Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about money the Council paid to a landlord to secure Mrs X a tenancy. That is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly told her landlord that a payment it made to help her secure an assured shorthold tenancy was an incentive agreement and not a deposit. She said because of this, the landlord had not returned the deposit. She said she is now at risk of eviction and needs the deposit to help he secure a new tenancy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

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. Mrs X contacted the Council for support after she became at risk of homelessness. The Council provided financial support to enable her to get an assured shorthold tenancy (AST). She signed a tenancy agreement with her landlord in 2018. That tenancy agreement said the Council had paid the landlord a deposit.
6. The following month Mrs X signed a revised tenancy agreement. That said there was no deposit. Mrs X’s landlord took action to evict her. She said during this, she realised the landlord had not protected the deposit. Mrs X complained to the Council. In response the Council said it usually offered an incentive to secure a tenancy. However, it confirmed the invoice and tenancy agreement for Mrs X referred to a deposit.
7. Mrs X made a further complaint two-years later. She said the landlord had started eviction proceedings again, but she could not move out as the landlord had not protected the deposit.
8. The Council sent a final complaint response. It explained that generally, a payment made to a landlord at the start of a homeless applicant’s tenancy was an incentive payment. It accepted it had used the word deposit and incentive payment interchangeably when corresponding with her. It recognised that would have raised her expectations and apologised, offering a £300 payment in recognition of this. The Council said for Mrs X to contact its Housing Needs Service if she was threatened with homelessness. It confirmed it has told staff to use the correct terminology around incentive payments when speaking to staff and landlords.
9. We will not investigate this complaint as I am satisfied with the action the Council has already taken. It has accepted that its communication around the initial money it paid to the landlord was unclear. It has apologised to Mrs X for this, paid her a remedy to recognise how she was affected by that fault and reminded staff to ensure correct terminology is used when communicating with landlords and tenants. The actions it has taken is in line with our guidance on remedies. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are satisfied with the action the Council has already taken.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman