Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about advice given by the Council about the procedure for making a private rental deposit payment to a landlord. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to explain that there was a processing time of up to 3 weeks for payment of a rent deposit to a private landlord under its self-sourcing deposit scheme. He says he lost a deposit payment which he made plus £150 in lost working time trying to contact the Council about the payment.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he found an offer of accommodation in the private rented sector after almost becoming homeless. He was advised by the Cuoncil that it would forward his deposit payment and that he could move in by 20 December 2024 but then told him on 18 December that it would take 3 weeks to complete due diligence checks before releasing the payment.
6. The Council says that it was in contact with Mr X during the weeks prior to the tenancy date and it has sent an email trail of the communication. I have seen no evidence to suggest that Mr X was told he could move in on a particular date and the emails do contain advice about why the Council will only pay directly to the landlord and that it would only do so if due diligence was satisfied. There is insufficient evidence which would suggest that Mr X was given misleading information.

The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint about advice given by the Council about the procedure for making a private rental deposit payment to a landlord. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman