Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council does not have a Tenancy Relations Officer and has failed to protect the complainant from harassment from his landlord. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidenced of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the law requires the Council to have a Tenancy Relations Officer (TRO) but the Council does not have one. He also complains that the Council has failed to protect him from potential homelessness due to harassment from his landlord.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate Housing Associations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mr X is a Housing Association tenant. He has been with the same Housing Association since at least 2016.
6. He complained to the Council that he was being harassed by a housing officer. He referred to some legal action that had taken place in 2016. He also referred to a letter the Housing Association had sent to him in 2019 asking him to remove belongings from the communal areas because they were a fire risk. Mr X said the Council was required to have a TRO.
7. In response the Council explained that the law does not require it to have a TRO.
8. The Council also explained that he should raise his concerns about the housing officer with the Housing Association. It established that Mr X was not at risk of homelessness. The Council invited him to return if he was facing homelessness.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have read the Protection from Eviction Act and can confirm that the Council is not required to have a TRO. In any case, a TRO usually deals with disputes between private tenants and private landlords. Mr X is a Housing Association tenant. Mr X says the Protection from Eviction Act makes no distinction about the type of landlord. However, I have not seen anything to suggest Mr X is at risk of eviction.
10. The Council responded appropriately by suggesting Mr X raise his concerns about the housing officer with the Housing Association. Mr X says he has completed the Housing Association’s complaints procedure. If Mr X is dissatisfied with the reply he can complain to the Housing Ombudsman.
11. The Council established that Mr X was not at risk of homelessness but it invited him to return for advice if his circumstances change. Mr X contacted the Council in March and he is still in the flat which suggests that when he contacted the Council he was not at risk of eviction. Mr X says the Council should have a TRO to the prevent homelessness from arising. But, the Council has provided appropriate advice and established that there was nothing to suggest he was facing homelessness.
12. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence that Mr X has been caused an injustice due to any action by the Council.
13. I cannot comment on the actions which Mr X says represent harassment. This is because I have no power to investigate Housing Associations.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman