Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the early return to him of the property he had leased to it. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I call Mr X, complains about the way the Council dealt with his request for the early return of the property he had leased to it. He also complains about the inadequate offer it made for damage caused to the property by the departing tenants.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X entered into a three-year agreement with the Council to lease to it a properly he owned so that it could house tenants in it. While the lease was due to end in October 2022, at the end of July 2021 Mr X asked that the Council surrender the lease early and by the end of October 2021.
8. Due to fault by the Council, Mr X’s request for early surrender was not dealt with until November and it returned the property to him mid-December. Following the departure of the tenants who had caused damage to the property, the Council offered Mr X an amount for the damage. Mr X said he was dissatisfied with the offer and the Council told him it was open to him to refer the matter to arbitration.
9. In responding to Mr X’s complaint about its handling of matters, the Council accepted it had not acted promptly in responding to his initial request for the early surrender of the lease. However, it said it was satisfied officers had acted properly once they were aware of the request and it found no evidence to support Mr X’s allegations of crime, corruption, and dishonesty by officers. It noted Mr X’s dissatisfaction with its offer for damage but repeated that it was open to him to refer the matter to arbitration.
10. The Council has acknowledged it did not deal with Mr X’s initial request for surrender as it should have done. However, the return of the property, which was at the Council’s discretion and described by it as a goodwill gesture, did take place about six weeks after the date Mr X had initially sought. Mr X has provided no detail about terms of the lease breached by the Council or how it acted illegally. If Mr X has evidence of corruption, he can take this directly to the police.
11. The tenants who had been housed in Mr X’s property caused damage to it and the Council made its offer of compensation and explained the basis for its offer. In accordance with the lease, Mr X had the option of referring the matter to arbitration. If he did not do so, it is open to him to explore any other legal options remaining open to him.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says the Council did not follow the lease determination process as set out in their contractual agreement nor did it follow the lease’s contractual terms regarding dilapidation, instead fabricating different processes to meet its own ends. What Mr X alleges here are breaches of contract but such matters are for the courts and not the Ombudsman to determine and the restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies. Mr X says he has large amounts of video and photographic evidence showing the poor state of the property as left by the tenants. However, it has already been noted that any disagreement with what the Council offered for the damage could have been challenged through the arbitration process.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman