The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms D says the Council failed to promptly address hazards in her rental home. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council and have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.
The complaint
The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council failed to correctly assess hazards in her home, allowed additional time for remedial works and wrongly closed the case.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)
What I have and have not investigated I have investigated the Council’s actions relating solely to its consideration of defect reports by Ms D in January 2023. I have not investigated any subsequent new reports of hazards (such as mould) that happened. These would need to be first put to the Council by Ms D.
How I considered this complaint
I have spoken to Ms D and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council questions and examined its response and case file.
I shared my draft decision with both parties.
What I found
What happened On 16 January 2023 Ms D told the Council about disrepair issues at her private rental home including mould, issues with a door and windows. The next day the case was allocated to an Environmental Health Officer (Officer) to assess. They carried out a triage visit on 19 January and noted there were issues in the property including penetrating damp, a blown glazing unit and front door. The Officer would check with the freeholder (the Council) whether the property had ceiling insulation. Through the rest of January and early February the Officer was in contact with the Council about whether the property had insulation and to consider if there were any leaks. He gained access to the roof crawl space on 15 February. He did not find any leaks.
On 27 February the Officer issued a notice of intended entry to the owner and copied to Ms D. The Officer carried out a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment of the property on 2 March. He found a category one hazard caused by blown double glazing. There were also category two hazards relating to damp and mould in a bedroom and bathroom. He also found there was a lack of ventilation in the kitchen which required the installation of mechanical ventilation. The next day the Officer served an improvement notice on the owner. This detailed the works needed to address the hazards and the works should be completed by 1 June. Later that month the owner accepted the works would be done but contested the need for mechanical ventilation. The Officer discussed the case with the Principal Officer on 22 March. Because windows could be used to provide natural ventilation the Officers agreed it was unreasonable to require mechanical ventilation at the property. On 31 March the Officer issued a variation notice removing the need for mechanical ventilation. A copy was sent to Ms D.
On 12 June the Officer contacted the owner reminding them about the deadline to complete the works. On 19 June Ms D’s partner told the Council that painting had not been done to the property. The Officer subsequently contacted the owner and then replied to Ms D on 6 July. He said the owner had asked to wait to carry out painting until the walls were dry. The Officer asked Ms D if she preferred, he inspect the property that month or after the paint work was complete. Ms D did not respond. The Officer subsequently left his post at the Council.
On 26 September a different Environmental Health Officer (Officer B) contacted the owner about completing works at the property and asked they be done in 14 days. The Managing Agent asked the Council for longer to do the works. On 10 October Officer B visited the property and spoke to the Managing Agent who stated their contractor had been ill and this had delayed matters. They provided the Council with a schedule of works which Officer B agreed. On 12 October Ms D asked the Council why it had granted an extension on the works. The Council replied the next day that it had allowed longer to allow damp areas to dry out. Later that month there was an issue over access for the contractor to the property.
On 16 November the Managing Agent told the Council the works were complete. On 21 November the Council asked Ms D about inspecting the property to check if the repairs had been finished. The Council chased up Ms D on 27 November and Officer B (along with an Environmental Protection Officer) visited that day. They noted all the works set out in the improvement notice had been completed. Ms D referred to new mould patches appearing in the property. The Officers said as this did not relate to the improvement notice Ms D should put in a new report to the Council. At the end of the month the case was closed.
What should have happened The Council considers reports of disrepair and hazards in private rental properties. Its Housing Enforcement Policy sets out the key principals of enforcement. When the Council receives a report about potential hazards it allocates the case to an Officer who will carry out a triage assessment inspection of the home. If the Officer finds there are likely to be hazards the case is progressed to a formal HHSRS inspection. Where the Council identifies category one hazards it has a duty to take enforcement action. The Council will notify the owner of the property and the resident about its findings. It may serve an improvement notice on the owner. This details the defects and works needed to remedy them. It also includes a deadline for the works to be completed.
The Council should consider any challenge to the improvement notice and whether the requirements within it are reasonable. If the Council decides to alter the works required, it will issue a variation notice.
The Council can extend the deadline for completion of remedial works, this is at the Council’s discretion and whether it considers the request reasonable. It should notify key parties about agreed extensions.
The Council should inspect the property after it is notified works have been completed. At the inspection the Officer is looking at whether the actions set out in the improvement notice have been complied with. If they have been the Council should close the case. Any instances of new disrepair/ hazards not covered by the improvement notice would need to be reported to the Council as a new case.
Was there fault by the Council I have not found any evidence of fault by the Council.
The Council carried out its triage and HHSRS assessment visits in line with procedures. It followed the correct process for notifying the property owner and Ms D about its findings and what remedial actions were needed. The Council also had a duty to consider any responses to the improvement notice. I cannot find a record of Ms D disputing the outcome of the HHSRS inspection at the time. However, the owner did challenge one part of the works needed and the Council agreed this was an unreasonable requirement. It adhered to its procedures by issuing a variation notice.
Ms D refers to the Council extending the deadline for works at her home. The Council has the discretion to extend deadlines where it considers a request is reasonable. In this case the owner explained the reason for wanting longer in July and the Council told Ms D that month about why it had allowed longer for works.
There is gap in any action on the case from mid-July to mid-September. I see the Officer originally handling the case left the Council and the case had to be reallocated. I cannot see there was any unreasonable and avoidable delay by the Council. Once the case was reallocated Officer B chased up the Managing Agent about completing outstanding works. Again, the Council agreed the owner could have longer to carry out works because it considered the reason for delay to be reasonable. I appreciate Ms D disagrees with the Council extending the deadlines but those are decisions the Council had the right to take.
Ms D says the Council should not have closed the case because new mould had appeared in the property. The Council correctly advised Ms D at the November visit that it was only checking whether the disrepair and works set out in the improvement notice had been addressed. Any new problems would need to be reported to the Council as a new case. In view of this I see no fault in the Council closing the case in November once it was satisfied the improvement notice had been complied with.
I appreciate my decision will be disappointing for Ms D. It is important to note the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council 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 Ms D disagrees with the decisions the Council made.
Final decision
I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman