Summary: Mrs X complained the Council gave her misleading and incorrect advice to secure a private rented property. This led her to borrow a large amount of money to pay towards it and the Council will not reimburse her the funds. We did not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council gave her incorrect information and misleading advice when she took action to secure a private rented property. This resulted in her borrowing a large amount of money from family and friends to pay towards a deposit. She said the Council told her it would reimburse the payments but later said this was not the case as the correct process had not been followed.
2. This has caused Mrs X significant distress and frustration. She says she is in debt to those she borrowed money off and cannot pay them back.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X, considered her views, and also considered the information and evidence she sent me.
6. I considered the complaint correspondence, case notes, and information the Council provided.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. In late 2023, Mrs X and her children were facing eviction after their landlord issued a Section 21 notice. She approached the Council for assistance.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

9. In spring 2024, the office of an MP made a formal complaint to the Council on Mrs X’s behalf. It detailed her complaint as follows:
• the Council’s housing team had given Mrs X misleading and incorrect advice. It told her that she should find a new tenancy in the private sector, and it would provide her with the deposit and first month’s rent to help her secure it.
• As a result, she had borrowed a large amount of money from family and friends for a property she found. She paid this to the estate agent. This was on the expectation she would be reimbursed.
• The Council had now told her she would not receive any reimbursement or contributions towards what she had paid.
10. The Council took the complaint through both stages. It said:
• After Mrs X approached it for housing assistance, an officer had a face to face interview with her. During the assessment, the officer advised her to look for properties in the private rented sector. They told her the Council would assist in paying the first month’s rent and deposit once it had completed the relevant checks. It accepted the prevention duty to her.
• The Council said a few months later Mrs X contacted the Council to say she had paid the money to secure her new property. Mrs X requested the Council to reimburse the funds. The Council reminded her she had been advised not to make payments without the Council first reviewing all relevant documents first.
• It reviewed Mrs X’s request with the service manager, but they concluded the Council would not be able to reimburse her. The Council had strict procedures with providing funds to landlords or estate agents regarding deposit incentives.
• As she had signed a new tenancy and moved in, it ended the prevention duty to her.
11. Mrs X said she was not advised at any point about needing management sign off. She also said she provided the housing officer with the tenancy agreement for the property and was told “secure it and we’ll pay it”. She took that to mean the funds used would be reimbursed.
12. Mrs X then complained to us. Mrs X sent me copies of email contact with the Council. She said to me the Council told her it would pay one month’s rent and deposit but then she was on her own after that. She said the housing officer’s communication with her was poor as they would not return her calls.
13. Mrs X said the officer told her another internal team would look at the details of the payment and would pay her back. This team later said it could not as it was over a certain threshold.

Analysis

14. The Ombudsman makes impartial decisions based on evidence. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what we think was more likely to have happened.
15. Mrs X said she generally could not get in touch with her housing officer despite ringing a number of times. She said the officer told her to secure a property. However, there are no recordings, so I have to rely on written evidence unless proven otherwise. Mrs X disputes the Council told her she needed approval for payment.
16. The Council provided me with Mrs X’s case records. I have reviewed these, and I can see evidence that supports the Council’s version of events. I have seen a case note entry about the officer’s face to face initial appointment with Mrs X. This says:
• "the client was advised that the Council would help her with the first month’s rent and deposit pending management approval”; and
• “the client was advised that no payment should be made to any agent/landlord as the senior manager would need to verify”.
17. I’ve also reviewed the emails Mrs X sent me. This included Mrs X explaining to the Council what she had paid, and how, when securing the property, based on the expectation the Council would repay her. However, I cannot see any emails showing the Council told her to pay it herself first.
18. Based on the above documentary evidence, I am satisfied, on balance of probabilities, the Council sufficiently advised Mrs X early on not to make payments for a property without its authorisation. While it may be Mrs X was told something else, misunderstood or this changed later down the line, I have not seen written evidence to support this. I do not find the Council at fault.
19. Mrs X said after she paid, she was told another internal team would reimburse her, but it later backtracked on this. I appreciate this caused Mrs X some frustration and may have raised her expectations at this point. But this appeared to be due to financial administrative constraints and implications for its system. This, on balance, likely stemmed from Mrs X paying the money herself before Council approval.
20. The Council also later checked with senior management whether it could reimburse Mrs X. It concluded it could not as the correct process had not been followed. The Council is entitled to ensure proper checks are done and verified before it approves paying public money to landlords or agents as part of deposit scheme incentives. As this was not done, it would not be able to audit this safely. This is a decision it is entitled to make based on the relevant circumstances; I do not find the Council at fault for this.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation, and I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman