The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There is no fault in how the Council dealt with Mr K’s report that his housing association had failed to do works to stop condensation build up interfering with his lighting and smoke detectors.
The complaint
Mr K complains that the Council has failed to deal with the defects in his home. Condensation build-up means the lights trip regularly and this is particularly dangerous because Mr K is disabled and has impaired mobility and sight.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by Mr K. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement, and I have taken into account any comments received.
What I found
The law and guidance Local authorities have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) (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. The Act also gives councils the power to enter premises to inspect it.
The Council can inspect the premises and serve a notice such as an Improvement Notice or a Notice of Emergency Remedial Action. If the Council finds a serious hazard it must take action.
The Government has issued guidance on how authorities can enforce the HHSRS. This says: Where, following a complaint the Council considers it appropriate to inspect premises to determine if a hazard exists, the authority must arrange for an inspection. While there is not an express duty on authorities to inspect properties, the legislation implies that an authority should have good reason not to investigate further. (paragraph 2.6) Where, following a complaint the Council considers it appropriate to inspect premises to determine if a category 1 or 2 hazard exists, the authority must arrange for an inspection. While there is not an express duty on authorities to inspect properties, the legislation implies that an authority should have good reason not to investigate further. (paragraph 2.6) What happened Mr K lives in a housing association (HA) property. He says the problems with the condensation damaging the electrics happened in 2018, and then again in 2020. Mr K reported this to the HA in 2020. The HA said it would take urgent action, but then failed to do so. In June 2021, Mr K asked the Council to intervene.
Within a week, the Council contacted the HA. It told the Council that it was in contact with Mr K, and the property had condensation in the loft extension, but Mr K had refused them access to carry out the necessary work. Mr K wanted the HA to do the work by removing the roof rather than working inside the property to accommodate the health needs of him and his wife. The HA said it did not think this was necessary and the work could be done from inside the property. The Council asked Mr K to give the HA access.
Mr K explained to the Council that he would not allow the work to start until the HA agreed to pay moving and packing costs and an inconvenience payment. Mr K also had concerns about how his wife and son would cope with the move (having mental illness and being autistic). Mr K later told the Council he had no lights or smoke detectors for six months due to the faults.
The HA engaged an independent consultant to assess the situation and decide a way forward. The consultant recommended that the work could be done by erecting scaffolding to the outside of the building, fitting 13 vents and relocating the extractor fan. In August, the HA decided that it would follow the consultant’s recommendation and informed Mr K and the Council. The Council chased progress of the work in September, but the HA advised that Mr K had refused access. The Council again asked Mr K to give the Council access and he explained that the HA still had not answered how this would be managed with his family’s health needs, and also had not answered his claims that the defects had caused him injury. Mr K told the Council that it needed to investigate how the HA had handled this and to intervene to help him.
The Council tells me that it considered using its powers to gain entry to inspect the lighting and smoke alarms as if not working, this could be a serious hazard. However, the HA’s electrician visited the property and confirmed the lights and smoke detectors were all working (the issue is that these are tripped when condensation builds up). The HA advised the Council that it would consider court action to gain entry to do the work. The Council closed its case due to the ongoing dispute between the HA and Mr K.
The actions of the HA fall under the remit of the Housing Ombudsman. Mr K complained to the Housing Ombudsman that the HA had not acted properly. The Housing Ombudsman found that the HA Had not handled Mr K’s complaints properly. It recommended that the HA pay Mr K £400 for the impact caused by the failings regarding the condensation and £150 for the impact caused by the HA’s complaint handling. It also recommended that the HA identified and progressed all Mr K’s existing complaints.
Was there fault by the Council causing Mr K injustice?
The Council acted on Mr K’s complaint to it in good time. It also quickly checked with the HA when Mr K told the Council he had no lighting or smoke detectors.
It is for the Council to properly consider all the circumstances and decide what action to take. It is clear the Council established that the HA had accepted that remedial work was necessary, that there was a dispute about how this would be done, and that it had commissioned an independent consultant to recommend how it might resolve the dispute and progress the works. On this basis, the Council could conclude that it did not need to take any formal action.
I have considered whether the Council should have established the hazard for itself and if necessary, serve a hazard awareness notice. This would have allowed it to record the hazard and take enforcement action should the HA not do the work adequately. However, the Council had no duty to do so and it had satisfied itself that the HA was engaged in resolving the problem.
I have taken into account the Housing Ombudsman’s decision. However, this does not indicate that the HA would not resolve the disagreement without formal action from the Council, and it is important to note that the HA had agreed to fund the cost of doing the work with external scaffolding.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman