Summary: Mrs Y complains about unfair treatment she received from the Council when it excluded her from renewing the lease agreement for a retail unit in its area. Mrs Y also complains about the Council’s involvement in her subsequent sub-let. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because the matters Mrs Y complains about are too old for us to consider and based on the evidence seen there is no good reason to exercise our discretion.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will call Mrs Y, says the Council has treated her unfairly both as a leaseholder and a tenant. In particular, she says:
1. the retail unit which she leased from the Council was damp and in a general state of disrepair. The Council took no action despite her repeated complaints;
2. the Council did not invite her to take part in the application process for a lease renewal in October 2017;
3. the Council did not provide her with enough time to clear the premises before granting access to the new leaseholder; and
4. a leaseholder gave Mrs Y notice to leave another unit, which she had sub-let, after an unfair and inconsistent approach adopted by the Council.
2. Mrs Y says the actions of the Council caused her injustice in the form of financial hardship and distress.

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’. 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 it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. When considering Mrs Y’s complaint, I contacted her to confirm my understanding of the timeline of events. I also asked Mrs Y to provide copies of any contact she had with the Council throughout 2017 so that I could decide whether she had been prevented from complaining to us sooner.
7. I also considered Mrs Y’s complaints to the Council and its respective responses and consulted the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on Jurisdiction’ before writing this statement.
8. I issued a draft decision and invited comments from Mrs Y and the Council. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Complaint a)

9. Mrs Y occupied the unit in question between July 2013 and October 2017. She contacted the Council throughout this period with concerns about damp and general disrepair.
10. In response to Mrs Y’s complaint, the Council said it had tried to resolve some of the problems throughout her occupation. Despite the continuing problems, Mrs Y decided to renew her annual lease on several occasions.
11. This complaint concerns events between 2013 and 2017. The Ombudsman will not investigate late complaints unless there is good reason to. For example, if the person affected was prevented from complaining sooner. Evidently Mrs Y maintained correspondence with the Council during these four years, and so it is my opinion that she could and should have raised a formal complaint sooner.

Complaint b)

12. Mrs Y complains the Council did not invite her to renew the lease which was due to end in October 2017. Mrs Y says the Council excluded her from the renewal process, and instead continued with another interested party who then formally withdrew in late November 2017. In the meantime, Mrs Y was evicted.
13. Mrs Y had cause to complain about the Council’s decision to exclude her from the lease renewal process in October 2017, yet Mrs Y did not complain to the Council about the matter until November 2018. She then approached the Ombudsman in February 2019.
14. I have not investigated this complaint because Mrs Y did not approach the Ombudsman within 12 months of the matters complained about. Mrs Y says this is because she was not aware that the Council had ‘lied’ to her about the status of the new tenant until she received further information in 2018. I have considered this point; there is no evidence to show the Council lied to Mrs Y. The tenant withdrew one month after Mrs Y vacated the property. It Is not clear how the Council could have predicted this with any certainty, and therefore lied to Mrs Y regarding the urgency by which she had to vacate. Based on the evidence seen, my view is that Mrs Y had cause to complain in 2017 about the way the Council treated her. There is no good reason for us to exercise discretion to investigate.

Complaint c)

15. Mrs Y received confirmation from the Council that her lease would end in October 2017. The Council says the terms of Mrs Y’s lease made clear there was no guarantee of an automatic renewal, and so Mrs Y should have been aware that it was her responsibility to clear and vacate the property by this date.
16. Mrs Y had cause to complain about the Council’s decision to end her lease in October 2017, and particularly about the timescales by which she was asked to vacate. I have not investigated this complaint because Mrs Y did not approach the Ombudsman within 12 months of the matters complained about and based on the evidence seen there is no good reason for us to exercise our discretion.

Complaint d)

17. Mrs Y sub-let new premises in the Council’s area in 2018. She complains that the leaseholder gave her notice to vacate the property after the Council told the leaseholder that they were not permitted to sub-let to Mrs Y.
18. In response to Mrs Y’s complaint, the Council said the leaseholder was breaching the terms of their license and the planning permission granted. This is because the building sub-let by Mrs Y was being used as a separate commercial operation with different opening times to the main business.
19. This complaint is within the Ombudsman’s time limits because the events referred to happened within 12 months of Mrs Y’s approach to us. However, I have not investigated this complaint because Mrs Y’s contractual relationship was with the leaseholder, not the Council. Any complaints she has regarding her eviction should be directed to the leaseholder. I recognise the Council had some involvement in the matters complained about, but its involvement was with the leaseholder not with Mrs Y.
20. For this reason, I consider it is unlikely I would find evidence of fault by the Council and so I have not investigated this part of Mrs Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have discontinued the investigation into Mrs Y’s complaint for the reasons explained throughout this statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman