Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that a tenant the Council had recommended to him when it was aware she would damage his property, then caused extensive damage. This is because it is not unreasonable to expect Mr B to go to court to seek a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that a tenant the Council had recommended to him when it was aware she would damage the property, then caused extensive damage. Mr B told us, as a result of what happened, his total financial loss is approximately £112,000.

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.
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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information Mr B sent to us, including his comments on my draft decision, his complaint to the Council and the Council’s responses to it.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B told us he has uncovered evidence the Council was aware his tenant would damage the property. But he said he believes the Council kept this information from him because of its duty to rehouse a homeless person. He told us he believes the Council is in breach of the Homelessness Act 2002 because it failed to involve a private landlord in the rehousing process. Mr B said the Council’s decision-making process has not been clear and transparent and it has failed to answer his questions.
7. The Homelessness Act 2002 says before adopting or modifying a homelessness strategy, a council shall consult such public or local authorities, voluntary organisations or other persons as they consider appropriate. But the provisions in this Act refer to councils’ overall homelessness strategies in their areas, rather than their work in meeting their duties in individual cases.
8. Mr B’s former tenant entered into a tenancy agreement with him in 2013. When Mr B complained to the Council in 2020 he said, after he had evicted the tenant, the Council carried out some remedial work. He said a council officer had told him the Council would start to get quotations for repairs but then it did not go ahead with them. Mr B said he had been in contact with the Council’s legal team, resulting in an offer of a £2000 goodwill payment which he refused.
9. When the Council replied to Mr B’s complaint it said the tenancy introductory scheme made clear the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties involved. The Council said it is the landlord’s responsibility to make any checks into the suitability of potential tenants.  It said it was not liable for rent arrears, damage or breach of tenancy conditions.
10. Mr B told us the estimated cost of repairs to his property is £66,000. He said he had lost rental income of approximately £38,000 and the Council owes him over £8,000 of housing benefit.
11. Mr B is seeking compensation from the Council. Although he has only recently completed the Council’s complaint process, he has been aware of what happened to his property for more than 12 months. Mr B told us, because of his personal circumstances, it would not be reasonable to expect him to go to court. But liability for loss or damage is a legal matter. It is for the courts to decide contested questions of law, whether damages must be paid by a council and to enforce any award of damages. So, in this case, it is not unreasonable to expect Mr B to go to court to seek a remedy for the significant financial losses he has described. We would not investigate a complaint about the way the Council has dealt with the matter when we are not investigating the substantive issue in Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is not unreasonable to expect Mr B to go to court to seek a remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman