The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Brighton and Hove City Council (202004771)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004771

Brighton and Hove City Council

26 February 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her rent arrears following her decision to relinquish her tenancy.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. On 22 November 2018 the resident visited the landlord’s office and informed it that she would be permanently moving to France on 29 December 2018. She also enquired about the possibility of transferring her secure tenancy to her daughter. The records show she was asked to put her tenancy transfer request in writing and the resident wrote a letter the same day and handed it to the landlord. She stated in this letter that she would be vacating the property on 29 December 2018 and moving to France due to health reasons as she had more support available to her in France for her mental health. She stated that she wanted to transfer her secure tenancy to her daughter, who was a registered occupier at the property. The resident also completed the landlord’s transfer application form the next day.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it sought the advice of its legal team when considering the tenancy transfer request. It was concluded that it would not be possible for the resident to assign her tenancy to her daughter. This decision was confirmed by the landlord to the resident in writing on 20 December 2018.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint about this decision to decline the tenancy transfer request on 20 December 2018. The Ombudsman understands that the resident moved out of the property on 29 December 2018 and moved to France.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 8 January 2019 reiterating its decision not to transfer the tenancy. There is no evidence that the resident responded to the landlord at this point to pursue the matter further.
  5. The landlord has said that on 28 January 2019 it was notified by the Housing Benefits team that the resident had permanently moved to France. The landlord’s Tenancy Services team opened a case to investigate the possible abandonment of the tenancy.
  6. The landlord’s records show that on 29 May 2019 it issued the resident with a Notice of Seeking Possession. The Notice stated:
    1. Possession will be sought on Ground(s) 1 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 which reads:
      1. Any rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid… 
      2. You are in breach of the Tenancy Agreement, which states that you must pay your rent when it is due. At Monday 27 May 2019 the total amount outstanding on your account is £1,634.49.
  7. On 23 August 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that following the court hearing, it had been awarded possession of the property. It said that the court would send the resident a copy of the order confirming that the resident owed the landlord £2,720.97 for rent arrears and £325.00 for costs. The landlord took possession of the property on 27 October 2019 and confirmed that the rent arrears at the time were £2525.86.
  8. On 17 January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to make a formal complaint about the rent arrears as she had received a court documents about a CCJ in relation to rent arrears. She said that she should not be held responsible for these arrears as she had notified the landlord that she was moving to France.
  9. The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 22 January 2020. It said that the resident had not followed the correct process to end the tenancy. She had not properly informed the landlord that she wanted to end her tenancy, as her query in November 2018 was only about transferring the tenancy, and once this had been declined, she had vacated the property without giving the landlord any further notice.
  10. The resident escalated her compliant and the landlord issued its Stage 2 response on 12 May 2020. It said that the tenancy agreement stated that ‘You remain responsible for the tenancy until the council has obtained vacant possession from you”. It acknowledged that it would have been useful for the landlord to have explained to the resident how to go about submitting a formal notice to end the tenancy, but it was under no obligation to do so. It said that the resident was correctly advised to seek independent legal advice.
  11. The landlord did however accept that there had been avoidable delays in its handling of the matter, in that the Housing Benefit notification was received on 28 January, but it did not seek legal advice until 17 May. The landlord therefore agreed to reduce the rent arrears by 17 weeks.

Reasons

  1. This complaint is, ultimately, about the resident’s dispute about the rent arrears that have accrued since she vacated the property on 29 December 2018 and moved permanently to France. She believes that she should not be responsible for any rent charges after this date as she had notified the landlord of her decision to vacate the property. She has also said that she was not properly advised by the landlord about how to formally end her tenancy when she contacted it in November 2018.
  2. Paragraph 39(h) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme states that:
    1. “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion (…) concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings”.
  3. The Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to investigate this complaint because, the subject of the complaint – the liability to pay the rent arrears – has already been decided by a court of law. The issue as to whether or not the resident is liable for the rent arrears is a matter of legal liability, and it is not for the Ombudsman to challenge a decision taken by the courts.
  4. The correspondence the Ombudsman has seen about the court proceedings shows that on the Notice of Seeking Possession it states that the resident should seek her own legal advice and assistance from the Citizens Advice Bureau, a Law Centre, or a Solicitor and that she may be able to receive Legal Aid depending upon her circumstances. It also states that the resident will have the opportunity at the court hearing to argue her case.
  5. In its letter to the resident dated 23 August 2019 confirming the court’s judgement and the total arrears that were owed, it states that the resident can apply to the court to have the order varied or to stay the eviction and a judge will decide if there are grounds for doing so.
  6. It is not clear from the available evidence whether or not the resident was properly informed of the court proceedings, but again, this is not something the Ombudsman can challenge. It would be for the resident to seek her own legal advice if she wants to challenge the validity of the court proceedings or the court’s judgement.