Summary: Mr C says the Council was at fault for insisting he should demolish a garage he rented at the end of his rental agreement. He says he rented the site with a garage already on it and should not have to demolish it. The Council was not at fault. Mr C signed a contract which explicitly required him to demolish the garage. The Council is not at fault for relying on the signed contract.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr C, rented a garage on a site near his house between 2001 and 2019. Mr C says the Council is at fault for insisting he demolish the garage at the end of the contract. The Council says he must do so because the contract requires it. Mr C says the contract is a standard one which does not apply in his case because the garage was there when he rented the site.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. This is a case involving a contractual dispute. The law says that we should not normally investigate such complaints because they could be decided by the court.
3. Matters of contractual interpretation are matters for the court. However, I have decided to investigate whether the Council was at fault for maladministration or service failure in enforcing the contract in this case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Mr C and considered the evidence he had provided. As he had provided a complete file of evidence, I did not approach the Council for further materials. I considered all the information before me and made my decision.
8. I sent my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and asked for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mr C rented a ‘garage site’ from the Council in 2001. At the time he rented it, there was a garage already standing on the plot. It has remained there ever since. Mr C says that, in his mind, he was not renting a ‘garage site’ but ‘a garage’. He says he referred to it as such at the time.
10. The correspondence between Mr C and the Council from 2001 though, shows that the Council referred to the site as a ‘garage site’ both in a covering letter and on the tenancy agreement itself.
11. The contract stated:
1. at clause 2, that the tenancy would ‘continue thereafter until determined at any time by either party giving to the other three months’ notice in writing’;
2. at clause 3, that ‘the yearly rent shall be £25’; and
3. at clause 4(n), that the tenant had ‘at the expiration or sooner determination of the tenancy…to remove without delay at his own expense the garage then erected on the premises and at the like expense to restore without delay the premises to its original state and condition’.
12. In late 2018, a Council officer, Officer O placed a notice on the garage door asking the tenant to inform the Council who was renting the garage. Mr C contacted the Council and identified himself.
13. In February 2019, Officer O wrote to Mr C and told him the Council had terminated the contract with notice in May 2018. She asked him to sign a new one at an annual rent of £50 + VAT. She said, if he did not want to accept the new agreement, he should ‘remove your garage structure, as per Clause 4(n)’.
14. In March 2019, Mr C contacted Officer O to object. He said he should not have to pay to remove the garage as it was there when he rented the site.
15. Officer O said that, unless Mr C was able to arrange for anyone else to take on the garage site, he would have to demolish the garage. They suggested Mr C had taken on the tenancy from another tenant in this way. Mr C says this is not the case. He said that he had always considered that he had been renting the garage itself and not the site, so the Council should remove the garage if it required this.
16. Mr C complained. He re-iterated that he rented the garage, not the site, from the Council. He said there was a Land Registry document that showed the garage existed 10 years before he rented it.
17. The Council maintained its position. Mr C is disturbed that his complaint was originally dealt with by Officer O which he says made the process unfair. After exhausting the internal complaints procedure, Mr C came to the Ombudsman.
18. Mr C accepts the 2001 contract said he had, at the end of the tenancy, to ‘remove without delay at his own expense the garage then erected on the Premises’. However, he re-iterated it was the garage, not the site he rented. He believes it is unreasonable for the Council to insist that he removes the garage because;
1. he rented the site with a garage on it already, it was not correct to say that a garage was ‘then’ – subsequently – erected. It had been erected before;
2. he cannot ‘restore the plot to its original state and condition’ because no one can know what its original state or condition was. He says, if anything, ‘the original condition’ is with a garage; and
3. if the contract does require him to remove a garage which existed when he rented the plot, this is an unfair contract term.
19. Mr C also noted other tenants have not been required to remove their garages.

Was there fault causing injustice?

20. The 2001 contract states explicitly that the Council and Mr C had a right to terminate it. The Council exercised this right. The Council was not, therefore, at fault for terminating it.
21. The Council offered Mr C the option of a new contract, or giving up the garage. Mr C chose to give it up. As a result, the Council asked Mr C to remove the garage in accordance with clause 4(n). I understand Mr C disagrees with the relevant clause, and he argues it was not intended to apply in his circumstances. He argues that the clause is unreasonable in law. However, the Ombudsman cannot decide on this contractual disputes. This would be a matter for the courts.
22. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider if there was fault in the way the Council treated Mr C. I found there was no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions. I say this because;
• Mr C says he believed he rented a garage, not a ‘garage site’. But the 2001 tenancy agreement and the covering letter both refer to a ‘garage site’.
• While I understand Mr C disagrees, a natural reading of clause 4(n) says Mr C is required to remove any garage present on the site when the tenancy ends. Mr C may feel that restoring the site to its ‘original condition’ is an inexact term but it does nothing to undermine the requirement that any garage should be removed. This is what the Council has requested of him.
23. I have no information about other garage leaseholders. But, in any event, the Council is entitled to refer to its contract with Mr C. The circumstances may be different in other cases.
24. For the reasons set out above, I found the Council was entitled to reach the decision it did. I do not find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have considered the information before me and have reached a decision that the Council was not at fault. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

I have not attempted to apply contract law or the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman