Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions related to a private sector tenancy in which the landlord asks for compensation from the Council for damage caused by her tenant. This was a private housing tenancy and it is reasonable for Ms X to seek a remedy through the courts.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council failing to compensate her for damage and eviction costs following tenancy breaches caused by a tenant put forward under a bond scheme in 2021. She says the Council told her the s.21 notice she served on the tenant was invalid because her Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) had expired. She says the Council had not notified her previously that she required a valid EPC otherwise she would have updated it and served the possession notice earlier.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ma X is a private landlord who accepted a tenant nominated by the Council for her property in 2021. The Council made the offer to pay the tenant’s bond and advance rental payment and the tenancy agreement was an assured shorthold tenancy between Ms X as landlord and the tenant.
7. Ms X’s tenant caused damage to the property and other tenancy breaches and Ms X served her with a s.21 possession notice due to expire in December 2023. The tenant approached the Council as being threatened with homelessness and as part of that procedure the Council considered the notice and said it was invalid due to the EPC having expired. This meant she would have to re-start the proceedings.
8. Ms X says the Council should have informed her that the EPC was required to be up to date. However, the tenancy agreement was between her and the tenant and the Council was only involved in a bond arrangement with her. Legal management of the tenancy agreement was a matter between the landlord and tenant. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to know their legal obligations under a tenancy agreement.
9. The Council finally rehoused the tenant in November 2023 and paid Ms X some recompense out of the £695 bond agreed with additional discretionary amounts. Ms X says it should compensate her for all her costs including legal fees.
10. We cannot determine disputes about private tenancies and legal arrangements. The Council adhered to the terms of the bond agreement and Ms X can seek redress against the tenant for breaches of the tenancy as any other landlord could. The Council had a duty to advise the landlord that the possession notice was invalid under requirements of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homeless Code of Guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions related to a private sector tenancy in which the landlord asks for compensation from the Council for damage caused by her tenant. This was a private housing tenancy and it is reasonable for Ms X to seek a remedy through the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman