Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice to Mr X’s tenants about remaining in his rental property following a possession order being obtained. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council giving advice to his tenants to remain in his property after he had obtained a possession order and a warrant for their eviction. He says this led to him losing additional rental income and incurring court costs which could have been avoided if they had left or been rehoused by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council advised his tenants who were in rent arrears to remain in his rented property after he had issued a s.8 possession notice and obtained a possession order in the court in December 2023. He says this resulted in addition al rent arrears and loss of rental income as they remained in the property until the warrant for eviction was executed by bailiffs. He also incurred additional court costs for the eviction.
6. Mr X says when he obtained a possession order the Council contacted him about allowing his tenants to remain. He says the officer who spoke to him had advised the tenants that they should remain until the eviction warrant was executed. Mr X believes this cost him additional expense and the Council should have re-housed the tenants when he first issued the notice and then obtained the order.
7. The Council says it cannot divulge the details of the tenants’ housing /homelessness application to Mr X. When someone applies as homeless it has a duty to give them advice about their statutory rights about possession and eviction. It says it did not advise the tenants to remain but simply gave them information of the rights which are similarly set out in a government publication ‘How to Rent’ which is guidance for tenants which landlords are expected to provide at the start of a tenancy.
8. The Council says the tenants had to make the choice when to leave the property and it does not always provide interim or temporary accommodation for homeless applicants. This depends on each applicant’s circumstances.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. There is no evidence that the Council gave other than general advice in this situation and the decision to remain in the property without paying rent was one taken by the tenants. Mr X should seek redress for his losses through the courts as with any case in these circumstances.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice to Mr X’s tenants about remaining in his rental property following a possession order being obtained. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman