Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to use its powers on illegal eviction. The complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. The complaint also concerns interpretation of the law, on which it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to use its powers under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to deal with an incident at his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and information about the relevant law.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A utility supply to Mr X’s home was cut off. Mr X wanted the Council to act against the perpetrator under Protection from Eviction Act 1977, which allows the Council to prosecute in some circumstances for harassment, attempted illegal eviction and illegal eviction. The Council declined, saying its powers under the Act do not apply to the type of home Mr X lives in (I have not given more details of this, to protect Mr X’s anonymity). The Act does not expressly state whether it applies to home such as Mr X’s.
7. The Council says it first told Mr X of its position in January 2023 and its position has not changed since. Therefore the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this complaint. If Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s position, he could reasonably have complained to us within 12 months of knowing of that position. I do not see good enough reason for us to accept this late complaint now. Additionally, the passage of time makes it unlikely we could achieve anything significant for Mr X now in practical terms.
8. The Council and Mr X disagree about whether the Council’s legal powers on illegal eviction cover situations such as Mr X’s. Mr X states the Council treats his home as a dwelling for other Council-related purposes, such as council tax. That does not in itself mean the Council is at fault. The definition of a dwelling under one law does not automatically carry over to other laws. The same place might be treated differently under, for example, laws covering council tax, town and country planning or homelessness.
9. Mr X also cites previous government statements that the Act covers homes such as his. However, those were statements during Parliamentary discussion. Such statements do not necessarily define what the law means. It is for the courts to interpret the wording and scope of the law where that is disputed, as was recognised in one of the Parliamentary discussions Mr X cites. So the restriction in paragraph 3 applies.
10. There might be a potential cost to court action. However, that does not in itself automatically make it unreasonable to expect Mr X to take court action. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to interpret the law where the law’s meaning is disputed. That is for the courts. So it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action if he wants a definitive decision on whether the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 applies in his situation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. The complaint also turns on interpretation of the law, on which it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman