Summary: Mr X complains about the Council threatening him that he had carried out an illegal eviction of his tenant and advising his tenant to break new locks which he had fitted to secure the property. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s involvement with a former tenant who claimed that he had illegally evicted her when he changed the locks to the property. He says the Council’s officers treated him with disrespect and would not accept his claim that the tenant had abandoned the flat.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X is a landlord of private rented flats. He says neighbours informed him that one of his tenants appeared to have abandoned her flat. He entered the property and says it appeared the contents had been largely removed. He had the locks changed to secure the flat against intruders and shortly afterwards went on holiday.
5. He was later contacted by Council officers who told him the tenant had been trying to access her home and was locked out. The officers advised him that preventing a tenant gaining access to their home without a valid eviction order and warrant was evidence of an illegal eviction. This is a criminal offence which carries a fine and possible prison sentence for landlords who have been successfully prosecuted.
6. Mr X says the Officers’ approach was threatening and that he had evidence the flat had been abandoned but they were not interested. The Council advised him to allow entry or it would advise the tenant to contact a locksmith to break in.
7. Councils have a duty under the Housing Act 1996 to ensure that people who are threatened with homelessness are given advice and assistance to help them secure their current accommodation. The Council acted on the tenant’s behalf because she had no access to a solicitor at the time when she could not gain entry. The Council took no further action once the tenant secured her own solicitor’s services.
8. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. The Council contacted Mr X and advised him of the legal implications because it had a duty to assist the tenant who was claiming she had been illegally evicted. It had no legal duty to him as landlord.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman