Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a house Mr X leased to the Council. Mr X could reasonably have used his right to take court action to get the house back. There is not enough public interest in us investigating whether the Council should have paid Mr X more for the house over the years.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not returned a house he owns in line with the required timescale and has not given Mr X enough income for the house. Mr X says this has disrupted his family’s plans and had a financial impact.

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 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)
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X owns a house that he leased to the Council. Mr X gave notice to end the arrangement. The Council did not return the house to Mr X within the expected timescale. When Mr X complained to us, the Council still had not returned the house. After then, the Council told Mr X it might be able to move the house’s occupants elsewhere shortly and return the house.
8. Essentially, Mr X is arguing the Council has not kept to its legal agreement with him. The Council accepts it has not returned the house, but there is some disagreement about whether provisions of any contract have been breached.
9. The courts can consider such matters, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies. Therefore:
• If the Council has still not returned the house, Mr X could take court action.
• If the Council has returned the house by now, but did so late, Mr X could have taken court action while the alleged breach was continuing.
10. In either event, there might be some cost to court action, but that does not automatically make it unreasonable to expect someone to go to court. Mr X let the property out as a business arrangement. So he might reasonably have expected managing the property would not necessarily always go smoothly and could sometimes involve some expense and inconvenience. If Mr X’s legal action were to succeed, he could ask the court for his costs. Moreover, interpreting the law about whether parties acted properly under leases or any other legal duties, and deciding how to remedy any breach, are more properly matters for the courts than for the Ombudsman.
11. Court action might also take time. However, that does not automatically make it unreasonable to expect Mr X to go to court. The court could definitively decide the disputed legal points and could order the property’s return to Mr X, neither of which the Ombudsman could do.
12. Mr X also complains the rent has not increased by enough over the 12 years of the lease. The restriction in paragraph 3 applies to events before July 2023 (12 months before Mr X complained to us). If Mr X considered this matter significant, then as a property owner he could reasonably have pursued it, including coming to us, much sooner. Moreover, this point is fundamentally a private contractual matter between Mr X and the Council for Mr X to inform himself on when entering the legal agreement. He could have sought to renegotiate or end the agreement if he was unhappy with the income he was receiving. Mr X’s unhappiness with the income the agreement gave him, both before and after July 2023, is not a matter of significant enough public interest for us to devote time and public money to investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. On the Council’s failure to return the house on time, Mr X could reasonably use, or have used, his right to take court action to get the house back. There is not enough public interest in the Ombudsman investigating whether the Council should have paid Mr X more for the house over the years.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman