The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about harassment by the Council and a breach of the General Data Protection Regulations. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And it is reasonable for the complainant to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider his complaint about a data protection breach.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council has failed to act on his reports that an Officer is harassing him and backing his troublesome tenants.
He also complaints the Council has breached the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complains the Council is harassing him because of spurious complaints from his tenant.
The Housing Act 2004 (the Act) Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) provisions, give councils power to take enforcement action against private landlords. This is when the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. If a council considers a category one hazard exists in a residential property, they must take suitable enforcement action under the Act. Councils have discretion to take enforcement action if a category two hazard is identified.
The Council says it determined the hazards at the property to be category two. It served a Notice of Intention on Mr X. This set out what is required to correct the defects.
I understand Mr X believes the Council is backing his tenants. However, if a tenant reports disrepair in their privately rented property, the Council has a duty to inspect the property. Disputes between the landlord and tenant do not negate this duty.
The Council inspected the property and served a Notice of Intention requiring Mr X, as landlord, to repair the defects found. It is not our role to decide if the outcome of the inspection was correct or whether the repairs were warranted.
The Council acted appropriately by acting on a report of defects in Mr X’s property. There is not enough evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation by us.
Mr X also says the Council breached the GDPR. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) are better placed to consider complaints about data protection matters including GDPR breaches.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s inspection of Mr X’s property following reports of disrepair by his tenant. Nor in it serving a Notice of Intention outlining the required repairs.
It is reasonable to expect him to complain to the ICO about a GDPR breach.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman