Crawley Borough Council (20 001 604)

Category : Housing > Private housing

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 24 Nov 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to meet its obligations to him as a landlord under its tenancy deposit scheme. The Ombudsman has completed our investigation. There is fault by the Council. It should apologise to Mr X, pay him £150, and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council failed to meet its obligations to him as a landlord under its tenancy deposit scheme.
  2. The tenant the Council put forward breached the tenancy and caused property damage. Mr X says this would have been avoided if the Council had visited the property as it agreed to.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke to Mr X about the complaint.
  2. I made written enquiries of the Council.
  3. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
  4. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

  1. Mr X is a landlord. In November 2019 the Council referred a tenant to him and he agreed to rent a property to them. This was as part of the Council’s Deposit Scheme (CDS).
  2. Mr X and the tenant signed a 12-month assured shorthold tenancy agreement. The Council paid Mr X a cash deposit, which he protected in a deposit protection scheme.
  3. In April 2020, the tenant gave notice of her intent to leave the property before the end of the 12-month contract.
  4. When the tenant moved out, Mr X discovered the property was in a poor state. He has claimed the full value of the deposit as a result.
  5. Mr X complained to the Council. He said it had not lived up to the promises it made under the CDS. He says if it had, he would have known sooner that the tenant was not looking after the property.

Findings

  1. The Council uses CDS to help homeless households access private rented accommodation by paying the deposit or issuing a bond guarantee.
  2. In an email to Mr X about the scheme, the Council said it would “conduct a six week check to ensure that the [tenant] is settling in well”.
  3. The Council uses a third-party housing support provider to carry out the six week checks. It referred the tenant on the same date she and Mr X signed the tenancy agreement. Because six weeks from the start of the tenancy was Christmas week, the Council gave a target date in January 2020.
  4. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them.
  5. The provider tried to contact the tenant by phone and email in January 2020. The tenant did not respond. As a result, the Council did not complete a tenancy check.
  6. However, the Council has no legal power to enforce the check. It also has no right to enter a property without the tenant’s consent. As a landlord, Mr X can enter his property with the required notice set out in the tenancy agreement.
  7. I find the Council did try to arrange a six-week visit. Because its ability to enter the property depended on the tenant, the Council’s failure to complete the visit is not fault.
  8. However, there is no evidence the Council contacted Mr X to tell him it had not visited the property. This is fault.
  9. Mr X says he would have found out much sooner that the tenant was not looking after the property had the six-week check taken place. There is no way for me to know when the tenant caused the damage. Therefore, I cannot find that it would not have happened if the Council had visited after six weeks. The Council is not responsible for the actions of the tenant.
  10. The Council’s fault caused Mr X uncertainty. He cannot know if the damage would have been prevented or reduced if the Council told him in January 2020 it had not been able to visit the property. Had it done so, he could have exercised his rights under the tenancy agreement to enter the property. He might then have been able to take action against the tenant under the terms of the tenancy. This uncertainty is an injustice to Mr X. To remedy this injustice, the Council should apologise to Mr X and pay him £150.

Agreed action

  1. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
    • Apologise to Mr X; and
    • Pay him £150
  2. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
  3. The Council should also take the following action to improve its service:
    • Review the communication arrangement with the floating support provider to ensure the Council is updated about its referrals; and
    • Remind relevant staff of the importance of telling landlords and tenants promptly when the Council is or will be unable to meet a commitment of the deposit scheme.
  4. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. There is fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings