Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of a management agreement which it signed with him to sub-let his property to tenants. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns a legal lease agreement, and it was reasonable for him to seek a remedy for the alleged breaches in the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s breach of a management agreement which it signed with him to let a property he owns to tenants. He says the property was not properly heated and that this resulted in mould damage when it was left unoccupied before being handed back. This resulted in expense for him to make the property lettable.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s responses. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X owns a buy-to-let property which he leased to the Council in 2018. He says he went to considerable expense to modernise the flat to meet the Council’s letting requirements. The property had problems with the heating system from when it was first let, and the engineers told it the heating system was obsolete. The Council says there were problems with mould growth in 2019.
5. Inspections by the Council’s agents revealed that there was no insulation in the walls and roof voids which were causing the mould growth. This was not due to tenant lifestyle which it first suspected. The property later was considered to be uninhabitable for renting to tenants because the insulation and water ingress could not be resolved as they were structural and a landlord responsibility. The Council handed the keys back to Mr X as it said it could do so under the terms of the agreement.
6. Mr X says the property was in a worse condition than when he handed it over. He says his agents told him the mould could be due to the property being left unoccupied and unheated by the Council. The Council disputes this and says the property does not meet its standards and the structural issues are not related to occupation.

Analysis

7. Mr X claims the Council breached the terms of the agreement he had for managing the property. The restriction outlined in paragraph 2 applies here because Mr X complains about a matter for which it was reasonable to seek a remedy in the courts. We have discretion to disapply this rule where we decide there are good reasons. In this case I have decided not to exercise discretion because Mr X has not provided any good reasons why he could not pursue the breach of the agreement in the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns a legal lease agreement and it was reasonable for him to seek a remedy for the alleged breaches in the courts.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman