Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in handing back a property he had leased to the Council. He also complained about the condition of the property when the Council handed it back. We have ended our investigation as it was reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy in the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complained the Council delayed in handing back a property he had leased to the Council. He gave three-months’ notice in September 2023 but his property was not handed back to him until July 2024. Mr X says this caused his financial difficulties.
2. Mr X also complains about the condition of the property when the Council handed it back.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X; and
• Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X owns a property which he has leased to the Council for many years. The most recent lease commenced in May 2015 and was for a two year term. The rent was set at £1,100 per month.
8. In August 2023 Mr X asked the Council to agree to increase the rent to £1,250 per month from 1 September 2023. He says the Council did not respond.
9. Mr X then told the Council he had been advised he could receive rent of £1,600 per month in the private sector and asked how to give notice for the property to be returned to him. The Council advised Mr X he should provide three months’ notice. Mr X gave formal notice on 4 September 2023.
10. The Council acknowledged receipt and referred Mr X to the lease agreement which said the Council would endeavour to grant vacant possession at the earliest date. The lease also stipulated that in the event the Council continued to hold the property on expiry of the contract the lease will continue on the same term and this included the rental amount.
11. Mr X says he repeatedly chased the Council to confirm when he would get the property back. He also took advice from a solicitor who wrote to the Council on his behalf.
12. In April 2024 Mr X made a formal complaint that the Council had not handed back the property despite him giving notice which had expired on 4 December 2023. Mr X complained the delay meant they were losing £500 per month while they could not rent the property privately at the market rate. He asked the Council to compensate him for missed rent since the notice expired.
13. The Council responded on 8 May 24 and upheld his complaint. It advised it was attempting to source a suitable property for the current resident to move to but had few suitable options. The Council would continue to strive to facilitate a move on as quickly as possible. It apologised that this was taking longer than anticipated and for any distress this caused. It offered to pay an uplift of £50 per week while the matter was ongoing. The Council acknowledged this was less than the market rate Mr X could achieve but noted it was more than the initial figure Mr X had requested.
14. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for his complaint to be reviewed at the next stage. He complained the Council had still not returned the property or given a definite date for this to take place. Mr X also noted the rent had not increased in over seven years despite the rising cost of living and inflation. He said it was now challenging to make ends meet.
15. Mr X calculated they had lost six months of increased private rental income which totalled £3,000. Although this was offset by the Council’s payment of £1200 in respect of the £50 per week uplift, this still left a shortfall of £1800. Mr X also noted the uplifts had ended on 12 May 2024 and the Council had not made any further payments.
16. In addition Mr X had updated the private rental price to £1800 per month in line with similar properties in the area. This meant there was now a shortfall of £700 per month. He asked the Council to provide an urgent update on when the property would be returned and renewed his request for compensation.
17. The Council reviewed Mr X’s complaint and responded on 5 July 2024. It again apologised that it had taken longer than anticipated to return his property and confirmed it would be returned in the next 7 to 10 days. In relation to Mr X’s claim for compensation the Council offered to pay an increased uplift of £100 from May 2024 until the property was returned.
18. Mr X received the keys to his property on 11 July 2024. He immediately raised concerns about the condition of the property. He provided photographs of the carpet which he said was destroyed beyond normal ‘wear and tear’ and provided quotes for a replacement carpet.
19. The Council refused to compensate Mr X for the carpet. It noted the carpet had not been changed in over 10 years and its condition was due to wear and tear. The Council also referred Mr X to the clause in the tenancy agreement regarding furniture, curtains, carpets and consumer durables which provided that the lessee would not be responsible for these items. It offered to pay Mr X £50 towards the carpet as a gesture of good will.
20. Mr X advised the Council he was seeking advice as he felt there was an imbalance of power. He had also identified further issues with the property and said the toilets had to be replaced as they were rusty, the fridge/ freezer was not in the property and the oven had to be replaced. Mr X said the Council’s delay in returning the property had caused further financial loss as it was now the school holidays and they had pre-arranged activities which had impacted the time available for refurbishment.
21. The Council advised Mr X that if the cooker was broken it was the landlord’s responsibility to repair it. It also again referred Mr X to the tenancy agreement regarding consumer durables. The Council paid Mr X an uplift of £1000 for the period from May 2024 until the property was returned, £50 in respect of the carpet and £20 in respect of a light cord.
22. As Mr X remains dissatisfied he has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He says the delay in returning his property has caused financial loss and stress and would like the Council to pay him a further £4,765, that is:
• £1200 loss of rent. Mr X would like the Council to pay a £100 per week uplift for the full period of delay. As the Council only paid £50 for the first 24 weeks, he would like the Council to pay the shortfall of £1,200.
• £1500 for an additional month’s rent as the flat was handed back during the summer holidays;
• £1800 to replace the damaged carpet;
• £125 for a replacement toilet;
• £140 for the missing fridge/ freezer.
23. In addition Mr X would like the Council to return fire alarms he had fitted.

Analysis

24. Mr X entered into a private agreement with the Council for the lease of his property. The lease stipulated the monthly rental, each party’s responsibilities and the notice period to end the lease.
25. Mr X complains the Council did not honour the terms of the lease as it delayed in returning his property at the end of the notice period and did not make good the damage caused to the property and appliances.
26. He is also unhappy the monthly rent has remained the same since the agreement was signed in 2015 despite increases in the cost of living. However, this is not a matter for the Ombudsman.
27. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to resolve disputes about the terms or performance of the contract. Only the courts can determine breaches of legal agreements and it was open to Mr X to seek a remedy by the legal process. I note Mr X did seek legal advice in this matter and that his solicitors wrote to the Council.
28. In the circumstances we would not investigate this complaint further as it was reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy in the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

29. We have ended our investigation as it was reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy in the courts.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman