Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to provide landlord insurance to the complainant and failed to reply to enquiries about it. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice and because the Council has provided a fair remedy for the delays that occurred.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council never arranged the landlord insurance that was promised. Mrs X needs the insurance to cover a subsidence claim.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• the Council has provided an appropriate remedy.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s response. I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mrs X, a landlord, signed up to a private lettings scheme with the Council. On 4 March 2020 the Council confirmed it would give her £4000 as an incentive payment and free landlord insurance. The insurance is to cover the landlord against loss of rent, damage to the property and legal expenses.
5. Mrs X signed a tenancy agreement with a tenant on 6 March. Before the insurance documents were drawn up the insurance provider told the Council on 23 March that it had suspended issuing new tenancies due to COVID-19. The Council says an officer rang Mrs X to explain that insurance was no longer being provided as part of the scheme. The Council cannot demonstrate this call was made or what was said. However, the Council sent Mrs X an email on 23 April which said the insurance company had stopped issuing polices for the foreseeable future but this was not communicated to the Council until after Mrs X had joined the scheme. The Council offered £400 as an alternative. The Council did not pay the £400 until February.
6. In response to Mrs X’s complaint the Council explained what had happened and said it had told her in April she would not get the landlord insurance. It offered £150 for the delay in paying the £400. It also explained the insurance would not have helped with the subsidence because that is a problem which needs to be addressed through buildings insurance, not through landlord insurance.

Assessment

7. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
8. In relation to the insurance there is insufficient evidence of fault. The insurer suspended new polices which meant the Council could not provide landlord insurance. It told Mrs X about the suspension in April and offered £400 as an alternative. So, by April, Mrs X knew she would not have landlord insurance. Mrs X could have taken this up with the Council in April or she could have sought insurance from another provider.
9. The landlord insurance would only have covered damage caused by the tenant. It would not have covered subsidence. Even if the Council had provided the landlord insurance, it would not have helped Mrs X pay for the subsidence. Claims for subsidence need to be made through buildings insurance. Any fault regarding the insurance has not caused a significant injustice because it could not have paid for the subsidence.
10. There was some fault by the Council. It decided to pay £400 in April but did not make the payment until February. But, it has offered £150 as compensation for the delay. This is a fair remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice and because the Council has provided a fair remedy for the delay.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman