Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay a private landlord for rent arrears and property damage caused by a tenant placed there by an agency. It was reasonable for Mrs X to seek a remedy against the tenant and the agency in the courts for the breaches of an assured shorthold tenancy agreement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council refusing to pay her any recompense for damage to her rental property and rent arrears accumulated by a tenant who left in 2024. She says the tenant was provided by an agency which seeks to place persons who are accepted as homeless by London Boroughs. She wants the Council to accept responsibility for the tenant’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X owns a rental property which she agreed to let to a tenant through a private letting agency in 2021. She accepted an incentive payment from the agency which finds placements for tenants who have been accepted under the homelessness duty by London Borough councils.
6. In 2024 the tenant left the property and she says there was over £3,000 rent outstanding. She also says it cost her £2,000 to repair damage caused to the property following the tenant’s departure. She complained to the Council and asked it to compensate her for her losses.
7. The Council told her that she signed an assured shorthold tenancy with the tenant and that she also was party to an agreement with the agency related to finding a tenant. The Council had no direct involvement or agreement with Mrs X or the tenant and would not compensate her.
8. The Council advised her that because she did not take out any rental protection insurance she would have to seek a remedy in the courts against the tenant for breach of the tenancy agreement. The Council was also unable to provide Mrs X with a forwarding address for the tenant. It was prevented from doing so by data protection legislation which does not permit disclosure of third-party information without their consent.
9. It was reasonable for Mrs X to seek a remedy in the courts for any breach of the assured tenancy agreement or the agreement which she entered into with the letting agency.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay a private landlord for rent arrears and property damage caused by a tenant placed there by an agency. It was reasonable for Mrs X to seek a remedy against the tenant and the agency in the courts for the breaches of an assured shorthold tenancy agreement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman