Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about how the Authority – which was his landlord – dealt with his security deposit. This matter did not cause him an injustice significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Authority – which was his landlord from 2011 to May 2020 – registered his security deposit with a deposit protection scheme ten days late (after 40 days, rather than the required 30).
2. Mr X complains that the Authority did not return his deposit until 42 days after he had moved out of the property.
3. Mr X complains that the Authority only returned around £200 of his deposit, because it deducted his final month’s rent, which he had not paid before leaving the property. He says the Authority should not have done this, because he was in the process of complaining about various issues and believed he was due a discount on the rent.
4. Mr X also complains that, after he was unable to disconnect his washing machine when he moved out, the Authority did not let him collect it for several weeks, which meant he had to buy a new washing machine. He says he wants the Authority to give him £100 for this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X. He and the Authority 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

7. Although landlords must register security deposits with deposit protection schemes within 30 days of receiving them – and although Mr X says the Authority did not do this for 40 days – I cannot see any way in which this could have caused him an injustice. Because of this, I will not investigate it.
8. Landlords should return deposits within ten days of both the tenant and the landlord agreeing how much will be returned. It appears, from the correspondence Mr X has provided, that the Authority did not return his deposit for around six weeks after he left the property.
9. This may be evidence of fault – although I note that Mr X is still disputing the amount that was returned, so it cannot be said that this amount was agreed by both landlord and tenant.
10. However, regardless of who was to blame, the main question is whether this caused Mr X an injustice. Given that he had already moved into his new property and therefore did not need the money for a new deposit, and given the relatively low amount which was returned, I do not consider the four-week delay to have caused him an injustice significant to justify further investigation – even taking into account the time he spent exchanging correspondence with the Authority.
11. Although Mr X says the Authority should not have deducted his unpaid rent from his deposit, landlords are entitled to do this and therefore it is unlikely I would find fault with the Authority if I investigated further.
12. It does appear that Mr X did not have access to his washing machine for several weeks after moving out of his flat. However, there are no set timescales for landlords to return items which have been left in properties when tenants move out.
13. The Authority responded to Mr X’s complaint and made his washing machine available to him. Mr X then tried to collect the machine over the following four days but his former neighbour, who had agreed to let him in to collect the machine, was not at home. So Mr X bought a new machine.
14. I agree that this must have been a frustrating situation. However, as Mr X could still have collected the washing machine, albeit at a later date, I do not consider his injustice to have been significant enough to justify further investigation. And I do not agree that the Authority should compensate Mr X for the washing machine.
15. For the above reasons, I will discontinue my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have discontinued my investigation. Mr X suffered no injustice which was significant enough to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman