Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's enforcement of housing conditions in a privately rented property. This is because further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Dr Z, the landlord of a privately rented property, complained about the Council's actions following the service of an Improvement Notice after it inspected his property. He said the Council's communication was poor and it failed to provide clear information about the enforcement process and the status of the notice. Dr Z said this caused uncertainty, distress and inconvenience because he did not have clear confirmation of the property's enforcement status and was concerned about possible legal implications. Dr Z seeks confirmation of the current enforcement position, including whether the notice remains in force, clarification of any further steps required, an explanation for the Council's handling of his enquiries, and improvements to the Council's complaint handling and communication practices.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council carried out an inspection of Dr Z's property under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
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.
7. Following its inspection, the Council identified hazards at the property and informed Dr Z of the works required to address them. It later carried out a further inspection and found the required works had not been completed. So, it served Dr Z with an Improvement Notice outlining the action required to fix the hazards.
8. Dr Z then complained that poor communication, including a missed email, affected his ability to progress the required works and left him uncertain about the enforcement process. He said because he lives overseas, he relied on clear communication from the Council to coordinate contractors and address the issues identified.
9. The Council considered Dr Z's concerns through its complaint’s process. It accepted an officer had failed to respond to one of Dr Z's emails and apologised for that oversight. However, it concluded the oversight did not affect its decision to take enforcement action and said the Improvement Notice had been served correctly. The Council also confirmed that future notices would be sent by email as well as post and provided a named point of contact.
10. In its complaint response, the Council explained the Improvement Notice remained in force. It also explained the steps required before the notice could be revoked and gave timescales for arranging a further inspection.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council considered Dr Z's concerns and provided information about the status of the Improvement Notice and the steps required before it could be revoked. The Council also acknowledged and apologised for overlooking one of Dr Z's emails. Further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
12. Regarding Dr Z’s complaint about the Council’s complaint handling. We do not consider it a good use of public resources to consider complaints about complaints handling in isolation when we are not considering the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Dr Z’s complaint, because further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman