Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a home Mr X leased to the Council. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to take court action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not returned a home he leased to the Council. He says this has caused him financial difficulty, stress and frustration, hindered his plan to sell the property and affected his health. He wants the Council to return the property and pay compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. Where the law allows us to investigate a point of complaint, we provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X owns a home that he leased to the Council for the Council to use as homelessness temporary accommodation. The lease has expired but the Council has not returned the property to Mr X.
7. Essentially, Mr X is arguing the Council has broken its legal agreement with him. The courts can consider such matters, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies.
8. There might be some cost to court action, but that does not automatically make it unreasonable to expect someone to go to court. Mr X has described how the situation has already caused him some expense. However, Mr X let the property out as a business arrangement, so he might reasonably expect managing it will not necessarily always go smoothly and might sometimes involve some expense and inconvenience. If Mr X’s court action were to succeed, he could ask the court for his costs.
9. Also, interpreting the law about whether parties acted properly under leases or any other legal duties, and deciding how to put right any breach, are more properly matters for the courts than for the Ombudsman. This is particularly relevant here, where Mr X seeks compensation for: not receiving the level of rent he would consider correct and for having to make higher mortgage payments and potentially having a different capital gains tax liability than if he had got the property back when he expected. Those are arguments about consequential or economic loss. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation. It is more appropriate for the courts to decide those points.
10. The alleged impact on Mr X’s health is really a claim of personal injury, which the courts can consider. Liability and compensation for personal injury are not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide those matters.
11. Also, any investigation by the Ombudsman would not be able to guarantee returning the properties to Mr X with vacant possession. I understand someone the Council placed in the property is living there. If they do not leave voluntarily (either when rehoused by the Council or for another reason), only the courts can force them to move out. So the Ombudsman cannot achieve the main result Mr X wants.
12. Mr X also complains about the Council’s communications with him and its handling of his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about a Council’s communications or complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because Mr X could reasonably use his right to take court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman