Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in the termination of his lease agreement with his landlord. This is because we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council colluded with his landlord (Y) to evict his charity from premises it owns (Premises Z). He says other organisations subletting from Y were not evicted and he is concerned the Council allowed Y to remain in Premises Z despite breaching the terms of its lease agreement. As a result of his eviction Mr X says he lost a grant which was tied to his occupation of Premises Z, along with items he had previously bought for the premises.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X sublet premises from Y in contravention of Y’s lease agreement with the Council. The Council found out about the sub-lease and served notice on Y to terminate the lease. Y then wrote to Mr X explaining that because the Council had terminated the lease, Mr X would have to leave Premises Z.
5. There was no agreement between Mr X and the Council for the lease of Premises Z. Mr X’s agreement was with Y so if he believes Y breached the terms of the agreement he may wish to seek legal advice.
6. The Council’s notice to terminate its lease agreement with Y, and any subsequent agreement it reached for the new lease of Premises Z, is something which does not directly concern Mr X. We will not therefore investigate it further.
7. Mr X is also unhappy he was unable to take items with him which he bought for Premises Z under a previous grant but this was a decision by the grant issuer. Mr X believes the Council wrongly involved itself in the matter but we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by looking at this further. It was ultimately for the grant issuer to decide whether Mr X was entitled to keep the items concerned and it has decided he may not. We cannot overturn this or say the decision should have been different.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman