Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her tenancy agreement and an incentive payment to her landlord. The complaint is late. There is no indication Ms X could not have complained earlier and no good reason to decide to investigate now. In any case, Ms X has not suffered a sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained:
• there was fraud in relation to the arranging of her tenancy agreement and making an incentive payment to her landlord;
• neither her landlord nor their agent were registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) or the Property Redress scheme;
• the property has four separate dwellings so should have a licence but was not listed on the Council’s register of licensed properties; and
• the Council acknowledged her complaint by post, which was at risk of being intercepted by her landlord.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. The Council arranged a private rented sector tenancy for Ms X, which started in June 2024. The Council agreed to pay the landlord an incentive payment of £2,000, which was paid in October 2024, after being appropriately authorised.
8. In June 2025, Ms X complained the officer arranging the tenancy had mishandled the incentive payment, which may amount to fraud. She said the officer did not have a bank statement with the landlord’s address on it when they agreed the incentive payment. She also said the landlord and agent’s addresses were not on the tenancy agreement.
9. The Council sent an acknowledgement of the complaint by post. Ms X further complained that sending the letter by post was a breach of confidentiality because the letter could have been intercepted by her landlord.
10. In its complaint response, the Council:
• said there was no evidence of mishandling of the tenancy agreement or incentive payment;
• confirmed Ms X was not entitled to any part of the incentive payment, nor the records relating to its authorising of that payment;
• acknowledged a slight delay in paying the incentive payment; and
• said it had no record that Ms X had asked it not to write to her at her address.
11. In her complaint to us, Ms X also raised concerns about the landlord and letting agent not being registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) or the Property Redress scheme, and about the property not having a licence.

My assessment

12. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Ms X complained to us in August 2025 about events from June 2024 onwards. She did not complaint to the Council until a year after the start of the tenancy. There is no indication Ms X could not have complained to us earlier about the arranging of the tenancy and no good reason to decide to investigate now. In any case, there is no indication Ms X suffered a sufficient injustice as a result of the matters complained about to justify our involvement.
13. The law says we cannot investigate complaints unless the Council has had the chance to respond to them. Therefore, we cannot investigate the additional issues Ms X raised with us, which she did not include in her complaint to the Council. Even if that were not the case, there is no indication Ms X has suffered a sufficient injustice in relation to any failure by her landlord or their agent in registering with the ICO of Property Redress scheme because her tenancy rights are not affected by any failure to register. The Council’s selective licensing scheme did not come into effect until July 2024, so it is likely the property did not need to be licenced at the time the tenancy was arranged. Even if the landlord should have had a licence, there is no indication Ms X has suffered a sufficient injustice as a result that would justify our involvement.
14. The Council said it was not aware Ms X did not want letters sent to her address, so there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating further. In any case, we do not investigate council complaints handling unless we are also investigating the underlying complaint, which we are not doing on this occasion.
15. For the above reasons we will not consider this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is late and there are no good reasons to decide to investigate now, and because there is insufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman