Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice to a potentially homeless tenant who is occupying Mr X’s private rented accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council advising his tenant to remain in his property until a bailiff’s warrant was obtained and executed instead of rehousing them. He says this has allowed the tenant’s rent arrears to increase when he could have re-possessed his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is a private sector landlord and says a tenant in his property was advised to stay there after he obtained a possession order against her for rent arrears of over £14,000. He says the Council should not have advised her to remain until bailiffs executed a warrant and should have rehoused her once he had the order.
6. The Council says that when the tenant applied as homeless it offered her interim accommodation under the Relief homelessness duty but she refused it. The tenant did not wish to move to emergency accommodation when she had applied to the Department for Work and Pensions for housing allowance which may reduce or remove the arrears and resolve her situation.
7. It is not fault for a council to give advice about the court process and homelessness. If a council advised a tenant to await eviction by bailiffs rather than accepting a homelessness duty and provision of interim accommodation this may be fault and contrary to the government’s Homelessness Code of Guidance. However, in this case the Council did offer accommodation and the tenant chose to refuse it because she believes her current accommodation problem may be resolved without having to move.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. The tenant had a right to legally remain in her home until the landlord’s bailiffs executed a warrant for possession and there is no fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice to a potentially homeless tenant who is occupying Mr X’s private rented accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman