Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of private housing disrepair. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to require her landlord to repair her private rented home. She says the Council has not prevented her landlord from delaying works and it should re house her because the property is unsuitable.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• 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. Miss X lives in a private rented property which has suffered from disrepair since 2024. She involved the Council’s private sector housing team after complaining in 2024. The Council identified some defects which it required the landlord to repair. The landlord has worked with the Council to complete the repairs. Following a new inspection in late 2024 the Council identified some other work which was required to be completed and it gave the landlord an extension of time to do this.

Miss X says she is on the housing register and wishes to be rehoused. The landlord served a s.21 possession notice on her and she was accepted as being threatened with homelessness under the Relief duty by the Council. The notice was found to be invalid and so the Council ended the Relief duty because her homeless situation was no longer present. Miss X says the Council should offer her more support to be rehoused. If Miss X disagreed with the ending of the Relief duty she could have asked for a review of the decision.

The Council’s duty under the Housing Act 2004 is to inspect private housing and require landlords to carry out repairs where necessary so that the tenant can remain in suitable housing conditions. The Council has pursued the landlord who has carried out some of the works. This is a separate matter from Miss X’s housing application and previous homelessness situation because the legislation is to make it possible for a tenant to remain in their home without disrepair. Miss X is currently on the housing register with a Band 1 priority for an urgent rehousing need.

The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of private housing disrepair. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman