Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to lease a property from the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council wasted his time by deciding not to lease a property from him. He also complains the Council has not provided an adequate reason for its decision and he complains the surveyor did not attend the inspection.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s response. I considered email correspondence between Mr X and the Council. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X read an article publicising a private sector leasing scheme run by the Council. Mr X sent an email to the Council asking if it would be interested in leasing a four bedroom house from him. He asked for some information. In response the Council gave some basic information and said it assesses each case individually.
5. Mr X applied to the scheme. An officer met Mr X at the property. Mr X was also meant to meet the surveyor but, due to a mix-up, the surveyor did not attend the meeting.
6. The Council told Mr X it would not lease his house because it already had a four/five bedroom house and it did not need another one. It invited Mr X to apply to a different scheme.
7. Mr X complained the Council had wasted his time and that the surveyor had not attended. In response, the Council explained there are no guarantees a property will be accepted to join the scheme. It said there must be a visit and an evaluation. It said it has to consider the property and also housing demand and the properties that it already leases. It confirmed that when it had considered all the factors it had decided it did not need Mr X’s house. The Council explained the surveyor had arrived for the meeting but he thought people were meeting outside while the other officer thought people were meeting inside. The Council apologised and said it had introduced a new system to stop the error happening again.
8. Mr X is dissatisfied with the response. He says the Council misled him into believing his house was the type of property it wanted. He says the Council wasted his time and has not provided a good reason for the house not being suitable.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X responded to an advert and made an enquiry to the Council to ask if it would be interested in leasing his house. The Council responded by asking for information and arranging an inspection. At no point did the Council say that expressing an interest, or applying to the scheme, was a guarantee the property would be accepted. In addition, the Council has explained that it does not need Mr X’s house because, in the context of current demand and existing leased properties, it does not need another four bedroom house.
10. It is unfortunate the surveyor did not attend. But, the Council has explained there was some confusion about the arrangements. The Council apologised and has changed the procedures to stop this happening again. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy that the surveyor was not there but the error has not caused an injustice which requires an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman