The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in eviction proceedings with Mr X’s private landlord. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement with his private landlord which he says resulted in him being served with a possession notice. He says the notice was due to the Council disclosing information about him without his consent and seeking to top up a rent increase with financial assistance which he says was not asked for by him.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the Council negotiated with his private landlord over repairs and about a rent increase which he says was done without his permission. He says the landlord proposed to increase the rent and the Council tried to offer discretionary housing benefit payments to cover a rent increase decided by the landlord. He says the Council should not have disclosed his personal data to the landlord and that when he refused to pay a higher rent for accommodation which he does not feel warrants this, the landlord illegally served a possession notice to initiate a revenge eviction.
The Council says that following earlier contact with the landlord about disrepair it found no evidence of any category 1 hazards under the Housing Act 2004. Mr X says this interference led to the rent increase proposed by the landlord. The Council told him that the landlord increased the rent six months afterwards because of increased costs to themselves. There is no legal restriction on increasing rent provided the tenancy agreement is not broken. The Council did not consider this was any form of revenge against Mr X’s tenancy.
The Council says it was involved in negotiating with the landlord over the rent increase because it has a duty to prevent Mr X and his family from becoming homeless if the accommodation can be secured. It considers the possession proceedings to be a ‘no fault’ eviction and cannot intervene in the legal process.
When someone believes their data has been disclosed without their consent they may raise this with the office of the Information Commissioner which is the body responsible for personal data breaches. Mr X says he has already complained to that authority and it will decide if the Council breached the GDPR regulations.
Mr X told the Council that he intends to defend the landlord’s possession action and only the courts will be able to determine whether the landlord is granted possession.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in eviction proceedings with Mr X’s private landlord. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman