Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to offer accommodation to Mr X’s tenants following his issuing of a notice to quit the property which he was renting to them. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide alternative accommodation to his tenants following his service of a s.21 notice to quit on them. He says the tenants’ social worker advised them to remain in the property until he had to issue court possession proceedings against them. He says this left him with £355 unnecessary court costs which would have been avoided if the Council had provided accommodation.

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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X is a landlord of a property which he rented to tenants in the private sector. He issued a s.21 notice to quit on his tenants in 2023 which gave them 2 months’ notice leave. He says the tenants remained in the property and that this was due to advice given by their social worker. As a result, he was forced to apply to the County Court for a possession order to evict the. He says this was unnecessary and that the Council should have accepted its duty to provide alternative accommodation without a court order being necessary.
7. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint and found no fault in the advice which it would have given to the tenants under the homelessness duty when they applied to it. The Council’s investigator contacted the former tenants to provide evidence for a detailed response but they were unwilling to allow any disclosure or discussion of the matter.
8. We have not received a complaint from the former tenants about the Council’s homelessness advice, neither have we had any consent by the tenants as a third party to look at their case.
9. For these reasons we will not investigate this complaint. Mr X has a legal remedy to apply to the court to pursue the outstanding costs of the possession action which are payable by the former tenants.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to offer accommodation to Mr X’s tenants following his issuing of a notice to quit the property which he was renting to them. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman