Summary: Miss X complained about the Council making unreasonable threats about action for unlawful eviction of her tenants. She also complained about disclosure of personal information to a work colleague. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It was reasonable for Miss X to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner which is the proper authority to investigate matters concerning data breaches.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complained about the Council informing her that she may have conducted an unlawful eviction of her tenants and that there were substantial penalties for doing so if the tenancy was not re-instated. She also says that the Council disclosed the situation in a telephone message to a work colleague who took a call to contact the Council.

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)

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Miss X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss X rented a property to tenants against whom she had obtained a court order for possession of the property. The tenants went to the Council’s offices and told staff that they had been excluded from the property with the locks being changed. The Council contacted Miss X and an officer told her that she must allow the tenants back into the property until the bailiff warrant was executed. Failure to prevent tenants’ access to the property could be seen as an illegal eviction with a penalty of up to £5,000.
6. Miss X disputes the circumstances described by the tenants. She says they gave up possession of the property willingly and cleared the flat and left the keys. She says they only sought re-entry to the premises following their visit to the Council. The Council disputes her view of events.
7. Councils are required to ensure that persons threatened with homelessness are able to retain their home as long as possible. This includes the power to caution landlords where it appears there may be the possibility of an illegal eviction. The Council acted on evidence provided by the tenants at the time and it was reasonable for it to inform the landlord of the possible outcome.
8. The Council contacted Miss X on a number provided by the tenants. It accepts that it may have left information which was a breach of data protection regulations. The Information Commissioner is the body which investigates complaints about breaches of data protection. The Council has offered Miss X £100 for the disclosure of her information and delay in responding to her complaint about it.
9. It is a matter for Miss X to consider whether or not she is prepared to accept the offer. We will not investigate the main complaint about the response to the tenants’ claims of eviction because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It was reasonable for Miss X to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner which is the proper authority to investigate matters concerning data breaches.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman