Summary: We will have upheld Mr X’s complaint about an affordable rent incentive. The Council have agreed to resolve the complaint by offering a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council agreed to pay him an incentive payment if he lowered his tenants rent but then did not make the payment once the lower rent had been agreed. Mr X also complains the Council communicated poorly and failed to respond to an information request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

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. Mr X is a landlord. Mr X was going to increase the rent on his property to £1,800 per month. Mr X’s tenant made a homelessness application because they felt the rent was not affordable. The Council engaged with Mr X and negotiated a rental amount of £1,600. The Council determined this was affordable for the tenant.
7. The Council can offer a financial incentive to landlords agreeing to rent their property for two years, to a tenant at risk of homelessness, at the Local Housing Allowance Rate.
8. Mr X says the Council told him the incentive fund payment would be made if he reduced the rent amount further to the Local Housing Allowance rate, £1,400. Mr X says he then agreed the lower £1,400 rent with his tenant based on this assurance.
9. The Council say they engaged with Mr X to apply for the incentive payment and informed him the payment was only available for properties rented at the local housing allowance rate. They say no guarantees were offered regarding eligibility.
10. The Council declined Mr X’s incentive fund payment application because his tenant was not at risk of homelessness because they were housed and their rental payment, £1,600 was affordable.
11. Mr X complains the Council officer was misleading as they had assured him he would be able to receive the top up amount if he lowered the rent. He says he would not have agreed to a £1,400 rent amount without the incentive.
12. The Council say they did not tell Mr X to lower the rent to £1,400 and did not guarantee he would be eligible for the incentive.
13. I have looked at the correspondence between Mr X and the Council from this time as well as internal correspondence from the Council. I have seen insufficient evidence to show the Council told Mr X he would be eligible for the payment if he lowered the rent. I have also seen insufficient evidence to show the Council told Mr X to agree to a lower rent with his tenant before the application had been processed.
14. I have seen evidence of delay in processing the application and in responding to Mr X’s communications. We asked the Council to make a symbolic remedy to Mr X of £100 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay in processing the prevention fund application. This is to be provided on top of the £85 the Council has already offered for delays in complaint handling. The Council has agreed and will complete these actions within four weeks.
15. Part of Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s failure to fully respond to his information requests. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the organisation best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data and respond to requests for information. In the absence of a wider complaint within our remit, there is not a good reason for us to consider the matter instead.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will have upheld Mr X’s complaint. The Council have agreed to resolve the complaint by offering a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman