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

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has not handed back to her a property she leased to it. Ms X’s complaints include delay by the Council in removing its tenant from the property and that it has not arranged an appointment for her to visit the property to assess its condition. Ms X says this has caused her stress and family problems. Ms X wants the Council to hand back the property, to make good any damage caused to it and to compensate her for the problems she has experienced in trying to get the property back.

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. 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)
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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X owns a house that she leased to the Council, which it used as temporary accommodation. The lease has expired but the tenant remains in situ. Ms X is concerned the property has been damaged and about its safety. Ms X says the Council has failed to evict the tenant or to allow her to inspect the property, amongst other things.
8. Essentially, Ms X is arguing the Council is not keeping to its legal agreement with her. Interpreting the law about whether parties acted properly under leases or any other legal duties, and deciding how to remedy any breach, are more properly matters for the courts than for the Ombudsman.
9. There might be some cost to court action, but that does not automatically make it unreasonable to expect someone to go to court. Ms X is letting her property out as a business arrangement, so she might reasonably expect this could sometimes involve some expense and inconvenience. If her legal action were to succeed, she could ask the court for her costs. I consider it is reasonable to expect Ms X to resort to court action and therefore, the restriction in paragraph three applies.
10. In addition, we would be unable to have the property returned to Ms X with vacant possession. The property is occupied and if the Council does not rehouse the tenant or they do not leave voluntarily, only the courts, not the Ombudsman, can force them to move out.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to use her right to court action and we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman