Summary: Ms D says the Council delayed serving an Improvement Notice relating to hazards at her private rental home. We found evidence of fault by the Council and have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to pay redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council failed to follow procedures and delayed inspecting her private rental home and serving an Improvement Notice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Ms D referred to concerns about damage to her health, that is not a matter the Ombudsman can consider because it is essentially a claim of negligence which can be pursued using the court process.
6. Usually, we would not look at events predating a significant gap where the complainant fails to pursue their complaint. In this case there is a period of around 15 months, from early 2022 onwards, where Ms D was not in touch with the Council. However, I have exercised discretion to consider the entire period from 2021 onwards. That is because of the significant fault by the Council in 2021 and the comments made by the Council which would understandably have discouraged Ms D from pursuing her case.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered the information provided by Ms D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. On 8 November 2021 Ms D reported to the Council issues with her private rental property. She said all the interior walls were wet, there was black mould throughout and water ingress to the ceiling landing. The owner of the property (Ms X) had not assisted her. The Council allocated the case to an Officer on 12 November who called Ms D the same day. They noted Ms D had children living in the property and Ms X had been trying to organise a contractor to attend the home. The Officer stated that Ms X was “on board to sort issues” and she would call Ms D for an update. On 24 November the Officer spoke to Ms X who stated the roof at the property needed significant work, but patch repairs would be carried out. Ms D also called the Officer and confirmed the roof should be replaced but it was just going to be patched up. The Officer said a patch repair was sufficient if it stopped the water ingress. Two days later Ms D asked the Officer to formally inspect the property.
10. On 6 December the Officer visited Ms D’s home and assessed the hazards using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The Officer noted there was black mould in the property, she said its spread indicated it was due to condensation. There was no evidence of penetrating damp and there were “minor issues but nothing major”. The same day she wrote to Ms X detailing works that were required in the property including repairs to an electric hob and a temporary repair to the roof. The works should be carried out within four weeks. She stated the black mould was “in the main, caused by tenant lifestyle” and insufficient heating.
11. On 10 December the Officer sent Ms D a leaflet about managing condensation. Ms X told the Council that repairs would be starting mid-December. The Officer closed the case on 4 January 2022 after no further contact from Ms D. On 16 February Ms D called the Officer. She said contractors had attended whilst she was out, so no works had been done. The Officer told her the “problem is condensation”.
12. Ms D did not make further reports to the Council about the property until 2023 after she had received some support from Citizens Advice. On 30 June 2023 Ms D called the Council and told the Officer the ceiling plaster on the landing had now fallen down because of water ingress. She did not want the Officer to visit her. It was subsequently agreed that a different Officer (Officer B) would come out and assess the hazards. On 4 July Officer B attended the property. She found there was penetrating damp throughout the property with Category 1 and 2 HHSRS hazards. On 5 July Officer B wrote to Ms X setting out the findings from the inspection. She said she had looked at previous service request records for the property and it was “evident” the same problems previously complained about by tenants still existed [this included a report to the Council made by tenants before Ms D]. The ceiling landing had fallen in due to water ingress. She gave Ms X seven days to explain why the disrepair still remained. Ms X responded she would get someone to assess the leaks and damp. On 6 July Officer B told Ms X “the damp is penetrative and a fault with the fabric of the building and not due to a lifestyle choice of any of the tenants”. On 13 July the Council issued s.11 and s.12 Improvement Notices to Ms X. These required the category 1 hazards at the property be remedied by 11 September and category 2 hazards completed by 11 October.
13. On 4 August Ms D lodged a formal complaint with the Council. On 9 August the Council noted Ms D “been ringing a lot”. An Officer emailed Ms X stating the works needed to be completed. On 25 August the Council responded to the complaint. It sent a brief response stating it did “seem as though more could have been done” to resolve hazards at the property sooner. It had discussed the case and standards of inspections with the Officer involved and instigated a training programme.
14. On 12 September Ms X told the Council she would give Officers a call. In September Ms D escalated her complaint and received a very brief reply on 21 September where the Council reiterated its initial position. Also, in September the Council asked Ms X for the structural engineer report (as required by the Improvement Notices). The Council says this remains outstanding. In early February 2024 the Council issued Ms X with a Prohibition Notice because not all of the Improvement Notices had been complied with.

What should have happened

15. The Council investigates reports from tenants in private rental accommodation about disrepair. When a report is received, it is allocated to an Officer to investigate. They will gather some initial information and contact the tenant to arrange an inspection “as soon as possible”. The Officer will inspect a property using the HHSRS method to determine whether there are hazards, the likely harm they pose and the severity of that harm. If Category 1 or 2 hazards are identified the Council has a duty to take action. The Officer will complete a schedule of the deficiencies in the property. The schedule is sent to the landlord allowing them an opportunity to explain why the defects exist and how they plan to remedy them. The landlord should reply within 14 days. If the landlord gives a date for works starting at the property, the Officer should arrange a second visit to check the repairs are completed.
16. If the landlord does not comply/ there is a history of non-compliance the Council can consider issuing formal enforcement notices including s.11 and s.12 Improvement Notices. They require works be carried out to an acceptable level within a set timeframe. If the landlord fails to adhere to the provisions of the Improvement Notices and is not compliant the Council can progress to issuing a Prohibition Notice for outstanding works.

Was there fault by the Council

17. The Council accepts there was fault in this case. It says, “there was clearly a delay in dealing with this matter as a result of the first Officer not following the relevant procedure”.
18. The evidence shows me several errors in how the case was handled. It is unclear why the Officer failed to offer to visit Ms D’s home when she was in contact with Ms D initially, it was Ms D who had to ask the Officer to attend the property. The inspection that took place on 6 December 2021 was flawed and inadequate. The Officer failed to check the history of the property and whether there had been similar issues previously reported to the Council. Instead, she made assumptions and concluded the mould was caused by condensation which was largely due to the actions of Ms D and her family. To compound the error, she notified Ms X that the mould was mainly caused by Ms D. The Officer then incorrectly closed the case at the start of 2022. She should have checked the works required had been carried out but failed to do so. When Ms D contacted her in February the Officer reiterated the problem was due to condensation. This blunt (and factually incorrect) dismissal of Ms D was unacceptable. I have no doubt it left Ms D feeling unable to reach out to the Council for further assistance with the significantly damp property.
19. After contact with Citizens Advice Ms D reengaged with the Council in June 2023. This resulted in Officer B inspecting the property and carrying out a procedurally correct visit. As a result, the Council found significant disrepair issues that had been ongoing for several years and which were not caused by Ms D’s “lifestyle”. Since the involvement of Officer B the Council has sought to progress the case reasonably. Because of ongoing non-compliance with Ms X it has had to issue a Prohibition Notice this year. The only point of concern here is whether the Council has kept Ms D updated as I have not seen evidence of how it has informed Ms D about the case progression since September 2023. It is important that Ms D is sent regular written updates.
20. The complaint responses to Ms D were unduly brief. Whilst they found some fault and took forward remedial actions with the Officer involved the Council missed two opportunities to fully consider and explain how the fault had impacted on Ms D.

Did the fault cause an injustice

21. The 19 month delay in carrying out a procedurally correct property inspection by the Council meant Ms D remained living in an unfit property for longer than necessary.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. The Council has taken additional steps to prevent the errors in this case reoccurring. It has reminded officers about the procedures for HHSRS visits. It is also carrying out quarterly consistency exercises. Those are positive actions by the Council.
23. The Council offered to pay Ms D £250. Given the extent of the fault I have identified in this case I consider a reasonable remedy is £950 for the delay to carry out an adequate inspection. The Council has accepted this level of redress.
24. The Council will also clarify how it will issue regular updates to Ms D about the case.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of the investigation being completed.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman