Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled recovery of outstanding rent and the cost of dealing with dilapidations, after his business vacated a shop unit in its area. We have stopped investigating Mr X’s complaint. The central issue is one that has been to court, so we cannot look at that or the issues related to it. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider Mr X’s concerns about information sharing. Other issues we could investigate have likely not caused Mr X a significant injustice, and it is unlikely we could add to previous investigation by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled recovery of outstanding rent and the cost of dealing with dilapidations, after his business vacated a shop unit in its area. In particular it:
• began court proceedings to recover the debt;
• did not give clear and consistent figures for the debt;
• held him responsible for the costs of fixing a window which was smashed after his tenancy ended;
• incorrectly sent him information it should not have;
• included errors in an invoice and communications; and
• gave incorrect information about his lease and did not make procedures sufficiently clear.
2. Mr X says the above faults have led to significant inconvenience for him, with hours of work dealing with paperwork and gathering the necessary information. He experienced significant worry about the amounts he owed and the potential he would need to pay court costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’.
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.

Issues we cannot investigate

5. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
6. The courts have said we also cannot investigate a complaint about any action by a council, concerning a matter which is itself out of our jurisdiction. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))

Circumstances where we have discretion to decide whether to investigate

7. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

8. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
9. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered the information Mr X provided verbally and in writing. This included copies of correspondence between Mr X and the Council.
11. I wrote to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Background

12. Mr X owns a business that operated from a shop unit in the Council’s area. He took over the tenancy from the previous tenant several years ago, and then later signed his own lease agreement.
13. Mr X told the Council in early 2017 he wished to give notice to end his lease. The Council advised he would need to time this in line with the end of a quarter part of the financial year. Mr X gave notice to quit, to expire in September 2017. The Council told Mr X he would need to return the property in a reasonable condition including redecorating.

Mr X’s complaint the Council began court proceedings to recover debts

14. When the Council inspected at the beginning of October 2017, it told Mr X the property was not left in a good enough state and needed significant work including redecorating. Mr X did not agree.
15. The Council sent Mr X invoices for rent arrears and the costs of dealing with dilapidations. It warned Mr X it would take legal action if he did not pay. It started proceedings in January 2018 for the rent arrears. Mr X then paid the arrears.
16. The Council told Mr X in March 2018 it would no longer debate what he owed it for the works it needed to carry out and it began proceedings for the costs of resolving dilapidations. The court ordered Mr X to pay an amount to the Council.
17. I cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to take court action. It was for the court, and not the Ombudsman, to determine whether the charges were properly owed.

Mr X’s complaint the Council did not give clear and consistent figures

18. The Council was pursuing two different amounts from Mr X, because it was pursuing both rent arrears and costs for dealing with dilapidations. In July 2017 the Council also amended the figure for rent due, as it found Mr X had cancelled a direct debit. Mr X told the Council the figures it gave were not consistent. He told me he never received one clear figure from the Council, and he believes if it had given clearer information the case would not have needed to go to court.
19. It was for the court, and not the Ombudsman, to decide what figure was owed by Mr X. The courts have said we cannot investigate actions of a council which are linked to a matter which is itself out of our jurisdiction. Any inconsistencies in the figures, despite them having occurred before the court was involved, are intrinsically linked to the court proceedings and I cannot consider them.

Mr X’s complaint the Council held him responsible for the smashed window

20. Mr X’s tenancy ran out at the end of September 2017 and the Council inspected four days later. Between those dates, a window was smashed at the property.
    Mr X and the Council disagreed about who was liable for this.
21. In late 2018 Mr X was still raising this concern with the Council. The Council told him the court would make the decision. I cannot investigate this issue as it was for the court, and not the Ombudsman, to decide what Mr X owed the Council.

Mr X’s complaint the Council sent him information it should not have

22. In early 2017, and on further occasions throughout the period Mr X’s complaint relates to, the Council referred him to the lease signed by the previous tenant. It sent this to Mr X. Mr X reported this to the Information Commissioner’s Office as the lease had the previous tenant’s personal details on it. The Council told Mr X leases are in the public domain and so it had not breached data protection laws.
23. Mr X also received a Council record related to somebody else’s housing case, including names and addresses. Mr X later included this in a complaint to the Council. In July 2018 the Council acknowledged this information should not have been issued to Mr X, but advised it was too long ago to investigate. In September 2018, Mr X raised concern about the Council’s decision not to investigate.
24. These events were before May 2017, and there is no good reason Mr X could not have complained about them sooner. I will also not investigate these parts of
    Mr X’s complaint as they were too long ago. In any event, the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider these issues. There are no good reasons for me to do so as these events caused no personal injustice to Mr X.

Mr X’s complaint about errors by Council officers and unclear procedures

25. After the Council’s complaint responses, Mr X continued to raise concerns about errors. The Council told him any challenge to the accuracy of statements or evidence needed to be raised in court. Mr X is concerned these errors were not discussed in court. I have set out below the issues that should have been raised in court, and those that are separable from the central issue of the charges.

Issues that are for the court and not the Ombudsman

26. The invoice for the cost of dealing with dilapidations was addressed to the shop unit from which Mr X had already moved out. Mr X says he therefore did not receive this. I cannot investigate this because it was for the court, and not the Ombudsman, to consider whether this error affected circumstances.
27. Mr X highlighted in his complaint the Council told the court he had not contacted it about paying, however he had sent emails. It was for the court, and not the Ombudsman, to consider this.

Issues separable from court proceedings

28. Mr X’s complaint included the Council giving two different quarter end dates, which differed by one day. This was before May 2017, longer than 12 months before Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. There is no good reason Mr X could not have complained about this sooner. In any event, this caused Mr X no significant injustice. I have stopped investigating this issue.
29. Mr X’s complaint included the following issues:
• In late 2017 a Council officer asked him whether he had returned a lease, after having already acknowledged this in March 2017. Mr X raised concerns this was unprofessional and meant the Council had not kept proper records.
• Confusion by the Council about when he signed his lease, as it referred to the lease signed by the previous tenant in several communications.
• An invoice included a wrong initial in his name.
30. It is unlikely I could add to the Council’s investigation of these issues. It explained what had happened and apologised. In any event, these issues did not cause
    Mr X a significant injustice. I have stopped investigating these issues.
31. Mr X asked the Council several times whether it considered an invoice correct. He did so before telling it about errors he had noticed. The Council highlighted Mr X could have informed it about the errors sooner. Mr X also asked the Council several times to confirm it stood by previous statements. Mr X did not consider its response satisfactory and he believed phrases such as “to the best of our knowledge” undermined the Council’s confirmation it stood by its statements.
32. These issues did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. In any event, Mr X’s actions in asking officers to confirm accuracy rather than highlighting any errors at the first opportunity would have added to any injustice. I have stopped investigating these issues.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have discontinued my investigation for several reasons which I have explained above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman