Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s concerns about health and safety issues in his building. This is because the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met for three main reasons. Firstly, there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council carried out a building inspection. Secondly, the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to consider complaints about the Council’s decisions not to share information with Mr X. Finally, there is no evidence of any injustice to Mr X by the Council’s decision to issue selective licences to leaseholders.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X complains the Council has downplayed serious fire, health and safety issues in the building where he lives.
2. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to complete a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) inspection properly;
2. withheld information requested as Subject Access Requests and under the Freedom of Information Act;
3. incorrectly issued licences to leaseholders despite the building being unsafe.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X raises concerns about fire, health and safety issues at his building. In particular, he is dissatisfied with how issues relating to damp in the communal areas, entry by intruders, domestic hygiene, odours from the rubbish chute, pests, building ventilation, building structural fire prevention, fire alarm system, asbestos and water quality have been dealt with in his building.
9. The Council’s response says it carried out a joint inspection under its Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) powers (under the Housing Act 2004) where Nottingham Fire and Rescue Service also attended.
10. The Council has advised Mr X it disagrees with his judgments and its specialist officers identified no hazards requiring it to act. It said the fire safety issues including the cladding are being addressed by the Nottingham Fire and Rescue Authority (NFRS) and the Building Safety Regulator (BSR). It further explained the HHSRS regime did not allow it to address Mr X’s concerns about the lack of a 24-hour concierge. Similarly, it said selective licences were issued to leaseholders to permit private renting in individual flats and there was no interface with the fire safety remediation works required to the communal areas. Overall, the Council found that while it worked as a Joint Inspection Team with NFRS, it had been agreed that NFRS were leading on the enforcement of fire safety matters.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code. Firstly, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out its building inspection. Secondly, the Information Commissioner’s office - as the UK’s specialist information rights agency - is better placed to consider Mr X’s concerns that he has been denied information by the Council. And finally, there is no evidence of Mr X being caused any personal injustice arising from the Council’s decision to allocate selective licences to other leaseholders allowing private renting.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it does not meet the tests sets out in our Assessment Code.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman