The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of reports of disrepair in private rented sector housing. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to warrant further investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her reports of damp and mould in her father, Mr Y’s, private rented sector property. She said the Council delayed in carrying out an inspection and failed to write to her with the outcome. She is unhappy the Council did not identify any hazards in the property as she had pointed out defects in the external structure resulting in water ingress.
Ms X said the Council’s attitude towards her caused upset at an already difficult time. She wants it to review and improve its processes.
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
What happened Ms X contacted the Council about damp in Mr Y’s property in October 2024. At the time, Mr Y was in hospital and wanted to return home but could not do so due to the poor housing conditions.
Ms X said she had been reporting concerns to the landlord for some years. In September 2024, the landlord had arranged for a contractor to carry out a damp survey and, shortly after her initial contact with the Council, Ms X reported the landlord had agreed to carry out damp proof work.
The Council agreed to carry out an inspection. Ms X asked if it would send her a report that she could send to her solicitor. The Council confirmed it would send her a copy of any schedule of works sent to the landlord.
Due to a miscommunication, the inspection was delayed by two weeks. It was carried out on 19 November, just over a month after Ms X had contacted it. By that point damp proof works had begun. The Council officer did not identify any defects requiring further works but did not confirm this to Ms X until a month later. Its complaint response confirmed the officer recorded that extensive work had been done to the property, and they had checked the remaining walls and found them to be dry.
Ms X says she subsequently provided evidence to show the works carried out on behalf of the landlord had not resolved the damp issues.
My assessment
Where a report is made of disrepair in private rented sector (PRS) housing that has not been addressed by the landlord, the Council should carry out an inspection to identify whether there are any category 1 or 2 hazards using the Housing Heath and Safety Rating system (HHSRS). If a council identifies any category 1 hazards, it is under a duty to take formal action against the landlord. If it identifies category 2 hazards, it has a power (but not a duty) to take action.
In this case, the Council carried out an HHSRS inspection within a month of Ms X reporting her concerns. It did not identify category 1 or 2 hazards, largely because extensive works had already been undertaken by the date of the inspection. Whether or not there are hazards is a matter for the officer’s professional judgement and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
The fact that the works carried out on behalf of the landlord did not resolve the damp in the property does not necessarily indicate fault in the inspection process and may have been due to poor work by the contractor. This is not something we could resolve by further investigation.
Further, if hazards had been identified, the Council would have started formal action to require the landlord to carry out the works required. This would have taken some time and possibly required court action. Therefore, it would not have produced the urgent response Ms X was seeking. Since the works had largely been completed when the Council inspected, there is no indication Mr Y’s return to the property was delayed due to Council fault, so there is insufficient injustice caused to warrant further investigation.
The Council has apologised for mis-communication in relation to the date of the inspection and whether a written report would be issued after it. This is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman