Summary: there was no fault in the way the Council investigated Mrs X’s reports about poor housing conditions in her private rented accommodation and made the decision not to take enforcement action.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that the Council did not consider taking housing enforcement action when she reported disrepair and defects in the private rented property where she lived with her family until May 2022.
2. Mrs X says she and her family lived in poor housing conditions and this had an adverse impact on their health.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. Mrs X complained to us in August 2022.
4. I have investigated the Council’s response to Mrs X’s reports about disrepair and defects in the private rented accommodation between August 2021 and May 2022 when she left the property. I have not investigated any issues she may have reported before August 2021 because complaints should be made to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the events.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with a council’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

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken to Mrs X and considered the evidence she sent me which includes photographs of the private rented property.
7. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and photographs and documents from the Housing Compliance & Enforcement team’s case records. I have also considered the Council’s corporate enforcement policy and information on its website.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision

Back to top

What I found

Housing Enforcement action

9. Private tenants may complain to their council about a landlord’s failure to keep their property in good repair. Councils have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System introduced by the Housing Act 2004 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.
10. The Housing Act 2004 gives councils powers to inspect residential properties in response to a complaint to decide if there are any Category 1 or Category 2 hazards.
11. The Council’s website says a tenant must first report any repair issues in writing to the landlord and give them an opportunity to investigate and respond. It says it will investigate if the landlord has not responded after four weeks and then fails to respond within 48 hours to a final reminder. It says officers may ask to see evidence of the tenant’s correspondence with the landlord and photographs.
12. The Council’s corporate enforcement policy sets out the general principles underpinning its approach to carrying out its regulatory and enforcement functions. It says officers will try to resolve any issues informally without resorting to legal action unless there is a serious breach which requires formal action to prevent an immediate risk to health and safety. Officers will take a fair and proportionate approach and encourage voluntary compliance.
13. The Council’s Housing Compliance & Enforcement team is responsible for investigating complaints about poor housing conditions in private rented sector properties in the city.

What happened

14. Until mid-May 2022 Mrs X lived in a two bedroom private rented property in Manchester with her husband and three children.
15. In late August 2021 Mrs X contacted the Housing Compliance & Enforcement (HCE) team to report concerns about the quality of her mains water supply. She said there were dark bits in the water when she ran the taps. She expressed concern that the water may be contaminated by lead in the pipework and the potential impact on her family’s health.
16. An officer in the HCE team promptly contacted Mrs X to request:
• Contact details for the landlord or managing agents;
• Evidence that she had reported this issue to the landlord or managing agent;
• Details of any correspondence from the water company.
17. Mrs X called the HCE team the following day and gave the managing agents’ contact details. She sent some photographs by email but the officer could not view them because they were linked to an email account for which he did not have access rights. Mrs X says the officer did not tell her at the time that he could not view these photographs. Mrs X said she had not been able to send the other evidence requested.
18. On the same day an officer tried to call Mrs X but could not get through. He sent an email asking for the report from the water company which she had mentioned in her notes. He also contacted the managing agents to seek their response to Mrs X’s concerns about the water quality. They told him a plumber had inspected the property and found no issues.
19. On 9 September the officer attempted to call Mrs X again but her number was not recognised. He decided to close the case then because Mrs X had not responded to his email or sent the evidence he had requested.
20. Mrs X contacted the HCE team again in early October. She repeated her concerns about deposits in the water. She was worried this may have caused gastro-intestinal problems. The team reopened her case. Mrs X sent her photographs again. The officer asked for evidence that she had reported this first to her landlord or managing agent. Mrs X replied that the managing agents knew about the issue. She said a test had been done the previous year which did not reveal any problem. Mrs X did not send the officer evidence of her correspondence with the managing agents about the water quality.
21. The officer considered a letter from the water company which Mrs X provided. He considered it was inconclusive because the water company had not done a water quality test at the property. The letter also said lead may be present in other parts of the water distribution network outside the property. It advised Mrs X to run the taps in the morning to clear any sediment that built up overnight.
22. The officer closed the case again in early November because Mrs X had not provided evidence to confirm she had reported the problem first to the managing agents. Mrs X disputes this.
23. This prompted Mrs X to complain that the HCE team were not assisting her. There were further email exchanges in November 2021 between the officer and Mrs X’s support worker. The officer told the support worker:
• the Council does not offer a service to test water quality;
• the water company is responsible for testing water quality to decide if the supply is contaminated. He had advised Mrs X to contact them to request a report;
• the Council would review the case if she provided a report from the water company.
24. The officer replied to Mrs X’s complaint in early December 2021. He repeated the points he had made to the support worker. He said the managing agents had told him there was no lead pipework inside the property. He stressed he needed to see a water quality report from the water company.
25. There was no further contact until mid-January 2022 when an officer in the Anti-Social Behaviour team made a referral to HCE on Mrs X’s behalf. He mentioned three issues: damp, dirty water, and overcrowding. He said two members of the family were isolating with COVID-19 at the time. The officer told him he had closed the investigation because Mrs X had not provided evidence she had reported issues to the landlord first.
26. In mid- February 2022 the HCE team received another report about a broken light in the property. An officer contacted the managing agents who said one of their maintenance team had attended the property that day to repair it but he could not get access. He had left a calling card. According to the managing agents, the tenants had not contacted them to arrange access by the end of February.
27. In late February an officer in the HCE team contacted Mrs X to arrange to inspect the property on 3 March 2022. The officer attended with an employee from the managing agents’ maintenance team. He found water had been leaking from the first floor bathroom into the lounge below through a light fitting. The maintenance contractor unblocked the washbasin in the bathroom and removed the bath panel to check for a blocked water outlet. He returned the following day to replace a damaged socket.
28. In his inspection report the officer also noted there was an area of damaged skirting board and a small hole in the ceiling of a first floor bedroom caused by a historic roof leak which had been fixed. He added further notes a few days later to say the leak from the bathroom had been resolved by unblocking the washbasin and the light fitting was working again.
29. The officer sent Mrs X an email on 4 March to say the managing agents had told him the issues had now been resolved. On the same day Mrs X replied and said the agent’s contractor had done some work but water was still leaking from the bathroom. The officer arranged to make a further visit on 21 March.
30. On this second visit the officer poured coloured dyes into the bath and washbasin to establish if water was leaking from them into the lounge. The dyes did not come through the living room ceiling. He therefore decided the leak was caused when the tenant took showers in the bath because there was no shower enclosure or curtain. Water was spilling over onto the bathroom floor and leaking into the lounge below.
31. During the inspection Mrs X’s husband mentioned the central heating was not working. The maintenance employee found the gas boiler pressure was too low and adjusted it. He discovered the radiator valves had been turned off and reopened them. The central heating was working before they left.
32. The officer saw some holes in the skirting board but no evidence of rats during his inspection. He noticed refuse had been left outside the property. Mrs X says the managing agents had left rubbish outside the property and she had asked them to remove it.
33. The officer said the property was in a reasonable condition. The matters had been resolved and there were no grounds to take enforcement action against the landlord. He sent Mrs X an email on 21 March to inform her of his decision.
34. I have seen no evidence that Mrs X reported any new issues to the HCE team after 22 March. She says she did not report any new issues because the HCE team had not resolved her previous complaints.
35. Mrs X took her complaint through both stages of the Council’s complaints procedure between February and April 2022: it was not upheld. The Council said the managing agents were willing to engage with the Council and carry out repairs. The Council expected landlords and tenants to work together to resolve issues where possible.
36. In response to my draft decision, Mrs X sent me a copy of a water quality report and letter she received from the water company in March 2022. The water company had collect water samples from the property on 7 February and taken them away for laboratory analysis. On 5 March it wrote to Mrs X to explain the results. They tests showed the samples were all within normal limits and the water quality was satisfactory. A further visit was made on 17 February to collect a sample of water Mrs X had taken which had some black particles. This sample was tested no metallic elements were found. The letter says it suspected the particles were from sealant or the tap fittings. The water company’s fittings team went to the property on 2 March. They recommended removing a gauze on the taps and gave Mrs X advice about how to remove and clean plastic inserts on the tap. The letter confirmed there was a lead private supply pipe in the property and recommended it was replaced with a plastic pipe. But the water quality report found only minimal traces of lead in the water supply which were well below permitted levels. It suggested Mrs X could run the water supply for a few minutes to flush out the taps before using the water.
37. Mrs X says the Council has minimised the extent of the disrepair in the property. She believes the Council is biased in favour of the landlord and managing agents.

38. Mrs X and her family left the property in mid-May 2022 after her landlord obtained a Possession Order and a warrant for eviction. She thinks the landlord applied for a Possession Order because she had complained about the condition of the property.

My analysis

39. The HCE officer closed the case in September and November 2021 because Mrs X did not provide the evidence he had reasonably requested. The Council needed confirmation that Mrs X had first reported the disrepair to the landlord before it started to investigate her concerns about conditions in the property.
40. The Council does not provide a water quality testing service. The HCE officer correctly advised Mrs X to ask the water company to do a water quality test and provide a report. The water company’s March 2022 water quality report confirmed there were no unsafe levels of lead in the water supply. It said the water quality was satisfactory and within permitted limits. It is not clear whether Mrs X sent a copy of this report to the managing agents and the HCE team. But even if she did, it would only have confirmed that the water supplied to the property was safe for use.
41. After the case was reopened in February, an officer from the HCE team made two visits in March 2022 to inspect conditions in the property. The first visit in early March established that a blocked washbasin in the bathroom caused the leak into the lounge. This was fixed promptly by the managing agent’s maintenance employee. The second leak was not caused by disrepair. The officer tested the washbasin and bath with a dye solution and found they were not leaking into the lounge. Based on his tests and observations, he decided the leak happened because water spilled onto the bathroom floor when someone showered in the bath because there was no shower enclosure. The issues with the central heating were not caused by disrepair. They were resolved when the maintenance employee adjusted the boiler and opened the radiator valves during the visit.
42. In these circumstances, I find no fault with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against the landlord. I have taken into account that the Council’s policy encourages officers to resolve issues by negotiating with the landlord or managing agent first. The evidence I have seen indicates the managing agents were willing to carry out repairs when the Council brought these matters to their attention. It was therefore appropriate to liaise with them to get the repairs done and resolve matters informally.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed the investigation and found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman