Dorset Council (24 009 739)

Category : Housing > Private housing

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 30 Oct 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to meet its obligations in relation to tenants it referred to the complainant as a private a landlord. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to re-house tenants and take responsibility for tenants it had introduced to Mr X after giving glowing references. Mr X wants the Council to cover his costs and the damage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X was a private landlord. The Council was helping Ms A find a home. Ms A found Mr X’s property and asked the Council to make an introduction to Mr X. Ms A signed a tenancy, paid the deposit, provided information from her former landlord, and was aware Mr X was planning to sell the property. The tenancy was between Mr X and Ms A. The Council was not part of the tenancy and did not sign an agreement which would make it liable for any costs or to take any responsibility for Ms A in terms of re-housing.
  2. Mr X served a notice asking Ms A to leave by 30 June. The Council told Ms A she had the right to stay in the property until Mr X obtained a possession order. The tenant chose to stay although she found a new home and left in August.
  3. Mr X complained to the Council. He complained about Ms A and said, for example, that she had not left when he served notice and had damaged the property. Mr X said her conduct had delayed the sale of the property and he incurred costs. Mr X said the Council had given glowing references and had promised to re-house Ms A before the notice expired. Mr X said he had been subsidising Ms A because the rent did not cover the mortgage.
  4. The Council said it had not provided a reference and does not do so; it invited Mr X to provide a copy. It said it had told Ms A she had the right to remain in the property after the notice expired and it was her choice whether to leave. The Council said it had not agreed to re-house Ms A and it could not force her to leave. The Council said it was Mr X’s responsibility, as the landlord, to set the rent and to deal with any damage. The Council acknowledged the sale of the property was delayed but said it was nothing to do with the Council.
  5. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council did not provide a reference for Ms A and Mr X has not provided evidence of a reference. I have not seen any evidence the Council entered into an agreement which would make it liable to cover any rental loss or damage. This was a private tenancy between Mr X and Ms A and the Council correctly explained it was his responsibility to set the rent and recover any losses. It was also Mr X’s responsibility to follow the legal process to end the tenancy, including taking court action to get a possession order if needed. Further, the Council correctly said it could not force Ms A to leave and it correctly advised Ms A had the right to stay in the property until Mr X obtained a court order.
  6. I have not seen any suggestion of fault by the Council and nothing to indicate we need to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

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