Summary: Ms X says the Council is wrong in law to treat her ex-lodger as her tenant and reach a decision that Ms X illegally evicted them. We will not investigate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and also because only the courts can reach definitive legal rulings.

The complaint

1. In short, Ms X says the Council is wrong in law to treat her ex-lodger as her tenant and reach a decision that Ms X illegally evicted them.
2. Ms X says the Council’s decisions have adversely affected her health and left her out of pocket for which she wants a financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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;
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s complaints response says Ms X’s lodger approached the Council with an application for homelessness. While carrying out its usual enquiries, the Council says it saw evidence of an assured shorthold tenancy agreement between Ms X and her ex-lodger. It says it was provided with other information leading it to conclude that an illegal eviction took place by Ms X.
7. Ms X says she initially set up the agreement between her and her ex-lodger wrongly (when she was ill) as a tenancy. She says it was changed to a lodger’s agreement. Ms X says the Council is wrong in law to decide that an illegal eviction took place.
8. Miss X also disagrees with the Council contacting her landlord to check if she was allowed a tenant or a lodger. Miss X says she has now lost rental income as she is no longer allowed to have a lodger.
9. In view of Miss X advising the Council that she set up a tenancy in error, the Council says it has passed this information on to Ms X’s landlord. The Council has pointed out that it is not preventing her from having lodgers as this is a decision for her landlord. Overall, the Council found no fault in its responses to Ms X and says there are no grounds for the Council to pay Ms X a financial remedy.
10. We will not investigate. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. Also, we cannot question the Council’s view that an illegal eviction took place as that is a matter better addressed by the courts. The Ombudsman is concerned with administrative decision-making. If Ms X wishes to challenge the lawfulness of the Council’s decisions it is reasonable to expect her to go to court.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X ’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and because only the courts can reach definitive legal determinations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman