Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to assist her with a deposit for private rented housing or with a shortfall in her rent after she became homeless. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council advised her to find private rented accommodation after she became homeless, but did not assist with a deposit even though she provided the evidence it asked for. She also said it promised to pay the shortfall in rent of £2,400 per annum, but did not do so. Ms X said she was forced to borrow money from a friend, who now needs repaying, which will cause her financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X first asked for assistance with housing in July 2024. The Council initially accepted a prevention duty after agreeing with the friends she was staying with that she could stay there a further 56 days whilst the Council assisted her to find suitable housing. It gave her advice about finding private rented housing and how much rent she could afford. It said it could help with the first month’s rent in advance and a deposit, subject to Council checks, and set out the information it would need to see to consider that support.
6. On 2 September, it accepted a relief duty because Ms X had become homeless and updated her personalised housing plan. It carried out an affordability assessment and set out the local housing allowance for its area and neighbouring Boroughs. Also on 2 September, it made an offer of private rented housing, which Ms X refused.
7. In an email on 5 September, the Council confirmed Ms X had told it she had identified an alternative property. It said it would keep the case open until it had assessed whether the alternative property was affordable. If it was affordable, it said it would assist with the first month’s rent and deposit. It also confirmed Ms X had found a guarantor who would cover the shortfall in rent and asked her to provide written evidence of that, signed by the guarantor. It set out the documents Ms X would need to provide.
8. Ms X provided the documents in late September. The Council carried out an affordability assessment and decided the property was not affordable. It contacted Ms X and the guarantor, who confirmed the deposit and rent in advance had been paid, the guarantor had paid £2,400 up front for the shortfall in rent and Ms X had already signed the tenancy agreement and moved into the property. The Council advised Ms X it would not assist with the first month’s rent or a deposit as this had already been paid by the guarantor and that the rent was not affordable as it was £200 over the local housing allowance.
9. Ms X complained. In its final complaint response, the Council said it only pays a deposit where the property is considered suitable and affordable. It had initially offered to assist with the shortfall in rent, but the guarantor had already paid this in advance for the whole 12 months of the tenancy.

My assessment

10. The Council explained in July and again in September that it could provide support with a deposit and one month’s rent in advance if certain criteria were met. It explained what information and evidence it would need to see before agreeing this. It said the property would need to be affordable, and gave advice about local housing allowance rates to give an indication of the level of rent Ms X could pay. In the event, Ms X signed the tenancy agreement without waiting for the Council to assess if the property was suitable and affordable, and it later said it was not affordable. In addition, Ms X had already found a guarantor, who had paid the deposit and the shortfall in rent in advance. Therefore, the Council’s assistance was not needed to secure the property.
11. We will not investigate further because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman