Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to follow its agreement to pay rent directly to the landlord on behalf of a tenant whom he housed as a homeless applicant. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept it now. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to take court action in 2019 when his legal representative threatened to do so.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a landlord who agreed to house a tenant who had been accepted as homeless by the Council in 2013. He says the tenant fell into arrears in 2018 and when he contacted the Council it refused to pay rent directly to him as he said it had agreed to do. He has lost thousands of pounds in rental as a result and the tenant caused over £4,000 of damage when she left. He wants the Council to compensate him according to its agreement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X is a landlord who rented a flat in 2013 to a tenant who had been accepted as homeless by the Council. He says the Council made an agreement to pay the rent direct to him rather than the tenant. In 2017 the rental payments stopped and he contacted the Council. It says the tenant had stopped claiming benefit and it assisted her with a new claim and Discretionary Housing Payment.
6. In October 2018 the rental payments ceased and were not restarted. Mr X’s solicitors contacted the Council and made a complaint. In 2019 they threatened to take court action against the Council for breach of the agreement to pay rent. The Council replied and said that it had only agreed to pay the deposit as part of a non-refundable scheme. It was not the tenant’s guarantor and it could only provide the tenant with benefits assistance which it had done in 2017.
7. Mr X did not pursue the next stage of the complaints procedure for another 6 months. The Council then did not reply for another 4 months. When he complained to us in February 2021 he had been aware of the cessation of rental payments since October 2018. The Council responded to the stage 2 complaint in August 2020 and confirmed that it had no agreement with Mr X and that the tenant had not claimed housing benefit since 2018 so there were no benefit payments to make a direct payment.
8. Analysis
9. Mr X was aware of the benefit payments for rental ending as long ago as 2018. We do not normally investigate complaints about matters the complainant was aware of for more than 12 months. We have discretion to disapply this rule where we decide there are good reasons. In this case I have decided not to exercise discretion because Mr X had already threatened to take court action in 2019 over breach of the agreement. We do not investigate where there is a court remedy available and it is reasonable to pursue it.
10. Mr X did receive direct housing benefit payments until 2018 when the tenant ceased claiming and did not respond to the Council. If there was no agreement to pay the rent, then this is a civil matter between the landlord and the tenant.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept it now. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to take court action in 2019 when his legal representative threatened to do so.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman