| Publishing organisation: | Housing Ombudsman Service |
| Topic: | Tenancy management, Tenant rent and service charges |
| Determination: | No maladministration |
| Tenure: | Assured |
| Country of relevance: | England |
Ms U returned from holiday to discover that her partner had allowed his friend Mr I to stay in her flat. Mr I claimed that he had been granted a sub-tenancy and refused to leave. There was a dispute between them, during which the Police removed Ms U’s keys to the property and handed them to the landlord.
Part of Ms U’s complaint was that she was charged rent by the landlord whilst being unable to access the property due to Mr I’s occupation. The landlord issued possession proceedings against Ms U because of rent arrears. Although she defended the proceedings on the basis that the landlord had been negligent in its regard for her, by allowing Mr I access to the property and by representing his interests the court did not uphold her defence.
Paragraph 16 (e) of the Ombudsman's Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in his opinion, concern matters that have already been taken to court. He therefore made no finding in relation to these matters. The Ombudsman did consider Ms U’s complaints that the landlord was responsible for delays in returning her keys, and as a result she was homeless for a day. The landlord did not ask Ms U for a statement during its handling of her complaint, and delayed in arranging a panel hearing.
An interview with the landlord
Ms U’s keys were handed in to the landlord at approximately 11 a.m. on 7 August 2008. Ms U attended the landlord’s office at 3 p.m. that day, and was interviewed by the Regional Manager. Ms U gave contact details of where she had been staying, and her sister’s address.
Both the notes of the interview, and an earlier email exchange, indicate that Ms U had been told by the police not to return to the property. Given the possible subletting, the landlord told Ms U that it would investigate and that she would be advised regarding the return of the keys.
Ms U confirmed that she was contacted at 4 p.m. and told she could pick the keys up at 3 p.m. the following day. She complained that this left her homeless for one night, and that when she attended she had to wait 45 minutes before the keys were actually returned.
Determination
The contemporaneous evidence recorded on 7 August 2008 did not support Ms U’s view that she was made homeless for the night by the retention of the keys. The police had clearly stated she should not return to the property, and she had provided details to indicate she had been staying elsewhere for six weeks. The Ombudsman found no maladministration.