Summary: There was fault by the Council, because an accommodation managing agency, acting on its behalf, unlawfully evicted the complainant from her property. However, the Council has already taken positive steps to address the injustice caused by the illegal eviction. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Miss F.
2. Miss F complains she and her family were unlawfully evicted from a temporary accommodation property by the property’s managing agent, and that the agent then damaged some of her belongings when returning them to her. She seeks compensation from the Council for this and for the fact her partner lost work as a result of having to move to a different property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I reviewed Miss F’s correspondence with the Council, the Council’s case notes, and sought the Council’s comments to clarify several points.
8. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated Miss F’s complaint about the illegal eviction itself.
10. I have not investigated Miss F’s complaint about the alleged loss and damage to her belongings after the eviction. This is because disputes about liability for lost and damaged property are generally matters of civil law. We expect complainants to pursue such claims through the insurance process and/or, if necessary, the appropriate courts. We cannot, ourselves, decide a particular body is legally liable for losing or damaging someone’s property, or calculate the appropriate level of compensation.

Back to top

What I found

11. The following is intended to provide a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It will not include every detail of what happened.
12. The Council has previously accepted the main housing duty for Miss F and her family. In July 2020, the Council arranged a temporary accommodation property, to which I will refer as property 1, for Miss F. The property was leased from a landlord and managed by an agency.
13. In November 2022, the managing agency contacted the Council to say the landlord had asked for the property back, as the lease was due to expire, meaning Miss F and her family would have to leave. The Council quickly identified another temporary accommodation property (property 2) which it offered to Miss F, but she raised concerns about its location and asked the Council to conduct a suitability review.
14. Miss F says she then heard nothing further from the Council and so remained in property 1 for the time being.
15. In January 2023, the agency contacted the Council to highlight that Miss F and the family were still in property 1. The Council responded to say it had offered alternative accommodation but could not make her accept it, and that the agency should follow the “correct eviction procedure”.
16. A few days later, Miss F contacted the Council to say she and the family had been shopping, and returned to property 1 to find agency contractors changing the locks. The contractors had refused to allow them access to the property to collect any belongings.
17. The Council placed the family in emergency hostel accommodation for the next two days. It then reoffered property 2, which they accepted. The Council also contacted the agency to investigate what had happened. The agency claimed a Council officer had instructed it to go ahead with the eviction, but the Council refuted this.
18. Miss F then made a formal complaint to the Council through the Citizens Advice service. She said she understood the family could not remain in property 1, but that a court order was required to evict them because the Council had placed them there under its housing duty. Miss F confirmed she had not refused property 2, but was awaiting the outcome of the suitability review, and had heard nothing from the Council since requesting it.
19. Miss F also complained the agency had arranged for the family’s belongings to be returned to them, but in the process some of it was damaged.
20. Miss F said the Council had had no regard for the family’s disabilities, and that it “may be relying on the services of an unfit landlord”.
21. The Council responded to Miss F’s complaint in April.
22. The Council said the agency had contacted it about returning the property in November, and explained that, in such circumstances, it would normally expect a provider to keep accommodation available until suitable alternative accommodation had been offered, or until it gained lawful possession through the courts.
23. The Council noted it had offered property 2 to the family in November, and that, although Miss F had raised concerns about it, it had decided the property was suitable and that it had expected the family to make arrangements to move as soon as possible. It explained further that, if they did not wish to refuse a new property, it would generally expect a person to request a suitability review after accepting and moving to it. The Council said it was unclear why the family did not move into property 2 until 16 January.
24. The Council went on to say it is a requirement of its contract with all managing agencies to gain possession of properties lawfully. In this case, however, and despite clear instructions from the Council to the contrary, the agency had unlawfully evicted the family. The Council apologised for this. It said it had taken the matter up with the agency, but, having been dissatisfied with its responses, had now ended its contract with the agency and would move all other residents placed in properties it managed.
25. Although it agreed the agency’s actions were unlawful, the Council did not accept it was at fault itself, because the agency had acted against its instructions. It stressed, however, that it would “support… any action taken in pursuing them in this regard”. The Council also asked Miss F to provide an inventory and photos of the damaged items, for it to consider further.
26. After Miss F’s representative responded to the Council’s letter, it wrote further to say it could not take responsibility for the loss and damage of her belongings. It said this was because it was not Miss F’s landlord at property 1, and therefore was not responsible for the removal and delivery of the belongings. It suggested Miss F take the matter up with the managing agency if she wished to pursue.
27. However, the Council accepted the events had been traumatic for Miss F and offered her £500 as a goodwill gesture.
28. After further correspondence, the Council accepted Miss F had made a formal request for a review of the suitability of property 2, after the Council initially offered it in November 2022. The Council said the officer who received the request had failed to pass it on in accordance with its procedures, and had then left the Council.
29. Miss F referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in June.

Back to top

Legislative background

The main housing duty

30. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called ‘temporary accommodation’ or ‘TA’. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Back to top

Analysis

31. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services on its behalf, we treat actions taken by that organisation as actions taken by the council. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we are able to make recommendations to the council.
32. I asked the Council to clarify its position, with regard to responsibility for the agency’s actions in this case. It responded:

“[The] specific position the Council asserted in previous correspondence was not that the provider was not working for the Council, but that once the provider chose to act illegally, it should no longer be considered to be working on the Council’s behalf. In any event, the Council would say that it is the Council itself that holds the statutory duty and a provider of rented properties is not discharging the Council’s duty by proxy – the Council is discharging its duty by sourcing accommodation via the provider.”

33. The Council also provided quotes from its contract and agreement with the agency, which includes a strict warning that it should act within the law at all times.
34. I am not persuaded by this argument though. The Council has a responsibility for the agency’s actions at all times while the agency is acting on its behalf, and, as I have said, this includes where the agency is at fault. That the Council instructed the agency to act lawfully, both generally and specifically as part of this case, does not change this.
35. It is also unclear what distinction the Council is seeking to draw between a provider discharging the Council’s duty by proxy, and the Council discharging its duty by contracting the provider. For our purposes these are the same thing.
36. I am therefore satisfied the Council is at fault here, because the agency was discharging the Council’s duty on its behalf when it carried out the illegal eviction of Miss F and her family. This said, I acknowledge the Council was not directly responsible for the illegal eviction and had no control over the situation at the time. For this reason, I consider this to be a matter of service failure, rather than one of maladministration, as set out at paragraph 3.
37. I am conscious the Council has not sought to minimise the seriousness of the agency’s actions in this case. It has made abundantly clear it does not condone the agency’s unlawful eviction of Miss F, and acted promptly to end its contract with the agency as a result of her complaint. This included the difficult process of moving (‘decanting’) a number of other residents and families to alternative accommodation. It is positive to see the Council acting so decisively.
38. I am also conscious the Council has offered Miss F £500 as a goodwill gesture here, and Miss F has confirmed she has accepted this money. Although the Council did not label it as such, this is broadly in line with the level of remedy we would recommend for the distress she suffered because of the unlawful eviction, bearing in mind the family was quickly placed in alternative temporary accommodation after a brief stay in a hostel.
39. I therefore consider the actions already taken by the Council amount to an adequate remedy for this injustice, and it follows I make no further recommendations in this case.
40. Separately, I note Miss F has also complained that her partner lost his job, and therefore his income, as a result of the unlawful eviction.
41. However, Miss F’s partner lost his job because the family moved to property 2, which was some distance away from property 1. It was always a possibility the family would need to do this, once the Council identified the property as suitable for them, and regardless of whether the agency had followed the proper procedure to evict them. So the job loss was because of the Council’s decision to move the family to property 2, and not because they were evicted unlawfully from property 1.
42. It is unclear to me what happened with Miss F’s request for a review of property 2, but I am aware the family have since moved again to a different property. None of this forms part of Miss F’s complaint though, and so I have not investigated it.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my decision with a finding of fault causing injustice, but which the Council has already taken appropriate steps to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman