Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in paying an incentive payment. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and there is not enough remaining injustice to warrant an investigation. In addition, an allegation of breach of contract needs to be determined in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, wants an apology and £200 compensation because the Council delayed paying an incentive payment after he leased a property. Mr X says he incurred a financial loss and the Council should make a payment for breach of contract.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X decided to lease a property to the Council. Following an inspection by the Council Mr X spent about £150 on repairs. The Council agreed to lease the property and said it would pay Mr X an incentive payment of £1500 the day after the tenancy started. The incentive payment included the amount Mr X spent on repairs. The tenancy started on 8 December; the Council made the payment on 11 January.
6. Mr X complained about the delay. He said he had incurred a financial loss.
7. In response the Council apologised for the delayed payment and explained what had gone wrong. It said it had reviewed its procedures and made changes to the way it makes payments. It declined Mr X’s request for compensation.
8. I asked Mr X for specific information about what losses he incurred due to the delay. Mr X says he spent money on the repair and said he nearly breached his overdraft. He said the Council should compensate him for breach of contract.
9. There was a delay by the Council of just over a month in making the payment. However, I will not investigate the complaint for the following reasons. The Council has provided a satisfactory response. The Council accepts there was a delay and has apologised. It has also reviewed its procedures and made changes to the way it processes payments. This is a fair and proportionate response and there is nothing more we would ask the Council to do. In saying this I have also decided that, once the Council’s response is taken into account, there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation. I say this because Mr X has not provided evidence of an actual loss. The money he paid for the repair was covered by the incentive payment and nearly breaching an overdraft does not incur additional costs.
10. Mr X says he should be compensated for breach of contract. We cannot decide if there has been a breach of contract; that is a matter for the courts. If Mr X thinks he should be compensated for a breach of contract he would need to pursue a legal claim. The court would decide if there has been a breach and, if applicable, decide the amount of damages the Council should pay. This is a reasonable step for Mr X to make because we do not act as an alternative to the courts and cannot decide if there has been a breach of contract.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a satisfactory response. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of injustice and only the courts can decide if there has been a breach of contract.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman