Summary: there was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr & Mrs X’s Housing Register priority and the suitability of interim accommodation it offered them. The Council did not give them wrong advice about making a claim for Housing Benefit, and it did not fail to properly consider their reports about incidents of alleged harassment by their landlord.

The complaint

1. Mr & Mrs X complain that the Council:
1. did not properly assess their housing needs and award the correct priority band to their Housing Register application;
2. made unsuitable offers of interim accommodation because it did not properly consider and assess their medical needs, disabilities and their need to be close to medical services and Mr X’s carer;
3. gave them wrong advice about whether to claim Housing Benefit or Universal Credit which delayed payment of benefit and caused rent arrears which led the landlord to start possession proceedings;
4. did not properly consider evidence they submitted about incidents of harassment by the landlord while they were still in private rented accommodation and take appropriate action to assist them.
2. Mr & Mrs X left the private rented accommodation in July 2019. They stayed in interim accommodation until mid-September 2019. They refused subsequent offers of interim accommodation and are sleeping in their car.

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. I have spoken to Mr & Mrs X and considered all the information they sent me.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and the relevant evidence from its housing and Housing Benefit records.
7. I have written to Mr & Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

The background

8. In November 2018 Mr X signed an assured shorthold tenancy agreement to rent a two bedroom bungalow in the North Norfolk area. He found this property himself through a website. The tenancy was for a six month term.
9. Mr X moved to the bungalow in late November 2018. He had been staying for a short time with his carer who lives in another district in Norfolk immediately before the move. Before that, he had lived with Mrs X in her relative’s rented home in London.
10. Mr and Mrs X both have long-term physical disabilities. Mr X is a wheelchair user. Mr & Mrs X receive disability benefits. They have a Motability car. They have three pet dogs.

Complaint a)

The Council did not properly assess their housing needs and award the correct priority band to their Housing Register application

The relevant law

11. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
12. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

13. The Council does not own any housing stock. It is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme – Your Choice Your Home - which enables housing applicants to bid for Housing Association properties advertised on its website.
14. The Council’s scheme says only applicants with a housing need which meets one of the reasonable preference criteria qualifies to join the Housing Register. Applicants who qualify to join the Register may be placed in priority band 1 or 2 depending on their housing needs.

15. Band 1 includes:
• Applicants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds (including grounds relating to a disability);
• Applicants the Council has accepted as homeless within the meaning of Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.
16. Band 2 includes:
• Applicants who are homeless (but not accepted as homeless by the Council)
17. The Council’s scheme includes three separate Registers:

The Housing Register – applicants with the very highest level of housing need who have overall preference for social and affordable rented properties.

The Housing Options Register – applicants with lower levels of housing need who are considered for social and affordable rented properties not required for applicants on the Housing Register;

The Transfer Register – existing tenants of social or affordable rented housing who want to move.

18. The Council’s scheme gives additional preference to applicants on the Housing Register who have a local connection to the North Norfolk area. “Local connection” is defined as:
• Having lived in the North Norfolk area for 6 of the last 12 months or 3 years of the last 5 years; or
• Working in the North Norfolk area; or
• Having a family member who has lived in the North Norfolk area for at least five years.
19. The policy says the Council has the right to disqualify an applicant at any time if he or she is unsuitable to be a tenant because of significant rent arrears. The policy gives the Council discretion to disapply these criteria in individual cases in exceptional circumstances.

What happened

20. On 24 January 2019 Mr & Mrs X completed an online application form to join the Council’s Housing Register. They gave several reasons for needing to move:
• harassment from their landlord;
• a need to move to receive support;
• a need for an additional bedroom for a live-in carer or for health reasons;
• reasons relating to a disability.
21. They said they had no rent arrears for their current accommodation.
22. Five days later, an officer in the Housing Options team spoke to Mr X and activated the application. She noted Mr X needed a wheelchair accessible property. She also noted the police had visited and an officer from the County Council’s Adult Social Care service was due to attend later that day.
23. On 14 February Mr X contacted Housing Options to say there were no suitable properties advertised on the choice-based lettings scheme which he could bid for. He said Adult Social Care would be passing on some information to the Housing Options team. An officer responded that there was a shortage of social housing. She advised him to check the website every week and bid for any suitable properties that were advertised.
24. On 19 February a social worker from the County Council contacted Housing Options team to discuss Mr & Mrs X’s housing needs. The officer noted Mr & Mrs X did not have a local connection to the North Norfolk area.
25. On 27 March 2019 an Occupational Therapist at Norfolk County Council sent a housing needs report to the Housing Options team. She had visited Mr X to assess his needs. She recommended a two bedroom wheelchair accessible property and said the current bungalow was unsuitable. The toilet and shower were not wheelchair accessible and there was a step at the entrance to the property.
26. On 8 May 2019 the Housing Options manager reviewed Mr & Mrs X’s application and their personal circumstances and considered the information in the Occupational Therapist’s report. She decided they met the criteria for Band 1 priority but were disqualified from the Housing Register because they owed more than 8 weeks’ rent. She decided to exercise discretion to let them remain on the Register but in the lower priority Housing Options Register. She informed them of this decision and said she would review it when the arrears were cleared.
27. On 10 May the Housing Options manager reviewed the application again because Mr & Mrs X’s circumstances had changed. The landlord had served Mr X with a Section 8 Notice on 9 May on the grounds he had not paid rent due. He had also served a Section 21 Notice to Quit. At this point the Housing Options team accepted Mr & Mrs X were threatened with homelessness and the Council owed them a prevention duty. Mr & Mrs X remained in priority band 2.
28. On 15 May Mr X contacted the Housing Options manager. He said there were no outstanding rent arrears and he had recently paid £1,090.41 to the landlord. He provided a bank receipt confirming he had paid this amount to debt enforcement agents acting for the landlord.
29. Mr X also said the landlord had not complied with the legal duty to pay his £700 tenancy deposit into an accredited scheme within 30 days of the start of his tenancy. He also claimed the Council’s Benefits service was responsible for the delay in paying rent because it had not helped him make a claim for Housing Benefit.
30. The Housing Options manager replied on 16 May. She explained the Council’s policy allowed it to disqualify an applicant with significant rent arrears from the Housing Register. She acknowledged Mr X had made a payment to the enforcement agents but asked for evidence that this had cleared all the arrears. She asked him for a rent statement to show his rent account was clear or had less than eight weeks’ arrears. She said she would then review his case again. Mr X replied that he did not have a rent statement.
31. On 20 May the Housing Options manager made enquiries to Mr & Mrs X’s landlord. The landlord replied that his solicitor had not yet received confirmation that the payment was made on 15 May. He said he did not intend to withdraw the Section 8 Notice because the rent was more than eight weeks overdue.
32. The landlord applied to the County Court. In early July the judge granted a possession order and ordered Mr X to pay the landlord £2,900 for rent arrears and leave the bungalow on or before 18 July.
33. According to the Council’s records, Mr X’s landlord provided a statement on 4 July showing Mr X’s rent arrears were £2,900 (more than four months’ rent).
34. On 8 July a Customer Services Manager responded to a complaint from Mr X at Stage One of the Council’s complaints procedure. One issue Mr X raised was that the Council had not believed the medical reports and refused to award priority Band 1. The manager explained that the Council fully accepted the evidence in the Occupational Therapist’s report about Mr X’s disability and housing needs. But it could still disqualify an applicant from the Housing Register on grounds of significant rent arrears. He said the Council had correctly applied this rule in Mr X’s case.
35. The Council reviewed the priority band on three dates in September and October 2019. On each occasion it decided the application should remain in band 2 because they were homeless, in priority need but likely to be found intentionally homeless.
36. On 4 October 2019 the Council issued a homelessness decision. It found Mr & Mrs X were eligible, homeless and in priority need but intentionally homeless.
37. Mr & Mrs X believe they are entitled to Band 1 priority because of their medical needs and disabilities. They point to the Occupational Therapist’s report which supported their need to move on medical or welfare grounds (including a disability). They continue to dispute their former landlord’s claim that they owed substantial rent arrears.

Analysis

38. The Council did not dispute that Mr & Mrs X met the criteria for Band 1 priority on the Housing Register when they were living in the private rented bungalow. The Occupational Therapist’s housing needs report confirmed the property did not meet Mr X’s needs as a wheelchair user. They needed to move because of a disability.
39. However, there are additional criteria set out in the allocations scheme which the applicant must satisfy to be accepted on the Housing Register. An applicant may be disqualified for significant rent arrears. This restriction applies whether the applicant owes rent to a private landlord, a Council or a Housing Association.
40. The Council considered the landlord’s rent statement and the County Court Order which directed Mr X to pay the landlord £2,900 rent arrears. This was evidence of significant rent arrears. Although Mr X sent the Council proof he made a lump sum payment to enforcement agents on 15 May 2019, he did not provide evidence that this had cleared the whole debt or reduced the arrears to less than eight weeks’ rent. The Council was entitled to rely on the evidence provided by the landlord and the Court’s judgment that Mr X owed £2,900.
41. The Council could have disqualified Mr & Mrs X completely. But the manager exercised discretion to let their application remain on the Housing Options Register which gave them access to bid for properties but with a lower priority.
42. After Mr & Mrs X became homeless, the Council reviewed the priority banding to take account of this change in their circumstances. It awarded Priority Band 2. In line with the Council’s housing allocations scheme, this is the priority band for people who are homeless but not owed a housing duty by the Council. The Council accepted Mr & Mrs X were homeless and in priority need. But it was likely to find them intentionally homeless and not accept the main housing duty. So that was the appropriate priority band.
43. For these reasons, I have not found fault in the way the Council decided the priority band and applied its policy on applicants with significant rent arrears.

Complaint b) - made unsuitable offers of interim accommodation because it did not properly consider and assess their medical needs, disabilities and their need to be close to medical services and support from a carer

The legal duties

44. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
45. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
46. A person who is vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age is in priority need.
47. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation it arranges for homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
48. Councils have no legal duty to arrange interim accommodation which will accept pets, unless the pet is an assistance dog for a disabled person. The Code of Guidance says councils should be sensitive to the importance of pets to some applicants, particularly elderly people and rough sleepers who may rely on pets for companionship, when they consider the suitability of accommodation offered. It also says if pets cannot be accommodated with the applicant, councils have a duty to provide kennelling. This comes under its duty to protect the applicant’s property.
49. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decision:
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness – this includes a right to request a review of a decision that the applicant is intentionally homeless;
50. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review.  Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household.  (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

What happened

51. I have only examined the offers of interim accommodation the Council made to Mr & Mrs X between July 2019 and 13 September 2019 when they resubmitted this complaint to the Ombudsman following the Council’s Stage 3 investigation of the complaint.
52. Mr & Mrs X left the private rented bungalow on 22 July 2019.

53. By then the Council had information about Mr & Mrs X’s disabilities and accommodation needs from:
• An interview and home visit made by an officer in the Housing Options team on 17 April 2019;
• The Occupational Therapist’s housing needs report from 20 March 2019. It said they required a ground floor wheelchair accessible property with level access and a bathroom with a level access shower. The Occupational Therapist also recommended a car parking space close to the property.
54. On 19 July the Council accepted it owed Mr & Mrs X a relief duty because they were homeless. It also accepted a duty to arrange interim accommodation because they were in priority need. On 31 July 2019 the case officer wrote to Mr & Mrs X to confirm these decisions.
55. Mr & Mrs X refused the Council’s first offer of interim accommodation. This was made before they moved out of the private rented bungalow. It was a wheelchair accessible hotel room with a wet room. Mr & Mrs X said it was not suitable because there were no cooking or laundry facilities and it would not accept dogs. The Council did not enforce this offer.
56. From 22 July Mr & Mrs X were placed in a self-contained twin-bed room in a hostel with a kitchen and wet room. It had space for Mr X’s specialist chair. This accommodation was in a neighbouring council’s area. Pets were not allowed so Mr X’s carer looked after the dogs temporarily. It was 13 miles from the carer’s home (the carer had previously travelled just under 15 miles from his home to Mr & Mrs X’s private rented bungalow).
57. On 21 August Mr & Mrs X moved to a fully adapted wheelchair accessible two berth caravan with a wet room and kitchen on a holiday park. This property accepted pets. However, it was not available for a long term stay so the Council had to find Mr & Mrs X alternative accommodation.
58. From 30 August until 12 September 2019 Mr & Mrs X stayed in a wheelchair accessible hotel room with a wet room and twin beds. This property was outside the Council’s area and it did not accept pets. It was 13 miles from Mr X’s carer’s home.
59. On 11 September the Council informed Mr & Mr X this room would not be available after 13 September. It had booked them another accessible twin room with a wet room in a hotel in the same city.
60. Mr X was admitted to hospital in September with a serious infection. The Council offered Mrs X a self-contained hotel room with a kitchen and bathroom in the city where Mr X was in hospital. Mrs X refused this offer and slept in the car instead.
61. Since 13 September Mr & Mrs X have refused several further offers of interim accommodation on the grounds they were unsuitable. Since Mr X was discharged from hospital, they have both been sleeping in their car with their dogs. This investigation has not examined the suitability of the offers made after 13 September 2019 which is when they made this complaint to the Ombudsman.
62. The Council has offered to help Mr & Mrs X arrange kennelling for their dogs. Mr & Mrs X did not want to consider this option. They say their dogs are trained therapy or assistance dogs. The Housing Options manager made enquiries on this point to Mr & Mrs X’s GP who said he had no evidence to confirm this statement.
63. The Council says it considered the following factors when deciding whether the offers of interim accommodation were suitable:
• the need for wheelchair accessible accommodation with a wet room;
• the proximity of the accommodation to Mr X’s carer – it says the properties it offered between mid-July and 13 September 2019 were closer to Mr X’s carer’s home than Mr & Mrs X’s private rented bungalow;
• the Occupational Therapist’s advice that there had to be space in the room for Mr X’s specialist reclining chair which he used for wound management;
• the car parking facilities – the accommodation outside Norwich had on-site parking and in central Norwich there was a car park near the hotel. Mr & Mrs X have a Blue Badge.

Analysis

64. Mr & Mrs X have very specific accommodation needs because Mr X is disabled and uses a wheelchair. The Council had to offer accommodation that was suitable to meet their essential needs.
65. Before making any offers of interim accommodation, the Council considered the Occupational Therapist’s report. She identified the main need was for wheelchair accessible accommodation with an accessible wet room. All the accommodation the Council arranged or offered between July and 13 September 2019 met this essential requirement.
66. The Council took into account the location of Mr X’s carer’s home. All the interim accommodation it arranged or offered between July and 13 September 2019 was about the same distance from the carer’s home as the private rented bungalow.
67. Understandably Mr & Mrs X are very attached to their dogs and did not want to be separated from them. They say they are not simply pets and describe them as therapy and assistance dogs. However, the Council does not have a duty to provide interim accommodation which accepts dogs unless they are recognised assistance dogs for a disabled person. A letter from Mr & Mrs X’s GP says he had no evidence to confirm Mr & Mrs X’s statement that the dogs are trained assistance dogs. In these circumstances, the Council’s duty was limited to offering Mr & Mrs X help to find kennels for the dogs. Mr & Mrs X did not want to consider this option.
68. I accept Mr & Mrs X were very dissatisfied with the interim accommodation the Council arranged and it has clearly been a very difficult and unsettled time for them. However interim accommodation is intended to be short-term accommodation provided as a safety net until the applicant’s longer-term housing needs are resolved. Although the accommodation must be suitable and meet the essential needs of the applicant and household members, it may not be ideal or meet all the applicant’s wishes.
69. Having considered the evidence provided by Mr & Mrs X and the Council, I did not find the Council was at fault. It considered Mr & Mrs X’s specific needs as disabled applicants, and the recommendations made in the Occupational Therapist’s report, before making offers of interim accommodation. The accommodation offered between July and mid- September 2019 met the essential requirements specified by the Occupational Therapist.

Complaint c) wrong advice about whether to claim Housing Benefit or Universal Credit

The background

70. Most people of working age must now claim Universal Credit from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to get help to pay rent. All claims for Universal Credit must be made online.
71. There are limited circumstances when a new claim for Housing Benefit can be made to a council. People who live in hostels, supported accommodation or temporary accommodation for the homeless claim Housing Benefit from local councils. And someone who is entitled to a severe disability premium as part of an award of Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance cannot claim Universal Credit.
72. Local councils still handle claims for Council Tax Support because this is a separate benefit from Universal Credit.

What happened

73. Mr X first contacted the Council’s Benefits Service on 15 November 2018. He asked for forms to claim help with rent and Council Tax before his move to the private rented bungalow.
74. Information on the front page of the Housing Benefit claim form advises people of working age to check whether they live in a Universal Credit area by visiting a website and entering the postcode for the property.
75. The Benefits Service received Mr X’s form on 30 November 2018. He made the claim as a single person. He entered details of the disability benefits he received. He did not put a tick in the relevant boxes to indicate whether he wished to claim Housing Benefit and/or Council Tax Support.
76. On 12 December 2018 a manager in the Benefits Service wrote to Mr X. She explained the Council could no longer accept a new claim for Housing Benefit because Universal Credit had been implemented in the area. She advised Mr X to make an online claim for Universal Credit if he wanted help to pay rent and included a link to the website. She explained the Council could only accept a new claim for Housing Benefit from someone in temporary or supported accommodation or a family with three or more children. She also included details of two local Citizens Advice offices who could offer further advice and support.
77. Mr X sent further emails to the Benefits Service in December 2018 and January 2019 repeating his request to claim Housing Benefit. The manager replied on 18 December and 14 January. She reiterated her previous advice that Mr X should claim help with housing costs from Universal Credit. She confirmed Housing Benefit was no longer available for people in Mr X’s circumstances. She asked him to clarify whether he wished to claim Council Tax Support. In her second email, she said a visiting officer would make an appointment with Mr X to clarify he wished to claim Council Tax Support. She gave him a list of documents the officer would need to see. She urged Mr X to claim Universal Credit for help with paying rent.
78. On 5 February 2019 a Visiting Officer helped Mr & Mrs X make a new claim for Council Tax Support only. There had been a change of circumstances since the previous claim because Mrs X had come to live with Mr X. She took copies of some old bank statements and made a note on the form that she had advised Mr X to claim Universal Credit.
79. In May 2019 Mr X sent further emails to officers in the Housing Options and Benefits services. He said his request for help to make a claim for Housing Benefit had been ignored. He said he had used his disability benefits to pay the rent. He blamed the Council and the landlord for any rent arrears.
80. On 24 May an officer in the Council’s Legal Services replied to Mr X’s emails. She said he and Mrs X could not claim Housing Benefit and he should claim Universal Credit to help pay the rent.
81. On 30 May an officer in the Benefits Service gave the same information to Mr X’s solicitor when he called to make enquiries. On the following day, a Benefits Manager checked the claim again and confirmed that Mr X had to claim Universal Credit, not Housing Benefit. She made a referral to a local Citizens Advice who agreed to contact Mr X to help him make a claim for Universal Credit.
82. The Council says its records show Mr X did not claim Universal Credit until 12 July 2019 and it was awarded from 13 June 2019. About ten days later, Mr & Mrs X left the private rented accommodation and moved to interim accommodation for the homeless. Following this move, they became entitled to claim Housing Benefit from the Council as this was accommodation for the homeless.

Analysis

83. Mr X was not entitled to claim Housing Benefit while he was a tenant in private rented accommodation. Council officers correctly advised him, on many occasions, that all new claims for help with rent had to be made as a claim for Universal Credit. Officers gave him appropriate advice, including a link to the Universal Credit website and information about local Citizens Advice offices where he could get help.
84. I have seen no evidence that the Council gave Mr X wrong advice which led to the non-payment of benefits. The Council was not allowed to accept a new claim for Housing Benefit from Mr X when he was a private tenant. He was not in one of the specified groups of people who could claim Housing Benefit from the Council. Mr X did not act promptly on officers’ advice to claim Universal Credit and, as a result, he could not afford to pay the rent and got into arrears.
85. For these reasons, I do not consider the Council’s actions caused the rent arrears or contributed to his landlord’s decision to apply to the Court to recover possession of the property. I found the Council was not at fault.

Complaint d) the Council did not properly consider evidence they submitted about incidents of harassment by the landlord while they were still in private rented accommodation and take appropriate action to assist them.

The law and the Council’s policy

86. Private tenants may complain to the council if their landlord is harassing them or is trying to evict them unlawfully. Councils have powers under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to investigate complaints of harassment and illegal eviction, and to prosecute a landlord where he or she commits an offence.

87. It is harassment if a landlord, or his agent, does anything to interfere with the peace or comfort of a tenant, or acts with the intention of making them leave. Harassment may take many forms, for example:
• threatening to evict someone without going through the correct legal procedure;
• threatening violence;
• disconnecting the electricity, gas or water supply;
• entering the home without permission.
88. The Council says it always considers the nature and severity of the harassment reported by a tenant and will speak to the landlord to try to resolve matters. It would only consider taking legal action when it had clear evidence of one or more of the following offences:
• Cutting off utilities (gas, electricity or water);
• Opening the tenant’s post or removing the tenant’s belongings;
• Abuse or violence directed at the tenant;
• Entering the home without permission;
• Physically throwing the tenant out of the property;
• Changing the locks;
• Forcing someone to leave the property due to persistent harassment.
89. The Council says it also advises tenants to report any incidents of violence to the police. It tells them about their right to apply for a civil injunction to stop any harassment by a landlord.

What happened

90. Mr X says his former landlord engaged in repeated acts of harassment. The landlord lived in the property next door.
91. The evidence provided by the Council shows Mr X reported a series of incidents of alleged harassment:
• In January 2019 Mrs X asked the landlord if he had opened a letter she found in the mailbox – the landlord denied doing that and suggested an alternative explanation;
• The landlord issued a Section 8 Notice and two Section 21 Notices (the first one was not valid) and delivered a letter claiming they had abandoned the property;
• The landlord had not paid their tenancy deposit into an accredited scheme within the required timescale;
• The landlord gave them notice that he wished to inspect the property – Mr & Mrs X refused to give him access;
• The landlord sat in his van blocking the access to the drive to their property;
• The landlord had not provided an Energy Performance Certificate and gas safety certificate;
• The landlord had asked them to leave the property;
• The landlord stood outside the house staring at them;
• The landlord entered the garden without their permission.
92. On 30 May the Council informed the landlord that the Section 21 Notice he had served in May 2019 was not valid because he had not protected the tenancy deposit within the required timescale at the start of the tenancy. The second Section 21 Notice was valid because it was issued after he the deposit had been protected in a recognised scheme.
93. On 31 May the Council informed the landlord he would be acting unlawfully and may be committing harassment if he changed the locks on the property. It advised him to seek legal advice. In the event the landlord did not change the locks and Mr & Mrs X remained in occupation.
94. The Council did not consider the dispute about the amount of rent owed and the landlord’s service of Section 8 and Section 21 Notices were acts of harassment. Similarly sending a letter because the landlord suspected they had abandoned the property was not harassment.
95. The Council did not consider there was evidence that the landlord had opened one item of Mr & Mrs X’s post. The landlord denied doing this and it seemed to be an isolated incident.
96. The failure to pay the deposit into an accredited scheme within 30 days invalidated the first Section 21 Notice the landlord served but was not harassment.
97. The Council noted the landlord had the right, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, to inspect the property at a reasonable time provided he gave the tenants at least 24 hours’ notice. So the landlord was entitled to request access to inspect the property and this was not harassment.
98. Mr X had also reported some incidents to the police and the Anti-Social Behaviour team. The police spoke to the landlord and suggested he limited his contact with Mr & Mrs X but took no further action.
99. Having reviewed all the reported incidents which could be considered as acts of harassment, the Council considered they were not sufficient to justify taking legal action against the landlord.

Analysis

100. The Council has a power, but not a duty, to consider taking legal action against a landlord when there is sufficient evidence of harassment. Some of the actions Mr & Mrs X reported were about steps the landlord took to recover unpaid rent and recover possession of the property. Although it seems the landlord had not protected their deposit at the start of the tenancy, and therefore served an invalid Section 21 Notice, these could not be regarded as acts of harassment. Some of the tension between Mr & Mrs X and his landlord arose from a dispute about whether they had kept to the terms of an agreement to pay six months’ rent in advance.
101. The Council liaised with the police, the Anti-Social Behaviour team and contacted Mr & Mrs X and their landlord in response to the incidents Mr & Mrs X reported. They also took advice from the legal service. Having considered all this evidence, they did not consider there was sufficient evidence of harassment to take legal action against the landlord.
102. I appreciate Mr & Mrs X strongly disagree with the Council’s assessment of the situation. But the Ombudsman cannot criticise the merits of a decision which has been properly made. I found no fault in the way the Council investigated Mr & Mrs X’s concerns about the landlord’s conduct and reached its decision not to take legal action.

Back to top

Final decision

103. I have completed the investigation and found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

104. I did not investigate events which happened after Mr & Mrs X resubmitted their complaint to the Ombudsman on 13 September 2019.
105. I did not investigate the Council’s decision that it does not owe Mr & Mrs X the main housing duty because they are intentionally homeless. Mr & Mrs X have sought independent legal advice and representation and challenged that decision by using the statutory review procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman