Summary: The Authority, which was Mr X’s landlord, has accepted that it mistakenly instructed its contractors to gain entry to his property and change the locks. It has apologised, and it also agrees to make a payment of £200 to recognise his injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Authority (which was his landlord in private-rented accommodation) sent contractors into his home without his permission or prior knowledge. The contractors forced entry to the property and changed the locks.
2. Mr X says the Authority was negligent in its duties and, in effect, attempted to perform an illegal eviction. He says there was misconduct on the part of the contractors. He says the service he received from the Authority was not commensurate with the high level of rent he paid.
3. Mr X says this matter caused him distress and inconvenience, as he had to return from a work trip early to deal with the matter. He says it affected his mental health. He says he wants the Authority to pay him £1,200 – half a month’s rent – in compensation.

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’. 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)
5. 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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an authority’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

7. I considered information from Mr X and the Authority. Both parties had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. In March 2020 contractors, working on behalf of the Authority, entered Mr X’s property and changed the locks. Mr X complained to the Authority about this, and said he had no idea why it had happened, and did not know about it in advance. He said it had caused him a great deal of stress.
9. The Authority told Mr X that it had made a mistake, and had meant to put his neighbour’s address on a list for its contractors to change the locks – but it had accidentally put Mr X’s address on the list instead. It also said that, when its contractors arrived and found they could not enter the property (because they had the wrong keys), they should have called the Authority to check – but they forcibly gained entry instead.
10. The Authority apologised to Mr B for its errors. However, Mr X was not happy with this (or subsequent responses the Authority gave him) and approached the Ombudsman. The opening section of this decision statement sets out a short summary of his main points.

My findings

11. The Authority has already accepted fault for entering Mr X’s property and has provided an explanation, so it would not be proportionate for me to re-investigate the issues Mr X has raised. The Authority’s explanation of events seems plausible, and this was not an ‘illegal eviction’, as Mr X claims. So further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
12. However, I have considered whether the Authority’s remedy – an apology – properly recognises Mr X’s injustice.
13. I cannot achieve many of the things Mr X wants out of an Ombudsman investigation. We do not investigate staff misconduct, and I cannot make a finding of negligence, which is a matter for the courts.
14. I can recommend a financial remedy if I feel a complainant has suffered distress, or to recognise time and trouble or inconvenience. However, the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance says, “our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might”.
15. Our guidance says a remedy payment for distress is often between £100 and £300 (although in cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, more may be justified). Such payments are small and symbolic, because the Ombudsman is not an organisation which can decide the monetary value which should be placed on the ‘distress’ someone has suffered. Only a court can do this.
16. Mr X says he wants £1,200. However, as I do not consider his distress to have been either severe or prolonged, such a payment would not be in line with our guidance.
17. Nonetheless, in my view the Authority should make a smaller, symbolic payment to Mr X to recognise his injustice.

Agreed action

18. The Authority has agreed to make a payment of £200 to Mr X to recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused by entering his property without his knowledge or consent, as well as the time and trouble he took dealing with the matter.
19. The Authority should complete this action within six weeks of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

20. The Authority was at fault for mistakenly instructing its contractors to gain entry to
    Mr X’s property and change the locks. The agreed action remedies Mr X’s injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman