Council’s incorrect guidance telling private tenant to stay in housing leads to substantial unnecessary costs

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council wrongly told a private tenant to remain in his property despite his landlord serving eviction notices and then delayed responding to his complaint, causing the landlord to incur unnecessary costs, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has found.

The complainant, Mr X, complained to the Council after he believed that they had wrongly told his tenant, Mr Y, to remain in his property when he had begun eviction proceedings; and delayed responding to his stage two complaint.

Mr X says the Council’s actions meant he incurred unnecessary legal costs, court costs and bailiff costs.

After letting the property on a shorthold tenancy, Mr Y stopped paying his rent in August 2023 and the tenancy was terminated with effect from 31 October 2023.

The tenant then approached the Council as homeless in January 2024 and in February, the landlord told the Council he had applied for a possession order using a section 8 notice.

On 25 March, the court considered the case and issued an order for possession the following day requiring Mr Y to give the complainant possession of the property by 8 April and pay the rent arrears and awarded costs.

On 8 April Mr Y contacted the Council as he said Mr X had contacted him about handing the keys back, with the Council informing him that his landlord could not evict him until it had an eviction warrant from the court.

Two days later, the court issued a warrant for the possession of Mr X’s property which gave the county court bailiff authority to evict Mr Y.

On 30 April, the Council provided Mr Y with interim accommodation, and he had moved out by the time the bailiff visited.

The landlord complained that had the Council provided the tenant with temporary accommodation earlier, he would have avoided having to pay the further legal and bailiff costs to evict his tenant.

The Council says it initially decided it was reasonable for the tenant to remain living in the property, but the Ombudsman did not find any showing it was reasonable for Mr Y to remain in the property after he approached as homeless.

The Council’s failure to consider this point and the lack of evidence that the Council considered the financial impact of the tenant remaining in the property amount to fault by Sefton, the LGSCO said.

The code of guidance considers it highly unlikely to be reasonable to expect tenants to remain in a property after a possession order has expired.

As a result of Sefton’s failures, Mr X had to pay further legal and court costs for a warrant for eviction and then bailiff costs.

The Ombudsman found it likely that the landlord would not have incurred these costs otherwise.

The Ombudsman therefore asked the council to refund the legal and court costs Mr X incurred to apply for a warrant of eviction and remind officers dealing with homeless applications of the need to follow the code of guidance.

However, while the Council accepts that it failed to respond to Mr X’s complaint in a reasonable time, the Ombudsman found that his email of 30 May went into an officer’s spam folder which is why the Council had not responded to it by the time Mr X chased.

The Council has apologised, which the Ombudsman considers reasonable remedy for this part of the complaint.

Within one month of the decision the Council was advised to:
• apologise to Mr X for the frustration he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision.
• pay Mr X the legal and court costs he incurred to apply for a warrant of eviction and for the cost of employing a bailiff to evict his tenant.
• send a reminder to officers dealing with homeless cases to ensure they are aware of the need to follow the code of guidance.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council were approached for comment, but it declined to provide any additional information.