Summary: Mr D complained the Council delayed contacting him to resolve the problems he was having with his tenants not paying their rent. We find the Council was at fault as it took too long to contact Mr D. The Council apologised to Mr D for his distress when it responded to his complaint. It has also provided evidence it has implemented a service improvement to prevent a recurrence of the fault. This is a sufficient remedy and we do not recommend anything further.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained the Council delayed contacting him to resolve the problems he was having with his tenants not paying their rent. He says the Council had been aware of the issues for several months before contacting him. He adds when the Council offered financial incentives it was too late to reach a viable solution.
2. Mr D says the matter has caused anxiety, distress, and hardship. He wants the Council to provide a fair financial payment for his injustice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered information from Mr D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. Mr D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their Personalised Housing Plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

What happened

9. Mr D is a landlord. His tenants failed to pay rent and they were in significant rent arrears.
10. Mr D served his tenants with a section 8 notice. This said he would end their tenancy because of their failure to pay rent.
11. The tenants contacted the Council for housing advice in December. The Council accepted it had a duty to prevent them from becoming homeless. It advised them to pursue a universal credit claim which could help them with their housing costs. It also said it would contact Mr D about their tenancy. However, it failed to do so.
12. Mr D took his tenants to court. The judge issued a possession order and said his tenants would need to leave the property.
13. The tenants contacted the Council and explained they had been served with a possession order. The Council re-iterated its previous advice about pursuing a universal credit claim.
14. The Council says it tried to contact Mr D about the issues a week later. Mr D says he did not receive any calls from the Council.
15. Mr D served his tenants with an eviction warrant.
16. A Council officer spoke to Mr D three days before the eviction was due to take place. He discussed a possible incentive payment of £5,000 if he withdrew the warrant. He also said he would try and assist the tenants with their claim for universal credit.
17. The officer contacted the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and asked for an update on the universal credit claim. He contacted Mr D again and explained what he was doing to resolve matters.
18. Mr D said he did not want to withdraw the warrant if there was nothing confirmed. The officer said it would take some time to hear from the DWP but he could withdraw the warrant for 14 days and if there was no progress, he could continue with the eviction. The officer said the Council would consider paying the warrant fee of £280. Mr D said he wanted the rent to be paid for 14 days if he withdrew the warrant. He also said he wanted to increase the rent.
19. The officer said he would discuss the matter with his manager.
20. Mr D phoned the officer and said he was running out of the time to call off the bailiffs. He said he wanted answers to his questions. The officer said he had not received responses to all his questions. He said Mr D would need to make his own decision on whether to continue with the eviction.
21. Mr D complained to the Council two days later. He said it had failed to act in a timely manner to prevent his tenants becoming homeless. He also said it had delayed providing him with any support and advice to resolve the matter.
22. The officer emailed Mr D on the day of the eviction and said the Council would pay the warrant fee if he withdrew it. He also said he would give the DWP 28 days to process the universal credit claim. The Council would move the tenants into temporary accommodation if the claim was not resolved within 28 days. He said if the claim was resolved within 28 days, the Council would work with him to sustain the tenancy under a new 12-month fixed term agreement. It would also consider an incentive payment towards the rent arrears.
23. Mr D responded and said the Council failed to meet the deadline as his tenants were evicted earlier that morning. He also said he had not received a response to all his questions. He asked the officer to contact him to reach a resolution.
24. Mr D chased for a response the following day. The officer responded and said the proposal was on the basis he withdrew the warrant. As the tenants had been evicted, the Council could not provide any further assistance.
25. The Council issued its response to Mr D’s complaint. It said it failed to contact him in December to discuss the situation further because of a high caseload. It apologised for this. However, it said the tenants failed to keep it informed of their universal credit claim and its decision to provide him with a financial incentive to prevent eviction was the right one.
26. Mr D referred his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. He said its failure to engage with him in a timely manner had caused him financial hardship and distress.
27. The Council responded to Mr D and accepted he was not given sufficient time to consider the financial incentives. It repeated its apology for the distress caused. It said it did not accept it was responsible for the costs he incurred as a private sector landlord.
28. Mr D wrote to the Council and said it had failed to offer a goodwill payment for his injustice. The Council responded and said the contractual arrangement was between him and his tenants and any breaches in the arrangement should be settled between both parties.
29. Mr D remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

30. The Council was at fault as it delayed contacting Mr D to discuss potential financial incentives after his tenants stopped paying their rent. It should have contacted Mr D in December, but it failed to do so until many months later. When it did contact him, there was little time for Mr D to properly consider his options. This has caused Mr D distress and frustration.
31. The Council apologised to Mr D for the distress caused to him when it responded to his complaint. I consider this is a sufficient remedy for Mr D’s injustice. There is no guarantee the outcome would have been any different if the Council had contacted Mr D sooner. Mr D may have decided the Council’s offers were unacceptable and therefore continued with the eviction process.
32. The reason Mr D has suffered a financial loss is because his tenants failed to pay their rent. The Council advised the tenants to pursue a universal credit claim to prevent their eviction, but they failed to pursue this advice and so there is no guarantee the Council’s earlier intervention with Mr D would have changed anything. Ultimately, it was Mr D’s decision to proceed with the eviction and the Council is not responsible for the rent arears.
33. When I issued my draft decision, I recommended the Council needed to send written reminders to relevant officers to ensure they contact landlords promptly to discuss any potential financial incentives when a tenant is threatened with eviction. The Council provided me with evidence when it responded to my draft decision it has implemented this recommendation. I have therefore removed this recommendation before issuing my final decision as I am satisfied it is already complete.

Back to top

Final decision

34. The Council was at fault, which caused Mr D an injustice. The Council has apologised to Mr D and implemented a service improvement to prevent a recurrence of the fault. This is a sufficient remedy and I do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman