Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay and other issues relating to the return of his rental property under its housing procurement scheme with private landlords. We have found fault, causing injustice, by the Council in its communication and complaint handling failures. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising, making the payment it previously agreed with Mr X to resolve his complaint, and a service improvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s delay handing back his rental property in accordance with its housing procurement scheme with private sector landlords. He gave the required notice to end his agreement with the Council for this property under the scheme, which should then have been handed back in January 2024. It was not returned until May 2024.
2. Mr X says because of the delay, he lost out on the higher rent he would have been able to charge a new tenant from January 2024. He also says the property was handed back in a state of disrepair, and the communal door key was missing.
3. He wants the Council to pay redress for the costs and losses caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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)
6. 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)

What I have and have not investigated

Mr X’s claim for financial losses due to delay and the property condition

7. 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)
8. Mr X had a contract with the Council for its use of his rental property under its housing procurement scheme with private landlords. I have not investigated any claim Mr X may have for damages because of the delay in handing back the property or in relation to its condition on return.
9. This is because we do not make recommendations for the payment of financial redress in the same way as a court might award damages for breach of contract or negligence.
10. If Mr X is not satisfied with the outcome of his complaint, I consider it is reasonable for him to use his option of taking legal action against the Council, if he considers it is in breach of its agreement or duty to him.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr X and the Council provided about the complaint.
12. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

13. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Background

14. The Council had an agreement with Mr X to let his rental property under its housing procurement scheme with private landlords. It was required under the agreement to hand the property back to Mr X, unoccupied, on three months’ notice.
15. Mr X gave the Council three months’ notice on 13 October 2023 to return the property to him on 13 January 2024. The Council failed to comply with this notice. It told Mr X it was still trying to find alternative accommodation for the occupier.

February to April 2024: Mr X’s complaint to the Council

16. Mr X complained to the Council about the delay in handing back the property. He said he had arranged to let it from January at a higher rent than the Council’s monthly payment for its use. He asked the Council to pay the difference.
17. The Council said, in response, it accepted it had failed to hand the property back on the due date and was working to return it as soon as possible.
18. Mr X continued to chase the Council about a date for the return of the property and his payment claim.

May 2024: Council hands back Mr X’s property

19. The Council handed back the property on 9 May.
20. Mr X contacted the Council about its failure to return the building’s communal door key. He said his contractor couldn’t carry out work, and he couldn’t let it to a new tenant, without this key.

June 2024: Mr X’s further complaint to the Council

21. Mr X complained about the failure to return the communal door key and respond to his contact. He asked the Council for a payment of £2,500 as compensation for its failures.
22. The Council said it would arrange to make this payment.
23. In its final response to Mr X’s complaint about its delay returning the property, the Council:

• apologised for the delay handing back the property;
• said it would pay the difference in rent over the four-month period once Mr X provided evidence of the higher rent from his letting agent; and
• told Mr X he could refer his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) if he was dissatisfied with its response.

24. Mr X made a further complaint that the Council had returned the property in a start of disrepair requiring complete redecoration, causing him more delay in renting to a new tenant.
25. The Council did not respond to this complaint and did not make any additional payment. Mr X was not satisfied with this and brought his complaint to us.

Council’s response to our enquiries

26. The Council told us it:

• had continued to pay the agreed monthly payments of £750 for the use of the property from January 2024 until the property was handed back in May 2024;
• had returned the property in a clean and satisfactory condition. It accepted the communal keys were not returned;
• was now arranging to pay Mr X £2,500, as it had agreed to do in response to his complaint; and
• was arranging additional training for officers about the different jurisdictions of the HOS and our scheme and would issue a reminder about this in the meantime.

My view – was their fault by the Council causing injustice?

Communication failures

27. The Council accepted there was a four- month delay in handing back the property to Mr X.
28. But I consider there were communication failures by the Council in the way it responded to Mr X’s complaints about the delay and its impact.
29. And there were further communication failures in response to Mr X’s contact about the missing communal key and the condition of the property. The Council then failed to follow up its agreement to pay Mr X £2,500 as compensation for the issues he had raised.
30. I also note the Council wrongly signposted Mr X to the HOS in its complaint response. As Mr X was complaining about the way the Council dealt with him as a private landlord using its housing procurement scheme, it should have signposted Mr X to us. HOS is not able to look at this type of complaint.
31. I consider these communication and complaint handling failures were fault by the Council.

Impact of the communication failures

32. I consider these failures caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty, and time and trouble bringing his complaint to us.
33. The Council has confirmed it will now make the agreed payment of £2,500 to Mr X. I consider this is an appropriate way of resolving Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Action

34. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for its communication and complaint handling failures. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
2. pay Mr X the sum of £2,500, as it has agreed to do in response to his complaint about issues relating to the return of his property.
35. And within two months of our final decision, provide us evidence it has:
1. arranged training for officers about appropriate signposting of complaints to HOS and LGSCO; and
2. issued a reminder about this to officers pending the completion of this training
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above to remedy this injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman