The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council serving Mr X with an Improvement Notice for disrepair at his rented property. It was reasonable for him to appeal the Notice to the First Tier Tribunal.
The complaint
Mr X complained about a Council decision to issue him with an improvement notice at his rented property and, when he refused to comply with this, put a charge on the property.
Mr X said the experience had caused him a great deal of stress. He also complained that he was racially discriminated against by a council worker, who sided with the tenant against him. He wants the Council to remove the charge from the property and reverse the Notice.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained the Council served him with an Improvement Notice after inspecting a property that he rented to a private tenant. When serving this notice, the Council advised Mr X of his right to appeal the decision to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property). Mr X did not appeal at the time, but later complained to the Council about its decision. The Council explained that any request for his appeal to be heard out of time (late) would also need to be made to the Tribunal. Mr X later approached the First Tier Tribunal to lodge an appeal, but refused to pay the £100 fee to do so.
We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X had a right of appeal about the decision to a Tribunal and it was reasonable for him to use it. It is the role of the Tribunal, not the Ombudsman, to decide appeals against the type of financial penalty issued against Mr X. The Council told Mr X about the appeals process and his right to ask the Tribunal if he could make an out of time appeal. So, Mr X was aware of his appeal rights.
In addition, Mr X complained the Council’s Environmental Health Officer discriminated against him, in that he refused to allow him to attend the inspection of the property that led to the issuing of the Improvement Notice, and did not intervene when the tenant verbally abused him during that inspection.
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The officer’s email to Mr X clearly stated that he may attend the inspection if he wished to do so, and he did attend. While Mr X felt the officer’s actions during the visit were racially motivated, there is no evidence of this. The officer’s role was to inspect the property, not to intervene in any dispute between Mr X and the tenant. In any event, if Mr X disagreed with the issuing of the Improvement Notice, his route to challenge this is via the Tribunal.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council serving Mr X with an Improvement Notice for disrepair at his rented property. This is because he has a right of appeal to a Tribunal and it is reasonable for him to use it.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman