Summary: Mrs C complained the Council acted in breach of the Homeless Code of Guidance for Local Authorities when she had served notice on her tenants. She said she experienced distress and had financial losses as a result. We found fault by the Council for causing unnecessary delays in the homelessness process for Mrs C’s tenants, and its failure to include Mrs C in the process. The Council will apologise, make payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty it caused her, and complete service improvement recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs C, complained the Council acted in breach of the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities when she had served notice on her tenants. She said it:
• provided incorrect homelessness advice to her tenants, caused delays to support the tenants and failed to keep the tenants risk of homelessness under review; and
• did not contact her in the process and failed to consider the impact the process had on her as a landlord.
2. Mrs C said, as a result, she experienced distress and had financial losses relating to rent, legal fees, and court costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs C and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs C and the Council 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

Homelessness

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:
• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5).
10. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188).
11. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.
12. The Code states where an applicant has been served a Section 21 notice of eviction then it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the expiry of a valid section 21 notice, unless the council is taking steps to persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation for a reasonable period to provide an opportunity for alternative accommodation to be found.
13. A council should make early contact with landlords in such cases to understand the circumstances and to establish reasonable steps it can take to prevent homelessness. This is also to ensure it can consider the financial impact of the build up of rent arrears and legal costs on both tenants and landlords when there is no defence to a possession claim.
14. The Code further states it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the date on which the court has ordered them to leave the property and give possession to the landlord. It states it is not reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation up until the point at which a court issues a warrant or writ to enforce an order for possession.

What happened

15. I have set out a brief summary of what occurred. This is not intended to include each and every event which occurred.
16. Mrs C is a landlord and was renting out her property. Her tenants had a guarantor in the event of rent arrears.
17. By August 2024 Mrs C’s tenants (the tenants) had fallen into rent arrears. She served a section 21 notice on the tenants, which would expire in the end of October 2024.
18. In October 2024 the tenants spoke with the Council. They said their tenancy was expiring and Mrs C had asked them to leave the property, but they would be homeless if they did. The Council told the tenants Mrs C would need to follow a process to evict them. This included serving a notice, seeking a possession order, and bailiffs warrant before they would be required to leave.
19. The tenants emailed the Council after the call to confirm the information it had provided was correct. They asked if they had to wait for a court to order the eviction.
20. Mrs C also told the Council the tenants had been asked to leave and the tenancy expired in the end of October 2024. Neither Mrs C or the tenants shared the section 21 notice with the Council.
21. In November 2024 Mrs C arranged for her solicitor to start court proceedings to obtain possession of the property.
22. The tenants told the Council they were in rent arrears, but they intended to pay the arrears to Mrs C and would borrow money to do so. However, they were worried about homelessness and asked for advice.
23. The Council spoke with the tenants, who informed the Council the section 21 notice had already been received and expired. The Council asked for a copy of the notice including other documents to confirm the correct process had been followed by Mrs C. The tenants provided the Council with the section 21 notice a few days later.
24. By then Mrs C had applied to court for the eviction of her tenants through an accelerated procedure.
25. Shortly before Christmas, the Council met with the tenants in a homelessness appointment with a housing officer. The Council said this was when the tenants provided the other documents it had requested. It told the tenants it intended to place them interim accommodation by mid-January 2025.
26. In January 2025 the Council asked Mrs C for information about the tenancy and some other information, which she provided without delay. The Council told her it intended to move her tenants to interim accommodation by a set date in mid-January 2025.
27. Shortly after, the Council accepted a homelessness relief duty towards the tenants, issued a personal housing plan, and offered them interim accommodation, which they moved into.
28. The tenants told Mrs C a few days later they had moved into accommodation provided by the Council.

Mrs C’s complaint

29. Mrs C complained to the Council. She said it had acted in breach of the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities when she had served notice on her tenants. She said it:
• provided incorrect homelessness advice to her tenants, caused delays to support the tenants and failed to keep the tenants risk of homelessness under review; and
• did not contact her in the process and failed to consider the impact the process had on her as a landlord.
30. She said this meant she experienced distress and financial losses due to lost rent, legal fees and court costs from the expiry of the section 21 notice until the tenants vacated her property.
31. The Council told Mrs C it could not respond to her complaint within the timescales of its complaints policy due to the Christmas break. It responded in early January 2025. It said:
• the advice it had provided the tenants in October 2024 was generic and appropriate based on the information available at the time. This was because it was not aware a section 21 notice had been served and was expiring shortly after. It had no evidence of telling the tenants to stay until a bailiff’s warrant was issued;
• the tenants had not provided the section 21 notice until late November 2024 despite the Council’s requests. It was therefore not aware the notice had been served and expired until then. However, it partially upheld her complaint. This was because Mrs C had been included in the tenants’ emails to the Council. It therefore could have contacted her directly for information as this amounted to consent;
• It was not until December 2024 the tenants provided the information the Council needed to verify a valid section 21 eviction process had been followed by Mrs C. It therefore had no prevention duty until then; and
• It had not contacted Mrs C until January 2025 as it had met with the tenant and received the information it needed shortly before Christmas 2024.
32. The Council said it would reimburse Mrs C the costs she had to apply for the accelerated possession process. However, it did not agree to reimburse any other costs. This was because the tenants had shared their commitment to clear the rent arrears, and no other costs should arise as the Council had told the tenants it would move them by mid-January 2025.
33. Mrs C disagreed with the Council’s findings and escalated her complaint. She said it had agreed it had missed opportunities to obtain the necessary information from her, and it still caused delays after it received the section 21 notice in late November 2024. She said it had failed to consider the impact on her as a landlord.
34. The Council did not change its view and explained it had considered the tenants and Mrs C’s position. It had sought information from her in January 2025 and moved the tenants to interim accommodation.
35. In response to our enquiries the Council said it had taken some learning from the complaint. This included:
• its triage service could have obtained information sooner from Mrs C. It was revising its policies and procedures to incorporate this; and
• closer monitoring of how long homelessness applicants were waiting for an appointment was needed, as its target was to hold appointments within two weeks, but it took nearly a month in this case.

Analysis and findings

Did the Council give incorrect advice to Mrs C’s tenants?

36. Mrs C said the Council gave wrong advice to her tenants which meant they stayed longer in the property.
37. The Council provided the tenants generic advice about the requirements for Mrs C to serve a notice. It also explained the tenant had a right to remain in the property during a court possession process and until a warrant of eviction was issued.
38. I found the advice and information the Council provided was accurate and correctly set out the tenant’s legal rights. It was not fault by the Council to provide this information, rather it was required to do so when a request for housing advice was received.
39. In reaching my view I was conscious at the time it was not known to the Council the section 21 notice had been served and was expiring shortly after. Rather it was told their tenancy was ending.

Did the Council cause delays in the homelessness process for the tenants?

40. Mrs C said the Council caused delays, which meant the tenants stayed longer in her property.
41. I agree with the Council’s own findings that it failed to reach out to the tenants and Mrs C after the phone call and emails in October 2024, which was a missed opportunity. Based on her swift response when the Council did contact her in January 2025, I am satisfied if it had done so, it would have obtained the confirmation a section 21 notice had been served without delay.
42. The evidence shows the tenants sought support with homelessness and provided the section 21 notice in late November 2024. The Council’s fault therefore only caused a short delay. I am satisfied the Council’s offer to reimburse Mrs C’s cost for the accelerated court process was appropriate to address this injustice.
43. From late November 2024 the Council had a duty to consider the Statutory Guidance. In this case:
• whether it was reasonable for the tenants to remain in occupation. The main reason this could be the case, would be if the Council was satisfied Mrs C was willing to work with it to delay or halt the process. However, no contact was made with Mrs C at the time. If it had done so, it would have become aware she had already applied to court for possession and would not be willing to halt the process. This was fault;
• whether other documents to confirm a valid section 21 were available. However, it again relied on the tenant’s providing information when they also had the option of contacting Mrs C as the landlord. This was fault;
• it took the Council nearly a month to arrange its housing appointment with the tenants, which was longer than its target of two weeks. This was fault; and
• it took the Council over three weeks to confirm it owed a relief duty to the tenants after it had received confirmation the section 21 was valid, relevant documents were received, and it knew Mrs C had already applied for the accelerated court process. This was fault as it was not reasonable for the tenants to remain in occupation of the property; and
• it took the Council around 11 weeks to contact Mrs C. It therefore did not consider the impact the process had on her in her role as a landlord until January 2025. This was fault.
44. I acknowledge the tenants did not provide the documents the Council requested as quickly as they should have, and the Christmas period restricted its ability to act. However, I found the Council’s delays and failure to be in contact with all parties, including Mrs C, was fault which caused unnecessary delays in the process.
45. I cannot say exactly when the tenants would have been moved by the Council to the interim accommodation. Nor can I say the Council’s delays caused Mrs C lost rental income or legal costs as the tenants remained liable to pay rent, and no further possession action was commenced in court. I also understand Mrs C is seeking to recover rent arrears, including those from before November 2024, from the tenants or their guarantor through the courts.
46. However, I am satisfied the Council’s handling and delays caused Mrs C unnecessary distress and uncertainty, which the Council’s proposed remedy has not addressed.

Back to top

Action

47. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mrs C, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mrs C to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused her;

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

2. pay Mrs C its proposed remedy of £391 to reimburse her cost for the accelerated possession process to the court; and
3. pay Mrs C a symbolic payment of £250 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty she experienced.
2. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3. share an update with the Ombudsman of its progress to:
1. revise its policies and procedures to ensure its triage service obtains information from tenants and landlords as early as possible in the possession process for privately rented accommodations.
2. monitor how the Council is meeting is targeted timescales for homelessness applicants’ appointments to enable it to decide if a relief duty is owed.
4. remind relevant housing and homelessness team staff to issue relief duty decisions to applicants without delay. This is when it is satisfied the applicant is eligible and it is unreasonable to remain in occupation of a privately rented accommodation, which includes when a valid section 21 notice is confirmed and a landlord is not willing or engaging in halting the process.
3. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

50. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council which caused Mrs C an injustice. The Council should make a symbolic payment to Mrs C and complete service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman