Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council responded to his complaints of disrepair at his rented property and harassment by his landlord. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the alleged harassment by his landlord. The Council has accepted it delayed in dealing with Mr X’s complaints and offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains there were failings in the way the Council responded to his complaints of disrepair at his privately rented property dating back to 2020. Mr X also complains about the way the Council dealt with his allegations of harassment by his landlord and illegal eviction attempts causing him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s responses from September 2023. I have not investigated any concerns Mr X may have about the Council’s actions from 2020 to 2022. This is because Mr X’s concerns about events then are late. I consider it was open to Mr X to have raised any complaints about the Council’s response between 2020 and 2022 with us before now. I have however referred to events between 2020 and 2022 in this statement to provide background to Mr X’s complaints from 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr X’s complaint, the information he provided, and discussed the complaint with him;
• considered the Council’s responses to the complaint and the information it provided; and
• had regard to the relevant law guidance and policy to the complaint.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Houses in multiple occupation (HMO)

8. An HMO is a property rented out by at least three people who are not from one household but share facilities like the bathroom and kitchen. Private landlords must obtain a licence to rent out a large HMO (all buildings or parts of buildings housing 5 or more people in two or more households). Some local authorities may also use their discretionary power under the act to designate certain areas to be subject to additional licensing, which would require smaller HMOs in the designated area to be licensed.
9. The Housing Act 2004 sets out how a local authority should review licences and circumstances where it may grant, vary, or revoke licences.

Disrepair

10. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair.
11. Local authorities have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (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.
12. If a council considers a category 1 hazard exists in residential premises, they must take appropriate enforcement action in accordance with section 5 of the Act. Councils have discretion to take enforcement action if a category 2 hazard is identified.

Harassment and illegal evictions

13. Private tenants may complain to their council if their landlord is harassing them or is trying to evict them. Local authorities have powers under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to investigate complaints of harassment and illegal eviction, and to prosecute a landlord where he or she commits an offence.

The Council’s Private Sector Housing, Licensing and enforcement policy 2021

14. The Council’s policy sets out its regulation of housing standards, the licensing of HMO’s, management of empty properties and investigating allegations of harassment and unlawful eviction. The Council uses the policy to ensure it meets it obligations to enforce high standards of housing. And that its limited resources are used in most effective way possible to guarantee the health and safety of residents.
15. It says the aim of HMO licensing is to ensure the type of property is safe, well managed and meets the minimum legal standards set.
16. The policy sets out the level of enforcement action to be taken. This can be informal, formal or emergency action. In certain circumstances the Council may not take action if considered to do so would be disproportionate or inappropriate taking into account the circumstances of the case. If considering prosecution, the Council needs to investigate, establish if there is a statutory defence and reasons why the case may or may not be in the public interest to pursue further action.

What happened

17. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.

Events 2020 to 2022

18. Mr X rented a room in an HMO from a private landlord. In April 2020 Mr X complained to the Council about alleged harassment from his landlord. A Council officer investigated Mr X’s claims. Mr X complained to the Council again in June 2021 that despite the officer assuring the landlord’s actions were harassment, no action had been taken. The Council says the officer left the Council’s employment in April 2022 and did not enter any records into the Council’s case management system about the handling of the case. But the officer’s advice to Mr X was not signed off by any senior officer.
19. A senior officer visited the property in September 2021 to carry out a licensing inspection after the landlord applied to renew the HMO license. The officer did not record any disrepair at the property. The Council marked Mr X’s complaint as already resolved. Mr X chased the Council for a response, but officers cannot recall why the case was marked as resolved.
20. Mr X complained to the Council in April 2022 alleging dangerous disrepair at the property and further harassment by the landlord. The Council allocated the case to a different officer who inspected the property. The officer found no category 1 hazards but noted a few minor issues which were potential breaches of the HMO management regulations. The officer sent a schedule of work to the landlord. Mr X discussed the actions of the landlord with the officer. The officer advised the incidents described were unlikely to meet the legal test necessary for the Council to gain a conviction for harassment.
21. Mr X provided the officer with more information about the alleged harassment in November 2022 including an invalid S21 notice which Mr X challenged. The officer advised that most incidents were not good landlord practice and did not meet the statutory definition of harassment. Mr X says he submitted a further formal complaint but did not receive a response. The Council says it has not been able to find any reference to the complaint in its systems.
22. The officer visited the property again in December 2022 for a scheduled inspection. Mr X and the landlord were present. The officer advised the landlord that aspects of their behaviour were not good practice, and they could only end Mr X’s tenancy by serving a valid notice. The officer told Mr X the incidents he described would not enable the Council to prosecute the landlord. The landlord applied to vary the HMO license during 2022 and the schedule of works required were subsumed into the license variation process.

Events from September 2023

23. Mr X contacted the officer in September 2023 alleging further disrepair, harassment by his landlord and receiving another s 21 notice to end the tenancy. The officer said the notice appeared valid. Mr X believed it was in retaliation for his complaints. The officer agreed to arrange a further inspection for October 2023 to assess any disrepair.
24. Mr X complained to the Council about its handling of his complaint and failing to take action against his landlord for harassing him. A senior officer responded to the complaint in October 2023. It explained the action taken by the Council since 2020, the property inspections and outcomes and consideration of Mr X’s allegations of harassment. The officer confirmed the Council’s view the landlord’s actions did not amount to harassment at a level it could successfully prosecute. The officer advised Mr X he could progress to stage 2 of the complaints procedure if dissatisfied with the response.
25. Mr X was unhappy with the response, wished to escalate to stage 2 and submitted two follow up emails. The Council says the officer did not receive notification of the emails and so did not respond. One of Mr X’s emails set out a serious allegation another officer had left a voicemail for Mr X and used insulting language towards him. The Council acknowledged it missed further contact from Mr X’s MP in November and December 2023 who wrote on Mr X’s behalf the Council had not responded to Mr X’s complaints.
26. The Council accepts during this period its corporate complaints procedure was not functioning well and in addition the officer was receiving a large amount of email correspondence. The Council has since reviewed the complaints procedure.
27. The officer received a reminder about replying to the MP in January 2024. The officer responded to the MP and advised the Council had not failed to act on its statutory obligations towards Mr X. But asked Mr X to send information about the officer’s language used towards him. The officer says he was unaware Mr X had asked to go to stage 2 of the complaint procedure.
28. Mr X complained in February 2024 he had not received a response. The Council wrongly registered the complaint as stage 1 and sent the MP’s response to Mr X. He was asked to send information about the officer’s language. Mr X provided a copy of a voicemail message from the officer. Mr X and the investigating officer then spoke about the complaint. The officer:
• Apologised for the language used in the call and the Council’s poor handling of his complaints.
• Explained they had reviewed the case with all officers and managers involved and did not consider Mr X’s concerns met the threshold for harassment and there were no category 1 hazards in the property.
• Offered to review the latest s 21 notice from Mr X’s landlord to ensure it was legal and carry out a further property inspection to review any new disrepair.
29. Mr X agreed to the Council’s actions and to inspect the property. The officer sent a written response to the stage 2 as outlined in the telephone call and advice about the landlord’s notice. Mr X responded he had successfully appealed the eviction notice and asked the Council to issue his landlord with an improvement notice. Mr X did not want the Council to visit the property in case the landlord took retaliatory action against him.
30. The Council explained it needed to inspect the property to review the disrepair as it could not issue a notice without inspecting. The Council arranged for an officer to speak to Mr X about the inspection process and finding hazards at the property.
31. The Council inspected the property in April 2024. It found minor issues regarding Mr X’s room and water leaks from guttering. The Council sent the landlord a schedule of works in May 2024. An officer inspected the property in June 2024, spoke to the landlord and reported all the required works had been carried out. The Council says it received no further contact from Mr X.

The Council’s comments on the complaint

32. The Council says it has already sent a formal apology to Mr X for the significant delays he experienced when the Council dealt with his complaints about his landlord and then complaints about the Council. It has considered Mr X’s case again and in addition to the apology it wishes to offer him £500 for his time and trouble due to the Council’s complaints handling. The Council acknowledged Mr X suffered a medium impact due to significant service failures and put to the time and trouble of complaining to us.
33. But the Council says that despite the severe delays and poor customer service it has been clear throughout about the behaviour of Mr X’s landlord. This is that it did not meet the legal test required for the Council to prosecute for harassment in line with its enforcement policy and statutory obligations.
34. It accepts that there were some minor delays to repairs required in the communal areas of the HMO due to the Council’s delayed responses. But these have now been completed. The Council considered the disrepair was only ever minor as opposed to hazardous. So according to its enforcement policy it would not have served an improvement notice which would have granted Mr X some protection against eviction. The Council confirms it dealt with potential breaches of the HMO as part of its work to review the property license when it was due for renewal in 2021. It also issued a schedule of works in 2024 in response to Mr X’s complaints and the landlord’s request to vary the license.

My assessment

35. The Council has provided documents to show that it responded to Mr X’s concerns about harassment by his landlord and disrepair at the property from September 2023. The Council did not consider the alleged harassment met the legal tests required by the Council to prosecute the landlord. It has advised Mr X of its decision on several occasions.
36. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision there was no evidence of harassment by the landlord, but the decision is a matter of the officers’ professional judgement. We cannot question the merits of the decision itself without evidence of fault in the way it was made. I do not consider there is fault in this case.
37. This is because the officers considered the information and evidence provided by Mr X. They visited the property and spoke to the landlord. This is according to the Council’s enforcement policy. The officers considered the evidence gathered and were satisfied the alleged harassment did not meet the required tests. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X’s complaints of harassment from September 2023.
38. The Council accepts it delayed responding to Mr X’s complaints about its actions when responding to his concerns about his landlady and repairs at the property. It has apologised to Mr X and upheld his concerns about delay and the language used by an officer when leaving a voicemail message. The Council acknowledged the time taken to respond to his concerns may have led to a delay in repairs at the property. However, it dealt with previous disrepair issues with the HMO license renewals and now ensured the minor repairs Mr X raised from September 2023 have been completed. It has offered Mr X a payment of £500 for his time and trouble in needing to make complaints about its actions.
39. The documents provided support the conclusions drawn by the Council there was fault in its handling of Mr X’s complaints. Mr X has been required to chase the Council for responses and some of his complaints were missed by officers. This has caused him an injustice through his time and trouble in pursing the matter. It has also caused him frustration through trying to resolve the repairs required at the property. The Council has also acknowledged its delays may have led to delays in the repairs being carried out to the communal areas of the property, although these were considered to be minor. I do not consider I can add anything to the investigation already carried out by the Council. It has offered Mr X a payment of £500 in recognition of the time and trouble he has been put to in making his complaints. I consider this is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X and is in line with our Guidance on Remedies. I do not therefore consider any further investigation by us will lead to a different outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has dealt with Mr X’s concerns about harassment by his landlord. The Council has accepted it delayed in dealing with Mr X’s complaints and has offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman