Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongfully ended his tenancy of a garage following non-payment of rent and that it has not allowed him to collect his personal possessions since the repossession. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to inform him it was in the process of ending his garage tenancy because he had not paid enough rent. He also says the Council broke his padlock and then prevented him collecting his possessions by changing the lock. Mr X wants the garage back and compensation.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council increases the rent on its garages each April and writes to inform tenants of this.
6. Mr X did not increase his standing order and so fell into arrears. Council officers wrote and emailed him several times providing details of his account and the arrears. Mr X did not contact them.
7. Eventually, the Council gave Mr X one week’s notice, which was in line with his tenancy agreement. Mr X did not pay the arrears nor return the keys and so the Council changed the lock on the garage after Mr X’s contract had terminated.
8. Mr X contacted the Council and said he had gone to the garage to collect his personal possessions and found the locks changed. He was unhappy the Council had not told him what day it would change the locks. The Council said it did not need him present to change the locks which happened after his contract had ended.
9. It asked him to arrange a date and time, within office hours to meet an officer at the garage if Mr X wanted to collect his possessions. Mr X said he could only go evenings or weekends and asked the Council to give him the keys which he said he would return later. The Council refused and so the matter remains unresolved.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council provided Mr X with sufficient information of the rent increase via letter and email. It informed him of the arrears on his account several times, again by letter and email. It was Mr X’s responsibility to respond to those communications.
11. It is reasonable for the Council to arrange a meeting with Mr X within office hours. He says the Council keeps asking him to phone to arrange a convenient time, but he does not have a telephone. However, he has submitted evidence that the Council communicates with him about this matter via email and so I can see no point in pursuing this further. If Mr X wishes to get his possessions back, it is open to him to make an appointment within office hours.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman