Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in a private tenancy. The matters complained of have not caused Mr X’s agency a significant enough direct injustice for us to investigate. Part of the complaint is also late.

The complaint

1. Mr X is the agent for the landlord of a house. A tenant moved in under an arrangement with the Council. Mr X complains the Council did not support the tenant or work with him as it should have to deal with problems with the tenant and their family. He says this has resulted in rent arrears, damage to the property and other difficulties and has put the tenant and their children at risk of eviction.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Some events complained of date back several years. Mr X complained to us in January 2023. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to events before January 2022. Mr X was unhappy before then. He is a professional agent, so it is reasonable to expect him to have looked into how to take matters further if he was dissatisfied with the Council. Mr X could reasonably have complained to us much sooner about those older events so we shall not investigate them now.
7. There is another reason we shall not investigate the older events or events since January 2022. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to police or oversee councils’ activities generally. As paragraph 3 explained, we will normally only investigate where the Council’s fault, or alleged fault, has directly caused the person complaining a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the complaint.
8. Here, the complaint is not from, or on behalf of, the tenant. So we shall not investigate to find out if the Council has caused injustice tenant or their family. Nor is the complaint from, or on behalf of, the property’s landlord. So we shall not consider any possible impact on the landlord.
9. The complaint to us if from the landlord’s agent, who says he is complaining about the effect on himself. However, the agent’s direct relationship is with the landlord he acts for. It is the landlord, not the agent, who has any direct expectation of Council services that might affect the landlord’s property. The agent simply carries out work for the landlord. It is for the agent to agree with the landlord what work to do and what the payment arrangements will be. If the Council’s alleged lack of support for the tenant resulted in rent arrears or damage to the property, any direct impact would be on the landlord. It does not directly and significantly disadvantage the agent. If there is a claim the Council’s alleged faults caused the agent extra work, any such extra work the agent did would be for the landlord and then only if the agent agreed with the landlord to do such work. So any alleged fault by the Council has not directly caused the agent a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating.
10. Also, as the agent accepts, the landlord could have ended the tenancy and removed the tenant. The agent says they decided against that, to avoid evicting a family who might be vulnerable. I note the reasoning. However, that was a matter of choice. The Council cannot force a private landlord to keep a particular tenant. The apparent problems with the tenant have continued because the landlord chose not to end the tenancy and the agent chose to continue working with the landlord about this property. This is another reason the Council’s alleged faults have not directly caused injustice to the agent.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of it is late and because, on both the late part and the more recent events, there is not enough evidence of a significant enough direct injustice to Mr X’s agency to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman