Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her son and daughter in law, Mr and Mrs Y, that the Council delayed returning their house to them at the end of a lease agreement and failed to keep them updated. This caused uncertainty and distress. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault for delays returning Mr and Mrs Y’s house and for failing to provide clear information. It agreed to provide a remedy.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her son and daughter in law, Mr and Mrs Y, that the Council delayed returning their house to them at the end of a lease agreement and failed to keep them updated.
2. Mr and Mrs Y suffered uncertainty and distress. They also incurred expenses and lost earnings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant’s representative.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
6. I have written to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr and Mrs Y entered a three-year agreement with the Council on 26 September 2016. The agreement allowed the Council to let Mr and Mrs Y’s house to a Council tenant. Under the terms of the agreement, the Council paid Mr and Mrs Y £950 a month to use their house. Both parties could end the agreement by giving three months’ notice.
8. The Council had to give the house back to Mr and Mrs Y by 4.30pm on the last day of the three-year term.
9. Mr and Mrs Y had to tell the Council three months before the end of the agreement whether they wanted the house back or if they agreed for the Council could let it out for longer.

What happened

10. I have detailed below some of the key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what happened.
11. Mr and Mrs Y wrote to the Council on 28 May 2019, giving three months’ notice for the Council to hand back their house at the end of the three-year agreement.
12. The Council replied on 3 June and confirmed the lease would end on 27 August. However, the Council told Mr and Mrs Y it could not guarantee the date and it would continue to pay them rent until it handed the house back.
13. Mrs X emailed the Council on 11 June confirming that Mr and Mrs Y do not want the house back by 27 August, but 25 September which is when the three-year agreement ends. The Council acknowledged the new date.
14. Mr Y contacted the Council on 4 September asking if it was still on track to return their house by 25 September.
15. The Council sent two emails to Mr Y on 10 September. The first said its tenant had been offered a new home and it hoped to return Mr and Mrs Y’s house on time. The second email said its tenant’s possible new home was not ready, so it had not made an offer to the tenant yet. It said once Mr and Mrs Y’s home was vacated by the tenant it may need to do work to it before giving it back. It could not give a timescale and said it was very unlikely the house would be returned to them by 25 September.
16. Mrs Y emailed the Council on 21 October to express their dissatisfaction. She said they gave the Council four months’ notice to hand their house back. The Council agreed it would be ready by 27 August and Mr and Mrs Y pushed this back a month to 26 September. During that time Mr and Mrs Y booked flights to the UK. Mrs Y said they heard nothing until they chased the Council on 4 September and were distressed to find the house was not likely to be ready by the time they returned to the UK on 1 October. Mrs Y said the Council subsequently told them the house may be ready by 22 October. Mr and Mrs Y were disappointed to learn the Council gave the house it found for the tenant to someone else instead. Mrs Y said they fly back to Canada on 1 November and wanted the Council to speed things up. She said there was a lack of communication between Council departments, and this cost them money. Mr and Mrs Y wanted the Council to reimburse their travel costs and lost earnings. Mrs Y said they made arrangements and booked flights on trust that the Council would uphold its side of the agreement. She asked the Council to increase their rent payments to £1,187.50 a month to cover increased taxes.
17. The Council replied on 28 October and apologised for taking longer to return Mr and Mrs Y’s house. However, it said it did explain in the lease agreement that it may be unavoidably prevented from handing back their house on time, due to limited supply of homes to move tenants into. It said the information a Council officer gave Mr and Mrs Y about the tenant was incorrect. The Council had not yet matched the tenant to a new home. It had a number of people in temporary accommodation with a higher priority than the tenant. It apologised for the misinformation. It said it had now identified a suitable home for the tenant, which should be ready in the coming weeks. It said an officer would update Mr and Mrs Y weekly going forwards. The Council refused to increase rent payments to Mr and Mrs Y.
18. Mrs X complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs Y on 11 November. She said:
• The Council did not update Mr and Mrs Y after June 2019 so they assumed it would return their house by the agreed date. They therefore arranged flights to the UK and to take time off work. Flights were booked on 20 July 2019.
• The Council did not confirm it was unlikely to return the house on time until 10 September, after Mr and Mrs Y chased for an update.
• The terms of the agreement do not mention the Council being unavoidably prevented from returning the house. If the terms had said this Mr and Mrs Y would not have entered into the agreement.
• There is currently no valid lease in place as it had expired, and the Council had not asked Mr and Mrs Y to extend it.
19. Mrs X asked the Council to reimburse Mr and Mrs Y’s flight costs, lost earnings, car hire in the UK, home insurance, and landlord insurance for the added period. She also said Mr and Mrs Y will now incur tax charges on their rental income as their three-year exemption had expired.
20. The Council then sent several updates to Mrs X in November and December about the progress of finding the tenant a new home and carrying out repairs to Mr and Mrs Y’s house. It handed the keys to the house to Mrs X on 3 February 2020.
21. The Council replied to Mrs X’s complaint on 21 February 2020. It apologised for the delay returning Mr and Mrs Y’s house but said the reasons were outside its control, so it did not uphold the complaint. It said:
• It warned Mr and Mrs Y on 3 June 2019 that it could not guarantee the handover date. It could not release Mr and Mrs Y’s house until it found a suitable home for the tenant. It said officers were in regular communication with Mr and Mrs Y or Mrs X about progress.
• It acknowledged it did not return Mr and Mrs Y’s home in accordance with the agreement, but it does not consider this was a service failure because it was caused by circumstances outside its control.
• It appreciated it was frustrating for Mr and Mrs Y not to have a firm handover date, but it is satisfied officers did their best to keep Mr and Mrs Y informed of the reasons for the delay. It said when officers gave information in October about a new home for the tenant, they were acting on information available at the time and were not aware a priority tenant was to be allocated the home.
• Despite the uncertainty, Mr and Mrs Y chose to continue with their travel plans and return to the UK for an extended period. It said the Council was not responsible for this. It also said Mr and Mrs Y benefitted from extra rental income for the period of the delay. The Council said it had no liability to cover Mr and Mrs Y’s travel costs, loss of earnings, or expenses.
22. Mrs X asked the Council to reconsider her complaint. She said it had not fully considered the correspondence. She said although the Council told Mr and Mrs Y it was unlikely to return the house on time, it said it was very hopeful of returning it before they flew back to Canada on 1 November. Mr and Mrs Y wanted compensation for the Council’s failure to keep them informed of the situation or request an extension of the lease. Mrs X said once flights and leave were booked they could not be changed in the middle of September. She said if the Council communicated earlier Mr and Mrs Y could have delayed their return.
23. The Council sent its final complaint response on 20 August. It said it was satisfied with its complaint investigations. It highlighted its letter from 3 June 2019 which said the date for handing back the house could not be guaranteed. It also said the delays were due to the Council’s legal duty to the tenant and not due to poor service.
24. Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 30 September 2020. She remained unhappy with the Council reply and considered Mr and Mrs Y were due compensation.

Response to my enquiries

25. The Council told me there was a delay in finding a home for its tenant to move to, because of a shortage of suitable houses, and because there were people in temporary accommodation with a higher housing priority than its tenant.
26. Once the Council found a new home for its tenant, it had to carry out work at the new home and at Mr and Mrs Y’s house before handing the keys back. Some of this work was delayed because contractors were closed for Christmas.
27. The Council recognised it did not have a right to hold onto Mr and Mrs Y’s house for longer than the term of the agreement, but legal and logistical reasons sometimes mean it is not possible to hand a house back on time. The Council writes to landlords to make them aware of this. It was not the Council’s intention to break the terms of the lease.
28. The Council paid Mr and Mrs Y £4,750 in rent for the time it held onto their house at the end of the lease.

Back to top

Analysis

29. The terms of the agreement between the Council and Mr and Mrs Y are clear. Once Mr and Mrs Y gave three months’ notice, the Council had to return their house at the end of the term.
30. While the Council did tell Mr and Mrs Y that it could not guarantee it would return the house on time, it only confirmed this after Mr and Mrs Y gave notice. It did not explain why or seek Mr and Mrs Y’s agreement for it to hold the house for longer. That was not good practice. I have not seen any evidence the Council told Mr and Mrs Y about possible delays at the outset, and it is not mentioned in the terms of the agreement.
31. The Council then did not give Mr and Mrs Y any updates on what was happening until Mr Y asked the Council in September 2019. It was not until 10 September that the Council said it was unlikely to achieve the handover date. Again, this was not best practice.
32. I appreciate the Council has housing responsibilities to its tenant, but it did not communicate this to Mr and Mrs Y when they gave notice. The terms of the agreement do not mention this and there was never any prior suggestion this could cause delays. The Council’s responsibilities to the tenant are separate, and do not affect that fact it did not meet the terms of the agreement with Mr and Mrs Y.
33. There was fault by the Council, both in terms of missing the handover date and in not providing Mr and Mrs X with clear information about the process or what happened.

Injustice

34. I have considered what impact the Council’s fault had on Mr and Mrs Y. The Council did confirm before Mr and Mrs Y’s travelled back to the UK the house was not likely to be ready. Mr and Mrs Y took a risk to book their flights in July 2019 and then to travel back to the UK.
35. Mr and Mrs Y always planned to travel back to the UK and take time off work to take back possession of their house. In the end, they did not have to do this twice because Mrs X dealt with the handover.
36. For these reasons. I do not consider there are any added travel or work-related costs which the Council must repay.
37. I do appreciate that Mr and Mrs Y made a wasted journey back to the UK, but as above, they took a risk to travel back without knowing if the house would be ready.
38. I am also mindful of the fact the Council continued to pay Mr and Mrs Y rent at £950 a month until it handed the house back. Mr and Mrs Y received £4,750 during that period. On the evidence see, this was more than the total cost of their flights, home insurance, landlord insurance, and lost earnings. I therefore do not consider they were financially worse off because of the Council’s fault.
39. The delays and the lack of clear information were frustrating for Mr and Mrs Y, and they were put to added time and trouble in trying to resolve matters. The Council should provide a remedy to recognise that.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr and Mrs Y and pay them £300 to recognise the frustration and added time and trouble its faults caused.
• Review its procedures to ensure it provides clear information to landlords, both at the start and end of the process.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for delays returning Mr and Mrs Y’s house and for failing to provide clear information. It agreed to provide a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman