Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to engage with him when he sought to evict his tenant, or about the advice the Council gave the tenant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X, a private landlord, complains the Council:
1. advised his tenant to remain in his property after he had served Section 21 and Section 8 eviction notices;
2. refused to engage with him, as a landlord, to help ensure his tenant left the property and avoid a lengthy repossession process; and,
3. poorly handled his complaint, including incorrectly signposting him to the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained

(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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about action by the Council after he served Section 21 and Section 8 eviction notices on his tenant.
7. Where a landlord serves notice on a tenant, the Council’s legal obligations are to the tenant, in the prevention and resolution of homelessness. The Council informed the tenant of their legal rights. It is not fault for councils to provide this advice. The Council explained to Mr X that it did not engage with the landlord without the tenant’s permission. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
8. Further, we could not say any alleged fault by the Council caused Mr X injustice. It is ultimately up to the tenant to decide how long to remain in the property.
9. It is not proportionate for us to consider Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint handling alone when we are not investigating the substantive part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to engage with him when he sought to evict his tenant, or about the advice the Council gave the tenant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman