Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about advice the complainant alleges the Council gave to his tenant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant could take legal action.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council told his tenant not to return the keys and, as a result, Mr X suffered a financial loss of about £4000 which he wants the Council to pay.

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 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))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and notes from a meeting. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. During 2024 a property Mr X rented to a tenant suddenly became uninhabitable and his tenant had to leave. The tenant received advice from an advice agency and the Council about their rights as a tenant. The Council provided homelessness assistance.
6. Mr X alleges the Council told the tenant not to return the keys. Mr X says the tenant did not pay the rent after they left and says the delay in returning the keys extended the period of non-payment. Mr X says he incurred losses of about £4000. He says the Council should reimburse him due to the mis-advice it provided to the tenant.
7. In the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint, it said it had seen evidence that Mr X’s insurer told the tenant they had no rental liability after Mr X made his insurance claim. The Council referred to conflicting messages from Mr X about whether he did, or did not, want the tenant to return the keys. The Council referred to information it had seen whereby an advice agency had told the tenant not to return the keys in case it led to the Council deciding the tenant was intentionally homeless.
8. The Council said it provided advice to the tenant about their rights as a tenant and it suggested Mr X get advice regarding his responsibilities as a landlord. The Council said it is not responsible for any losses and said Mr X should seek damages through the courts or through his insurance.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Due to data protection there is information I cannot share with Mr X. But I have considered the complaint correspondence, and the confidential information, and I have not seen anything to suggest the Council mis-advised the tenant.
10. This is primarily a matter between Mr X and the tenant. He may have grounds to take legal action against the tenant or he could seek further help from his insurers. If Mr X remains of the view that the Council owes him money, he could take legal action against the Council. Any legal action may incur costs but that is an aspect of being a landlord. It is reasonable for Mr X to take legal action because the court can decide if the Council is responsible for any losses.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X could take legal action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman