Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council ran a selective licensing scheme, or how its housing department dealt with a tenant. The Council took immediate action to ensure a tenant within the scheme was evicted after she displayed serious anti-social behaviour and did not advise her to stay longer.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains the Council’s selective licensing scheme for landlords failed to protect her family from serious criminal and anti-social behaviour by tenants of a neighbouring property. Ms X also complains that when the landlord served an eviction notice on the tenant, the Council’s housing department advised the tenant to ignore this and remain in the property.
2. Ms X says as a result, her family suffered an extra and avoidable month of anti-social behaviour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• made enquiries of third parties including the police and victim support; and
• discussed the issues with Ms X.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. In 2018, Mr D, a neighbour of Ms X, violently threatened her partner multiple times. Mr and Ms X had to leave their home for their own safety until the police found Mr D and arrested him.
8. After Mr D went to prison, his wife, Mrs D, started a campaign of harassment against Mr and Ms X. Ms X says this continued for ten months until she contacted her Victim Liaison Officer (VLO) to see if they could do anything to remove Mrs D.
9. The VLO contacted the Council about the situation. The Council immediately contacted Mrs D’s landlord and advised the landlord to take action to evict Mrs D. The Council told the landlord he should issue a section 21 notice to end Mrs D’s tenancy. The Council put this in writing to the landlord a week after the VLO first contacted it. The landlord served the section 21 notice about five days later saying Mrs D should leave the property by 10 May.
10. Ms X put in a formal complaint to the Council on 13 May. She complained that someone at the Council had given Mrs D permission to remain in the property after 10 May. Ms X explained the trauma she and her partner were experiencing because of the threats and harassment by Mr and Mrs D and asked the Council to find Mr & Mrs D alternative accommodation.
11. The Council replied on 16 May. The complaint response was brief saying that due to laws governing confidentiality it could not discuss advice or information it may or may not have given to a third party.
12. Ms X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two on 18 May. Ms X said she was totally and utterly disgusted with the comments and the previous response lacked any real empathy or concern. Ms X felt the Council was using the issue of confidentiality to not take her complaint seriously.
13. Ms X again complained the Council had told Mrs D she should stay in the property and that she could not be evicted because she had children. Ms X described recent behaviour of Mrs D against her. She felt Mrs D was goading her because the Council has taken her side and allowed her to stay in the property. Ms X again said the Council should find alternative accommodation for Mrs D.
14. The Council replied saying it had interviewed the officer who first spoke to Mrs D. The officer is insistent they did not advise Mrs D to stay beyond the date stated on the section 21 notice. The Council also confirmed the case notes do not show it gave this advice.
15. The Council spoke to the VLO who advised she had not seen any correspondence or had any conversation that would make her think Mrs D had been advised to stay beyond the expiry of the section 21 notice. The Council explained to Ms X that a council could advise a tenant to stay if the section 21 notice was invalid but in this case the section 21 notice was valid and so such advice would not be given. The Council said it thought the notice had been extended but that Mrs D had now left the property.
16. The Council sent Ms X a further letter on 12 July. It explained it had now spoken to the police officer dealing with Ms X. The police officer told the Council he had not witnessed any action by the Council or been advised of any actions that would impede the section 21 notice. The Council said it could not find any evidence the Council advised Mrs D to stay in the property. It said Mrs D was a private tenant and the notice was served by a private landlord. The Council could not therefore get involved in the eviction process.
17. Mr and Ms X have now sold their property and moved out of the area.

Analysis

18. Ms X complains the Council’s selective licensing scheme did not protect her family from serious criminal and anti-social behaviour from tenants at a neighbouring property.
19. The selective licensing scheme came into effect in May 2015. The selective licensing scheme is managed by the Council and requires landlords in the area to apply for a licence for each property they let to tenants. The licence requires holders to get references for those people who wish to occupy their properties and the guidance explains the expectations for landlords to deal with anti-social behaviour by their tenants.
20. Ms X complains the licensing scheme does not work, because the criminal convictions Mr D has should have been identified when references were sought, and these would have prevented him from signing a tenancy agreement.
21. In this case, Mr and Mrs D were tenants in the property prior to May 2015 when the selective licensing scheme was introduced. The scheme did not require landlords to seek references for existing tenants. I therefore find no fault by the Council on this issue.
22. The information I have seen shows the Council was not aware of the problems Ms X was experiencing until the VLO contacted it. Ms X had been experiencing harassment for over ten months by the time the Council was involved. The evidence shows the Council took immediate action and requested the landlord take action to evict Mrs D. The landlord served a section 21 notice within two weeks of being contacted by the Council. I am not persuaded there was any fault by the Council once it became aware of Mrs D’s actions.
23. Ms X also complains that the Council told Mrs D to stay in the property beyond the date stated in the section 21 notice and that she suffered another month of unnecessary harassment as a result.
24. I have carefully considered all the information I have on this point. Ms X says that it was the police officer who told her the Council had given this advice. As part of my investigation I made enquiries to the police officer. I asked him to provide any evidence he held of contact with the Council about Mrs D’s eviction. He replied saying he could not identify any emails relating to this matter.
25. It is not possible for me to provide information relating to third parties. Therefore, I cannot provide any details of the Council’s contact with Mrs D about the eviction. I can confirm I have been provided with a copy of Mrs D’s housing file and so I am aware of what happened in this case. The file supports the Council’s position that it did not advise Mrs D to stay in the property and was taking other actions to resolve the housing situation.
26. The information I have seen indicates it was the landlord who agreed Mrs D could remain longer in the property. The Council was not involved in this decision and could not prevent the landlord from allowing this. Mrs D moved out at the beginning of June, approximately two weeks later than stated on the section 21 notice. Ms X says the Council did not tell her Mrs D had moved and she did not find out until July. I appreciate Ms X would have liked to know sooner than she did that Mrs D had moved, however I do not consider it was fault that the Council did not tell her. It must comply with data regulations and not pass on personal detail; so, I will not criticise the Council on this point.
27. While I appreciate Ms X has suffered significantly because of this situation, it was Mr and Mrs D’s actions that caused the distress and not the Council. I have not found any evidence of fault by the Council in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation as there is no evidence of fault in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman