Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about a private sector lease. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. Complaints about breaches of private lease terms are legal matters which are best decided by the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the collapse of a charity with whom he had a lease agreement for his property. He says he lost rental and his property was damaged by tenants who occupied the property until he could get a court order to remove them. He says the Council had a moral social duty of care to support and rehouse the residents who could not pay the rental charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X leased a property to a charity in 2020. The charity signed an agreement with him and in February 2022 he was notified that the charity had gone into liquidation. There were still occupants in the property and Mr X said he had to take curt action to have them removed. He says he found out that the property had been heavily damaged and was being used by drug dealers who left drug paraphernalia and a firearm behind.
7. He complained to the Council and said that it should have ensured the charity was properly funded wit the support it had previously provided to it. The Council says the funding it provided was a limited grant issued by the government to assist rough sleepers and was administered by the Council only. The grant was not renewed and the charity’s finances were not a matter it had direct involvement with. It only became aware of the problem when the charity folded.
8. Mr X said the Council could have rehoused the tenants when the charity went into liquidation. There was still a requirement for Mr X to remove the occupiers from his property by the legal method. There was no detail about whether the occupants were entitled to housing or public funds due to their immigration status or if they were prepared to submit homeless applications in early 2022.
9. The Council told Mr X it had no duty to recompense him from public funds because he held a private lease with the charity. He would be required to seek any recompense from the directors or the liquidators of the charity.
10. Mr X became aware of the collapse of the charity in February 2022 but he did not complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the situation involving the occupiers. There is no evidence to suggest that he could not have complained to us sooner.
11. The Ombudsman has some discretion to consider older complaints in certain circumstances. In this case the matter concerns a private lease with a third party and is a legal matter which we could not investigate even had it been presented earlier.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about a private sector lease. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. Complaints about breaches of private lease terms are legal matters which are best decided by the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman