regardless of any enforcement action by the Council.
28. It was fault when the Council told the managing agent that Mr X had made complaints to it and the outcome of these. Its policy is clear that it considers complaints confidentially and will not share details unless this is needed to consider the complaint. The Council had already determined Mr X’s complaints and there was no reason for it to share details with the managing agent.

Back to top

Action

29. The Council will within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty and frustration it caused him. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Remind relevant staff by way of a team meeting item, training, or staff briefing that:
1. It should consider whether a formal HHSRS assessment is required when it has evidence of a defect in the property, regardless of whether the landlord is cooperating with enforcement works.
2. It should not share details of complaints made against it with third parties where this is not necessary to determine the complaint.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman