Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s response to a water leak at the business premises he rents off the Council. He considers Council officers lied and their actions caused additional damage to his property. The investigation is discontinued as Mr B has alternative means of obtaining a remedy from the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s response to a water leak at the business premises he rents off the Council. He considers Council officers lied and their actions caused additional damage. He complains about the way the Council has handled his claim and delay in referring the matter to its insurers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of events

5. Mr B rents an office from the Council. In June 2018 there was a water leak which caused damage to the office. Mr B emailed the Council in June 2018 asking what its proposals were for rectification and saying they couldn’t use the office as it smelt mouldy. There was some further contact in October. In responding to the draft of this statement Mr B reports there were ongoing discussions with Council officers about the state of the office.
6. In July 2019, in correspondence relating to other matters, Mr B asked what was happening about the office as it was uninhabitable due to the water damaged carpet. There was a meeting between Mr B and officers. In early August Mr B emailed the Council asking if there was any news on alternative office space because they had been without an office for nearly a year and it was becoming urgent. He said that they had been unable to use the office since the flood and wanted a refund of the rent paid. An officer replied saying they were arranging to have the carpet replaced and asking for details of the water leak in June 2018 as the officer who had been in post then had left. Mr B provided some information in the middle of the month which the officer forwarded to senior colleagues.
7. At the end of August there was another water leak. The Council found the leak when officers arrived at the unit first thing in the morning. The officer inspected Mr B’s unit in the middle of the morning and telephoned him. Mr B wanted to see the extent of the damage but would not be able to get to the unit until the evening
8. Mr B emailed the Council early the following morning. He asked for the matter to be escalated to a senior officer. He said the Council had played down the extent of the water damage and had delayed in informing him of the incident.
9. The Council replied and two days after the leak offered Mr B £2500 as a rent rebate and a payment of £600 for the time needed to move equipment from the affected office. Correspondence continued between Mr B and the Council. In early September a senior officer said the Council wanted to ensure a satisfactory resolution to the matter hopefully without recourse to legal proceedings. He asked Mr B to itemise the cost of restitution he considered appropriate. Mr B replied setting out some detail but saying he had not been able to yet establish the extent of damage to equipment in the office.
10. The Council separated Mr B’s complaints about the conduct of staff from any claims for compensation. It responded to his complaints in the middle of September. Its position was that officers had acted appropriately and the issue about compensation should be dealt with through its insurers. The Council’s insurers for both the building and for litigation have visited the building but have not inspected Mr B’s office.
11. The Council made a without prejudice payment to Mr B of £5000 two months after the incident.
12. Mr B has referred in his correspondence to ongoing legal proceedings against the Council. In responding to this complaint the Council has said it has not received a formal claim.

Analysis

13. There are two main issues here; damage to Mr B’s property in the office unit and rental payments for the unit and Mr B’s allegations about the conduct of staff.
14. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to rule on matters of compensation caused by alleged fault by the Council: that is a matter for insurers and, in the event of a dispute, the courts. I consider it would be possible for Mr B to make a claim against the Council if he considers the payments already made are not sufficient. I am not, therefore, going to consider that aspect of the complaint further.
15. Mr B complains about the conduct of officers both in the failure to respond to issues arising from the first water leak in June 2018 and more specifically the action taken in the immediate aftermath of the second leak in August 2019. The Council has responded to this and does not consider there was fault. I do not consider I should come to a view on this point. This is because I do not consider it is separable from the substantive issue about losses to Mr B. The argument here is that the actions, or inactions, of officers has increased the damage to Mr B’s property. That is all part and parcel of a claim Mr B could make against the Council. I do not consider any of the alleged failings by the Council officers causes a separate and significant injustice to Mr B that warrants further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have discontinued the investigation of the complaint as Mr B has alternative means of redress against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman