Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions after he served a notice to his tenants and led to their eviction. We found the Council at fault as it did not contact Mr X, as the landlord, throughout the process, or consider whether it was reasonable for the tenant to remain in occupation during the relevant period. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise his injustice from the faults identified. It has also agreed to take action to prevent recurrence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider statutory guidance with the advice it gave to his tenants, including telling them to remain in the property, after he took steps to evict them. He had to apply for a Possession Order and bailiffs warrant. He says this caused significant frustration and distress, a loss of rental income and he incurred extra costs.

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’. 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)
3. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
4. 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

5. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered his views.
6. I considered the information the Council provided in relation to this complaint, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. This also included third party information which I cannot disclose.
7. Mr X 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

Law and administrative background

Homelessness guidance

8. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (“the Code”) provides comprehensive guidance to councils on how to carry out their duties to people who are threatened with homelessness or homeless. It is good administrative practice for councils to follow the advice in the Code.
9. Housing authorities should note that the fact that a tenant has a right to remain in occupation does not necessarily mean they are not homeless. In assessing whether an applicant is homeless in cases where they are a tenant who has a right to remain in occupation pending execution of a warrant for possession, the housing authority will also need to consider whether it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy the accommodation in the circumstances (Paragraph 6.18).
10. The Code (Paragraph 6.33) says councils must consider the following factors when they decide if it is reasonable for a private sector tenant, who has been served with a valid section 21 notice, to remain in a property after the notice has expired: The position of the landlord and whether they intend to proceed with possession; the preferences of the tenant; the financial impact of court action and any build-up of rent arrears on both landlord and tenant; and the burden on the courts of unnecessary proceedings where there is no defence to a possession claim.
11. Where the Council believes it is unlikely it will be able to resolve the situation and persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to remain in the property, then it is unlikely to be reasonable for the tenant to continue to occupy beyond the expiry of a valid section 21 notice (Paragraph 6.35).
12. During the period an applicant remains in occupation while the landlord pursues possession action, the Council should stay in contact with the tenant and landlord to find out if there is any change in circumstances which affects whether it continues to reasonable for the applicant to occupy (Paragraph 6.34).

Background

13. Mr X is a private landlord. He let a property to tenants (“Z”) under an assured shorthold tenancy agreement.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

14. In February 2024, Mr X informed Z he needed the property back to complete repair works to it. He sent a Section 21 notice to them, expiring in May 2024. Mr X had booked for contractors to start work the day after it expired.
15. In early May 2024, Mr X said Z told him they did not intend to vacate at the expiry of the Section 21 notice. Z said this was on advice from the Council. Z also stopped paying rent to Mr X.
16. Over the next few days, Mr X rang the Council about the situation and explained the circumstances. It said it would ring him back each occasion. It did not.
17. Mr X then formally complained to the Council. He said it was not acting in line with its statutory duties.
18. In late June 2024, the Council responded at Stage 1. It advised Z they had a legal right to remain in the property until a court stated otherwise. It provided general information to applicants pending a full assessment and it would later remind Z of their obligations to continue paying rent. It said the arrears accruing was a matter between Z and Mr X.
19. Mr X served a Section 8 notice to Z for rental arrears. Mr X later took court action. The court made a possession order requiring Z to leave the property within two weeks, pay the rent arrears, and Mr X’s awarded costs. The next month, the court issued a warrant for the possession. Mr X appointed bailiffs and evicted Z.
20. In March 2025, Mr X complained to us. We asked the Council to consider this at the second stage of its complaints process. Mr X added that the Council should have paid Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) to Z to clear the arrears or offer direct payment of the Housing element of Z’s Universal Credit (UC) to do this.
21. In May 2025, the Council sent Mr X its Stage 2 response. It apologised for poor communication with him and his complaint. It said Z’s actions were not in its control. It said Mr X himself, as a landlord, could have made a request around direct payments of Z’s UC. The Council was satisfied with its actions in this case.

Information the Council provided in response to this complaint

22. The Council provided evidence and information of its work with Z about their housing situation in the period considered. I cannot disclose the details of this because it involves Z’s personal information (third party data).
23. The Council said during 2024, the Housing team was understaffed which significantly impacted on service delivery. This had been addressed with recruitment efforts in early 2025 which has helped manage these workloads with its staff resources. It has also taken action to improve its complaint response timeframes with relevant training.

Analysis

24. The Council did not contact Mr X when it was aware of the Section 21 notice or prior to him making a formal complaint. This is not in line with the Code. This says a council should make contact at an early stage with landlords to engage with discussions from their point of view and around any potential resolutions to allow the tenants to remain in the property. The Council was also aware by June 2024 that Mr X was applying for a Possession Order, and it did not substantively discuss this with him either. This is fault.
25. It was not fault for the Council to generally tell Z about their rights to remain in the property after Mr X issued a notice. However, it had also had to give simultaneous consideration on whether it was reasonable for Z to continue to occupy the property. The Code highlights specific guidance and expectations at different points in the possession process.
26. I have considered information the Council provided from Z’s case file. I cannot share specific details as this is third party information. However, looking at the evidence, the Council did not follow the above in considering whether it was reasonable for Z to remain in Mr X’s property during the period considered. The Council missed opportunities to turn its mind to the relevant points referred to in Paragraphs 9 to 12. Its failure to do so is fault.
27. In Mr X’s view, the Council a) could have paid Z DHP to clear the rent arrears, and b) the Council could have paid the housing element of Z’s UC to clear these, which would mean the eviction would have been avoidable. I recognise Mr X’s frustration, but I disagree.
• With a) - based on the information I’ve seen, on balance of probabilities, I consider it is unlikely the Council would have awarded DHP in this case and so would not have made a difference.
• With b) - this is a process that private landlords or tenants apply for, and it is also not administered or granted by the Council. I recognise had the Council engaged with Mr X during the process, it could have given this advice to him sooner. But I cannot say what the outcome is likely to have been even if Mr X had applied for it.
28. Mr X has outstanding arrears and costs owed to him. A court has ordered for Z to pay these. Rent arrears remains the responsibility of tenants, not the Council. The law says this is not something we can consider (see Paragraph 3).
29. Mr X says the Council telling Z they can stay in the property meant they were empowered to withhold paying rent. This is speculative and I cannot see a causal link here. This was Z’s choice. I have not seen evidence the Council told Z to stop paying rent. Mr X said the Council failed to advise Z to continue paying rent. That onus would be on Z as it is their ongoing obligation, regardless of any Council involvement.

Complaint handling

30. The Council sent its Stage 1 response to Mr X’s complaint outside its expected timeframes, and it did not update him with any delays. This is fault, causing frustration to Mr X. The Council has already apologised for some of this. However, I note this Stage 1 response did not tell him how to escalate the complaint if he remained dissatisfied. This is further fault.

Injustice

31. If the Council had acted in line with the Code, spoken to Mr X at an early stage and appropriately considered whether it was reasonable for Z to remain, I am unable to say what the outcome is likely to have been. These were decisions and considerations it should have made at the time. Even if the Council had made any offers of accommodation to Z, I cannot say whether it was likely they would have accepted it at any point, or before the bailiffs came. This relies upon too many variables with the actions and choices of other third parties. On balance, I cannot say had it not been for the fault, that it would have likely prevented the eviction.
32. I also have not found a causal link between the Council’s fault and the actions of Z regarding their rent arrears.
33. However, Mr X has uncertainty and frustration about what might have happened and whether the outcome may have been different and whether he could have had his property back sooner. That is his injustice.

Back to top

Agreed Action

34. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
35. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing for the injustice caused by the faults identified (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology), and pay him a symbolic payment of £200 to recognise this injustice.
36. Within three months of the final decision:
• It should send written reminders to relevant housing staff to ensure it obtains information from, and engages with, both tenants and landlords as early as possible after a valid notice and throughout any ongoing possession process.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman