Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions during the eviction process of Mr & Mrs Y’s tenant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr & Mrs Y complain about the Council’s actions during their tenant’s eviction. They say the Council wrongly advised their tenant to remain in the property.
2. Mr & Mrs Y seek compensation for costs incurred during the eviction process.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr & Mrs Y, and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr & Mrs Y began legal proceedings to evict their tenant. They informed their tenant he needed to vacate the property by a specific date in November 2024. The tenant responded he had been advised not to leave the property until court bailiffs were present.
8. Mr & Mrs Y complained about this to the Council in January 2025. The Council explained it considers each case on its merits, when supporting tenants who are facing eviction. It said Mr & Mrs Y’s tenant had a legal right to occupy the property until court bailiffs were present, and that it would be the tenant’s choice to do this. The Council acknowledged the tenant could legally remain in the property until a specific date in January 2025, as specified on the bailiff warrant. The Council was entitled to give Mr and Mrs Y’s tenant advice regarding his rights.
9. We will not investigate this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
10. The legal eviction process can be lengthy, but it must be followed correctly for landlords to lawfully evict their tenants.
11. I understand Mr & Mrs Y are seeking compensation for additional costs incurred during the eviction process. We do not make recommendations for organisations to pay compensation. Where an individual has suffered injustice because of an organisation’s actions, we may suggest a remedy. We do not consider remedies where there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr & Mrs Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman