Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the problems Mr X reported with a tenant nominated by the Council to rent his property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s response to the problems he reported with a tenant nominated by the Council to rent his property. He says the letting agent he used was advertised as acting on behalf of the Council and that this has now been denied and that there was a failure of communication with him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X received a Property Investment Grant from the Council which gave it nomination rights to place tenants in Mr X’s property for 3 years. Acting in partnership with the Council was a company, Company A, which acted as Mr X’s letting agent. In 2021 Company A transferred its agency arrangements, including Mr X’s agreement, to Company B which then acted as Mr X’s agent.
6. Having had problems with the tenant paying the rent and damaging his property, Mr X sought assistance from Company B and the Council and was unhappy with the service provided by both.
7. The Council explained that while it had been in partnership with Company A, it had no contractual agreement with it and its services had not been commissioned by the Council. It explained the contractual agreement had been between Mr X and Company A and that there had been no obligation on Mr X to have used the company’s services when accessing the grant. It said there was also no contractual arrangement in place for the Council to employ letting agents on his behalf and it was not party to the contractual arrangement between Mr X and Company A.
8. The Council did acknowledge there had been a period of around 2 months when the level of support and communication from its homeless prevention service fell below the expected standard. It apologised for this and made a goodwill payment of £100 to Mr X in recognition of this but found its fault during this time did not significantly affect what happened with the tenant.
9. While Mr X has clearly had a stressful time in dealing with the tenancy problems which arose at his property, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
10. The Council has confirmed it is not legally liable in relation to the tenancy management issues Mr X is concerned with and Mr X may want to consider seeking legal advice in relation to them and for the financial recompense he seeks.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman