Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint Councillor B has raised on behalf of a group of residents. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council leading to the injustice the residents claim.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I shall call ‘the residents’ complain the Council misled them into believing they had long term tenancies at their properties and then misled them into believing it was about to sell the properties. The residents complain they spent money improving their properties, believing they could stay in them for the long term. The residents also complain they moved out when they received the letters about selling the properties, but the Council has now decided not to sell.

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 investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Councillor B provided on behalf of the residents. I sent a draft decision to Councillor B and considered the comments he provided in reply before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2011, the Council decided to build houses on land it owned, to rent privately. The houses were rented to tenants in 2014, through a company owned and managed by the Council. The tenancies signed by the tenants were Assured Shorthold Tenancies, providing them with six months initial protection and then a two-month notice period.
6. Councillor B says the Council had led tenants to believe they could stay at the properties for the long term, and many carried out improvements to the interiors and gardens at their own expense. Councillor B says this understanding arose from documents provided by the Council and conversations with officers involved in renting the properties. Councillor B refers to a key facts document that said: ‘Our desire is for you to remain our tenants for the long term and as long as you meet your obligations, we will support the achievement of this’. When tenants questioned why they were asked to sign Assured Shorthold Tenancies, they say they were assured so long as they paid their rent on time the Council would not give notice.
7. In May 2017, the Council wrote to the tenants to advise them it was looking for a buyer for the whole estate and that if it received a suitable offer and the sale proceeded: ‘…your occupation would not be affected and you would continue to occupy the house under the terms of your current tenancy’. The residents were reassured the Council was not planning to terminate their tenancies.
8. By January 2018, the Council had not found a buyer and wrote to tenants again to notify them it intended to sell the homes individually and to offer them to market in small batches. The letter anticipated it would take 12-18 months to complete the process and acknowledged this would cause worry to the tenants. The Council invited tenants to let it know if they wanted to buy the property they were renting or wanted to move. The letter said that when a house was put into a batch for sale, the tenants would be notified but this would not be notice to end the tenancy. Formal notice of two months would only be given if a buyer wanted to buy a house with vacant possession.
9. Councillor B explains that some residents were concerned they would struggle to find new housing and started to look for alternate accommodation straight away. The residents did not want to find themselves in temporary accommodation, particularly when facing surgery, other medical treatment and pregnancy.
10. In February 2018, a meeting at the Council agreed to place the sale of all the properties on hold to allow the Scrutiny and Improvement Committee to consider the matter.
11. In June 2018, the Scrutiny and Improvement Committee accepted a recommendation to rescind the decision to sell the properties. A task panel would consider the tenants’ request for compensation separately.
12. In February 2019, the Scrutiny and Improvement Committee approved a report confirming the recommendation that homes should not be sold, and an apology should be provided to tenants for any misunderstanding. Councillor B recommended a compensation payment of £2000 to each tenant.
13. In May 2019, the Council accepted the report but defeated the proposal to pay compensation to each tenant.
14. While the tenants Councillor B represents seek a financial payment for deciding to move after receiving the letter from the Council in January 2018, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault causing the injustice the tenants claim.
15. The Scrutiny and Improvement Committee has carried out an investigation in to the tenants’ claims they understood they had long-term security at the properties. But the tenants signed Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreements, which provided them with six months initial protection and then a two-month notice period. There are no grounds to say that money tenants spent improving their properties was an injustice caused by fault on the part of the Council.
16. While some tenants decided to move, there are no reasons to say this is an injustice arising from fault by the Council. The letter of January 2018 did not suggest any urgent requirement to move, giving tenants until March to consider whether they wanted to buy their property or give notice to leave. The letter also explained it would take 12-18 months to deal with the sales, that tenants would be notified when their property was put up for sale and notice may not be given at all if a buyer did not want vacant possession. The Council did not serve notice on any tenant, and within a month of sending the January 2018 letter, it had agreed to place the potential sale of the properties on hold.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council leading to the injustice the residents claim.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman