Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dispute between a private landlord and their tenants. The claimed injustice does not arise from any council failure towards the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council wrongly encouraged his tenants to remain in the property he had let to them, despite him issuing a section 21 notice to quit the tenancy. He says the tenants have caused severe damage to his property and the dispute has incurred costs up to £8000. He would like the Council to stop paying the rent on behalf of the tenant and compensate his legal expenses.

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 any fault has not caused direct injustice to the person who complained.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council encouraged the tenants to remain in his property by telling them they can stay beyond the section 21 notice expiry date. The Council may have other duties to someone threatened with homelessness, but what Mr X reports the Council saying is factually and legally correct. The Council has no duty towards Mr X, and the law and the tenancy agreement protect his rights against his tenants.
6. Mr X says the Council has encouraged the tenants to remain by continuing to pay rent on their behalf. It is the Council’s duty to continue paying housing benefit, or the government’s duty to include local housing allowance in Universal Credit, if the tenant is entitled to financial support towards housing costs. We could not therefore say the tenants have stayed because of some wrong action by the Council.
7. Mr X also complains of damage the tenants have caused, and the costs incurred to repossess his property. Damage to property and the costs of removing tenants are a foreseeable risk when becoming a landlord. It would be reasonable for Mr X to recover the cost of damage from the tenants, through his insurers if necessary, and to follow the process for recovering his property as set out in law. The Council has no role in either.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence the Council has caused the injustice he claims.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman