Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s poor communication led to unnecessary costs when she moved house. Any fault has not caused Mrs X an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council’s poor communications with a letting agency meant her house move was delayed by a week. She says that as a result, she was caused distress and had to pay an additional fee to her removal firm.
2. She wants the Council to improve how it communicates to prevent a reoccurrence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2024, Mrs X’s landlord served her with an eviction notice which meant she was at risk of becoming homeless.
7. She identified a suitable rental property and the letting agents gave her a date of 25 November when she could move in. The Council agreed to pay her initial rent and deposit.
8. On 29 October, the Council asked the letting agent to send certain documents to it, to enable it to release the funds. The Council said it did not properly explain to the letting agency why it needed these documents which meant there was a delay of around two weeks before the letting agency responded. It said it could not return the documents because it was still completing reference checks.
9. There were then further discussions between the Council and the letting agent about insurance and guarantors which were resolved quickly by 18 November. The Council asked again for the letting agency to return the documents it needed.
10. The letting agency did so on Friday 22 November. The Council only carries out pay runs on Wednesdays with the money entering bank accounts on Fridays. This meant the letting agency did not receive the funds until the following Friday – 29 November.
11. Mrs X had made arrangements with a removal firm to move on the 25 November. She had to change the removal date which she said led to her incurring an additional cost.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. Although the Council partially upheld the complaint because it felt it could have been clearer with the letting agency about why it needed certain documents completing, the agency was carrying out reference checks during that period anyway and so the delays would have occurred in any case.
13. The Council also says it should have been clearer with the letting agency about its pay runs as this may have encouraged the agency to have acted quicker. However, this is speculation and we cannot know what might have happened.
14. Ultimately, the Council acted promptly at each stage of the process. Any delays were not of its making. Mrs X booked the removal firm in anticipation of a move date on 25 November, but, as with all house moves, this came with some risk for which the Council cannot be held responsible.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because any fault has not caused her an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman