Summary: Mr B, a landlord, complains that the Council failed to provide adequate and timely support to himself and his tenant causing him distress, inconvenience and expense. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in that it delayed in providing advice to Mr B but there is no evidence to suggest this affected the outcome. The Council’s apology is a sufficient remedy for the frustration Mr B suffered.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council failed to comply with its duties under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 in that it failed to provide adequate and timely support to himself and his tenant causing him distress, inconvenience and expense.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
5. I have written to Mr B and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

6. Under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 the Council has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness for an applicant who is eligible for assistance and threatened with homelessness (‘the prevention duty’). Prevention can consist of steps to:
• enable the applicant to stay in their current home;
• delay the need for the applicant to leave their current home to allow for a planned move on; or
• secure alternative accommodation.
7. In deciding what steps to take, the Council must have regard to their assessment of the applicant’s case.
8. The aim of the duty is to ensure that councils provide assistance at an early stage. The guidance states that “wherever possible and appropriate, housing authorities should prioritise efforts to prevent homelessness so that households can remain in their accommodation”.

Key facts

9. Mr B rented out a room in his house to Ms T. On 13 April 2019 he asked Ms T to leave by 15 May 2019. He also asked her to contact the Council about the situation and provide his contact details so he could explain the issues.
10. Mr B says he contacted the Council on 15 April 2019 and received a reply on 18 April 2019 asking him to tell Ms T to contact Housing Options. He forwarded that email to Ms T the same day.
11. On 30 April 2019 Mr B sent an email to the generic email address for Housing Options stating Ms T had told him an officer was helping her find a private tenancy but he was concerned this was not the case.
12. On 2 May 2019 Mr B telephoned the Council stating he had given Ms T notice to leave which expired on 15 May 2019 rendering her homeless. The Council sent an email to Mr B explaining it could not give him any information about Ms T because of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). It advised him to contact the duty line for general advice if he was concerned about the situation.
13. On 7 May 2019 Mr B sent an email to Ms T’s case officer stating that, because Ms T had failed to pay rent and contributions towards the bills, he had given her one month’s notice. He said Ms T had failed to respond to his emails, text messages and phone calls. Mr B asked the officer to discuss the matter with him on 13 May 2019. The homelessness prevention officer, Officer X, spoke to Mr B about the situation the same day. Mr B asked to meet him on 13 May 2019.
14. On the morning of 13 May 2019 Officer X sent an email to Mr B offering to meet him later that day. Mr B said he could not attend a meeting and asking the officer to telephone him. Mr B said he would take the necessary action as Ms T had failed to pay rent or contribute towards the bills and had not acted on advice provided by her case officer. Mr B suggested the case officer met with Ms T to discuss the situation and update him following the meeting.
15. On 17 May 2019 the case officer sent an email to Mr B explaining he had attempted to contact Ms T but had had no response. He suggested they all meet to try to resolve the situation amicably. Mr B was not happy with the Council’s offer of mediation and said he had no choice but to evict Ms T. He said he would remove her belongings to a room and she could collect them when convenient.
16. The case officer responded asking Mr B to seek legal advice before removing Ms T’s belongings. He also requested further contact details for Ms T as he was unable to contact her from the numbers he had. Mr B provided a mobile number for Ms T and the officer was able to contact her on 21 May 2019 and arrange a meeting with her later that day. The officer’s notes state “I have arranged a home visit today at approx. 4.00 to help sustain tenancy”. He told Mr B who said that, if he heard nothing by 24 May 2019, he would evict Ms T.
17. On 25 May 2019 the case officer sent an email to Mr B confirming he had met with Ms T on 21 May 2019. Mr B said that if the Council re-housed Ms T by 31 May 2019, he would waive any monies owing.
18. On 27 May 2019 Mr B sent an email to Officer X stating he was evicting Ms T with immediate effect. He said Ms T was planning to meet the case officer the following day and asked him to make her aware of the serious nature of the situation. The case officer responded reminding Mr B to follow the correct procedure to evict Ms T.
19. On 31 May 2019 Officer X contacted Ms T again and she confirmed she was staying with friends. The officer met with her again a few days later.
20. On 31 May Mr B sent an enquiry to the Council’s customer services team. Having received no response, he chased this up on 11 June 2019. The following day the homelessness team leader, Officer Y, telephoned Mr B and offered a face-to-face interview. Mr B declined stating he wished to complain to the Ombudsman.
21. On 12 June 2019 Mr B changed the locks because Ms T had left the property with some of her belongings without informing him of her intentions or returning the keys.
22. On 25 June 2019 Officer Y wrote to Mr B apologising for the late response to his enquiry. He explained he had telephoned on 31 May 2019 but there was no response so he had followed this up with an email explaining he would be going on leave and would attend to Mr B’s enquiry on his return on 10 June 2019 or, alternatively, Mr B could contact his colleague. Unfortunately, his colleague had had to take emergency leave but another officer had attempted to contact Mr B several times on 4 June 2019. Officer Y explained he could not to provide any information about Ms T’s case because of the GDPR.

Analysis

23. Mr B says the Council failed to provide adequate and timely support to himself and Ms T. The Council denies this and points out that, although it provides advice and assistance to a landlord, its statutory duties mainly to the tenant. It says that, where there are disputes between a landlord and tenant, it will mediate between the parties to resolve the dispute.
24. The Council’s homeless prevention officer discussed the situation with Mr B on 7 May 2019. He offered to meet him on 13 May 2019 but Mr B was unable to attend. The officer also offered to mediate between Mr B and Ms T on 17 May 2019 but Mr B declined this offer. The Council was therefore limited in what it could do to try to resolve the situation. If Mr B had accepted the Council’s offer of mediation, it is possible the matter may have been resolved.
25. Ms T did not contact the Council herself and officers had difficulties contacting her using the telephone numbers it had for her. It was unable to do so until Mr B provided a different telephone number. An officer met with her on 21 May 2019 “to help sustain tenancy”. Officers were in contact with her after this date by telephone and in person. The Council could not provide Mr B with details of these discussions because of data protection regulations.
26. I am therefore satisfied officers took steps to resolve the situation. However, I consider they could have discussed the situation with Mr B and given him advice sooner. He first contacted the Council on 15 April 2019 but was not spoken to by an officer until 7 May 2019. The Council accepts it could have given Mr B more advice at the outset. Officer Y’s response to Mr B’s complaint states, “I accept that the allocated officer for this case should have communicated the matters you raised in a timely manner and provided you with the relevant support so you were made aware of your legal obligations. I have spoken to the officer concerned and he would like to relay his apologies for any difficulties caused”.
27. However, I consider the Council’s apology is a sufficient remedy for the delay in providing advice. This caused Mr B frustration but there is no evidence to suggest that, if officers had given him advice sooner, the outcome would have been any different. The Council was only able to give him limited advice and could not disclose confidential information about Ms T. Mr B did not change the locks until 12 June 2019 by which time the Council had been involved for over a month.
28. Mr B says the Council should refund the costs he incurred for the locksmith. He says he had to change the locks because Ms T had left the property with some of her belongings without informing him of her intentions or returning the keys. The Council is not responsible for Ms T’s actions so there is no reason why it should refund these costs.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I find the Council was at fault in that it failed to give advice to Mr B when he first made contact. But the Council’s apology represents a sufficient remedy for the injustice caused.
30. I have completed my investigation on the basis that I am satisfied with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman