Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not get her consent before letting her property to a tenant. She also says it failed to respond to her correspondence and allowed the tenant to get into rent arrears and cause damage to her property. The Council are not at fault for letting Ms X’s home without her consent. However, the Council acknowledged it could have done more checks and was at fault for poor communication. It has offered a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not get her consent before letting her property to a tenant. She says the Council failed to respond to correspondence, allowed the tenant to get into rent arrears, and cause damage to her flat. She also said the Council failed to remove the tenant. This has caused Ms X financial and emotional distress. The Council offered Ms X a remedy but she says this is inadequate.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I have only considered the role of the Council in arranging the letting of Ms X’s property and its failure to respond to her correspondence.
3. The Council provided an introductory scheme to match landlords with tenants. It did not manage the property once the introduction was made. I have therefore not considered what happened after the tenant moved into the property. This is outside the Council’s involvement and outside the Local Government Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is a private matter between Ms X and the tenant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Direct Lettings Scheme

8. The Direct Lettings Scheme (the Scheme) is a free service run by the Council which introduces private sector landlords to prospective tenants.
9. The Council needs landlords who can offer studios, one- and two-bedroom properties. The Council asks landlords to offer a 24-month assured shorthold tenancy, a Local Housing Allowance (LHA) level rent and an option to renew the agreement. The Council pays the Landlord (or agent) where applicable an incentive fee.
10. The tenancy agreement is a contract between the landlord and the tenant; and not between the tenant and the Council.
11. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided a process document dated December 2022 which its Officers follow when organising new lettings under the Scheme. As part of the ‘checklist’, Officers check the Land Registry for ownership details and where appropriate, ask to see a copy of the Management Agreement between the Landlord and their Agent.

What happened

12. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
13. Ms X owns property in the Council’s area.
14. In June 2020, a property agent (the Agent) contacted the Council, said it had a flat to let and asked if it could join the Scheme. The Agent said it had managed the flat on behalf of Ms X for several years and provided a tenancy agreement as evidence. The Agent said it had permission to sign a tenancy agreement on behalf of Ms X.
15. The Officer checked the Land Registry which confirmed Ms X owned the property. The Officer also checked the tenancy agreement presented by the Agent.
16. The Council introduced the Agent to a prospective tenant under the Scheme. The tenant and the Agent signed a tenancy agreement. The tenant moved into Ms X’s property. The Council paid the Agent an incentive fee.
17. Ms X said she first found out the tenant was living in her property in August 2020. She said she contacted the tenant and he agreed to pay rent to her directly.
18. In February 2021, the tenant stopped paying Ms X rent.
19. In June 2021, Ms X complained to the Council. She complained the Council had let her property without her consent and the tenant was four months in rent arrears.
20. The Council issued a stage one response in July and a stage two response in August 2021. The Council partially upheld Ms X’s complaint. It said it acted in good faith when it matched the tenant with the property as the Agent provided relevant information to show they acted on Ms X’s behalf. The Council accepted it could have done more to verify what the Agent said. It has since set up a new policy which requires officers to check the management contract between the letting agent and landlord to ensure the agent has authority to collect all monies on behalf of the landlord. Alternatively; the agent may provide an email confirming they are authorised to do so.
21. The Council said it was disappointed the tenant had stopped paying Ms X rent and explained it was not responsible for ensuring continuing rental payments. It said the primary relationship is between the tenant and the landlord and not the Council. It recommended she considered seeking private professional advice.
22. The Council accepted there was fault in its email communication with Ms X as it failed to respond to some emails and misdirected some emails. The complaint response said it would highlight this to officers and ensure more effective communication in the future.
23. The Council apologised to Ms X and offered her a financial remedy of £1100.
24. The Council recommended Ms X seeks professional advice if she believes her agent acted fraudulently by letting her property without her permission and suggested she raises this with the Property Ombudsman.
25. Ms X complained to the Local Government Ombudsman in June 2022.

Analysis

26. The Council considers it acted in good faith and considered the Agent had Ms X’s authority to deal with her property at the time. The Agent told the Council they worked for Ms X and provided documentation to prove this. Based on the documentation and information provided by the Agent, I do not find the Council at fault for treating this as a genuine agreement and satisfying itself the Agent acted with Ms X’s authority.
27. However, although I have not found the Council at fault, it acknowledged it could have done more to check the Agent had Ms X's permission to deal with her property. It made suitable changes to its procedures, and this is in keeping with what the Ombudsman would recommend. The Council has apologised for its failure to communicate with Ms X which I consider appropriate. The Council made a financial offer of £1100 in compensation to Ms X, which she believes is inadequate. I consider this is a suitable remedy for the distress Ms X suffered and we could not achieve more under our guidance on remedies.
28. The Council is only responsible for introducing the tenant and landlord. It is not a party to the tenancy agreement and is not at fault if the tenant fails to pay rent or causes damage. This is a private matter between Ms X and the tenant.
29. Likewise, if the Agent acted without Ms X's consent this is also a private matter.

Back to top

Final decision

30. The Council was not at fault for letting Ms X’s home without her consent. However, the Council acknowledged it could have done more checks and was at fault for poor communication. It has offered a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman