Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a scheme to introduce tenants for her property. This is because the Council has already taken action to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X, a private landlord, complained about Council failings in its handling of a housing scheme that matches tenants with private rented properties. Ms X said the tenants identified did not meet the scheme criteria and the Council failed to disclose relevant tenancy history for them. Ms X said that, as a result of Council failings, the rent is in arrears and she will now be put to the cost of evicting them. She also said she was caused avoidable stress.

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 impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In its complaint response, the Council accepted:
• it failed to follow its own policy and processes when matching tenants to Ms X’s property;
• the tenants did not qualify for the relevant Government funding, and therefore did not meet the criteria of the relevant scheme; and
• the Council failed to consider the size of the household and therefore whether it was affordable if the tenants were not working.
6. The Council apologised and took the following action:
• made a meaningful apology for what had gone wrong;
• arranged for the tenants to claim the housing element of Universal Credit from August 2024;
• agreed to pay a discretionary housing payment (DHP) to Ms X to cover the shortfall in rent for six months from August 2024;
• offered Ms X £750 for the shortfall in rent for the period before the above two actions started and said, if there were still outstanding rent arrears after these actions, it would consider a further payment;
• agreed not to recover the £1,500 incentive payment made to Ms X, which it should not have paid because the tenants did not qualify for the scheme;
• confirmed Ms X could claim for disrepair to the value of the deposit bond and explained how she could do so; and
• provided guidance to relevant staff to prevent recurrence of this issue.
7. The Council declined to take steps to evict the tenants on the basis it had no legal power to do so, explained in general terms how Ms X could evict them at the end of the tenancy term and recommended she seek legal advice about the process.
8. The Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused by its failings. We would not expect it to cover the cost of evicting the tenants as Ms X may have needed to do that in any event, even if there had been no fault. We will not investigate further as it is unlikely this would achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because this would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman