Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain that the Council gave advice to their tenant which resulted in avoidable financial outlay, legal action and significant distress. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain that the Council’s Housing Options service gave advice to their tenant which resulted in avoidable financial outlay in pursuing legal action and which has caused them significant distress.
2. Mr and Mrs X also complain about the conduct of individual Council officers when contacting them and their solicitors.
3. Mr X also complains that as a direct result of the advice the Council gave his tenant, whom I shall call Miss B, he has been the subject of unfounded allegations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information in the complaint provided by Mr and Mrs X along with the Council’s response.
6. I have written to Mr and Mrs X with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr and Mrs X served their tenant, Miss B, a Section 21 notice seeking possession (s21) in July 2019.
8. Miss B approached the Council’s Housing Options service who gave her advice and information under the Council’s statutory duty under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 (HRA).
9. The Council cannot insist that a tenant stays beyond the end of their notice. However, councils can, and should, advise tenants of their rights. This includes the legal right to continue to occupy a property after a notice has expired.
10. Miss B did exercise her right to stay in the property after the date the s21 notice expired. Mr and Mrs X therefore exercised their right to apply to court for a possession order.
11. Mr X says that Miss B made baseless allegations against him following his application to court for possession. He says that this is a direct result of the Council’s advice to Miss B that she had a right to remain in the property after the notice expired. These have since been withdrawn.
12. The Council says that it advised Miss B of her legal rights as a tenant. The Council is not responsible for any of Miss B’s actions as a tenant and there is no evidence that being informed about her right to continue to occupy the property directly resulted in her making allegations against Mr X.
13. Mr and Mrs X say that the Council’s officer was rude when contacting their solicitor to discuss the notice. Since the Ombudsman was not present for this conversation, an investigation is unlikely to reach a conclusive finding on this part of the complaint. However, the Council accepts that this may have happened and has apologised.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman