Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew its lease on his property and damage caused by a previous tenant. We could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything more. If Mr X believes the Council liable for the damage caused by the tenant, it is reasonable for him to take the Council to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council offered to renew the lease on a property he owns, but then withdrew its offer. He says this has caused frustration and financial loss. He also complains the Council has failed to respond to his enquiries about another housing scheme and poor complaints handling.
2. He also complains the Council has refused to accept liability for damage caused to his property by a previous tenant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code. This states we will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that a complainant has suffered serious personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council explained why it had decided not to renew the lease on Mr X’s property. It acknowledged it had initially told Mr X it would renew the lease, but said this was due to a miscommunication. It apologised to him for this misunderstanding.
8. It also accepted it had made errors in its complaints handling and offered him £100 in recognition of the time and trouble taken pursuing his complaint.
9. We will not investigate this complaint as we could not add to the Council’s response and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. It has apologised to Mr X for the initial misunderstanding, which is an appropriate remedy for any confusion caused. Regardless of this, it is for the Council to decide whether it wants to renew the lease under its private sector scheme. We could not require it to do so. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
10. The Council has accepted poor complaints handling and offered him an appropriate remedy for the inconvenience caused. Further investigation would achieve nothing more.
11. Mr X says the Council has ignored his contacts about another housing scheme. Although I accept this may have caused Mr X frustration, I do not consider it a significant personal injustice that would be sufficient to warrant an investigation.
12. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage caused by a previous tenant. Any dispute about whether the Council is liable for damage would be a matter for the Council’s insurers to consider. If the Council does not accept liability, Mr X can pursue a claim through the courts. Only the court can decide whether a person or organisation is liable for damage to property or breach of contract and whether they should pay damages.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not add to the Council’s response or lead to a different outcome. If Mr X considers the Council is liable for damage caused by his previous tenant, it is reasonable for him to pursue this through the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman