Summary: Miss B complains the Council has not refunded her the correct sum from a Tenancy Deposit Scheme and did not deal with her complaint. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint further. It is reasonable to expect Miss B to pursue her complaint in court, and she has not suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of delay in the Council responding to her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss B, complains the Council has not refunded her the correct sum from a Tenancy Deposit Scheme and did not deal with her complaint.
2. Miss B says she has suffered financial loss as a result of damage caused to her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

5. If we are satisfied with a council’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

6. I spoke to Miss B and considered the details of her complaint. I reviewed documents sent by Miss B and information provided by the Council.
7. I have considered whether it is appropriate to exercise discretion under s26(6)(c) to investigate Miss B’s complaint. I have not seen any evidence to justify exercising this discretion.
8. Miss B 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

9. Miss B entered into a contract with the Council as part of its Oxford Assured Letting Guaranteed Rent Service. Miss B provided a property as landlord and the Council arranged a tenant and guaranteed rent payments to Miss B.
10. Miss B signed the contract with the Council in February 2018. The terms and conditions of the contract say the Council should hold a deposit bond equal to two months rent.
11. The Council identified a tenant for Miss B’s property and they moved into the property in March 2018. Miss B told the Council she was concerned about potential damage to her property caused by the tenant. The Council agreed to double the deposit bond to four months rent.
12. The tenant moved out and the tenancy ended in November 2018. Miss B has sent emails to the Council with receipts and information about damage she says was caused to her property by the tenant.
13. The Council have paid Miss B some money from the deposit bond it held for unpaid water rates and damaged brickwork. Miss B says she has incurred approximately £4,000 of additional costs because of the damage caused to her property by the tenant.
14. This is a contractual dispute between Miss B and the Council, which Miss B is able to pursue in court. Miss B says she is unable to attend court due to medical circumstances related to Covid 19. However, Miss B’s complaint pre-dated the emergence of Covid 19, courts are holding remote hearings and there is a six year time period in which Miss B may bring her claim against the Council. For these reasons Miss B is not prevented from pursuing her claim through in court.
15. The Council has agreed that it did not reply to an email from Miss B in May 2019 and has apologised to her for this. The delay in responding to Miss B’s email did not cause her significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint further because It is reasonable to expect Miss B to pursue some parts of the complaint in court, and she has not suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the other alleged fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman