Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payments the Council has offered to Miss X, under its Deposit Service, for damage caused to her rental property as Miss X can seek a remedy in court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to place a deposit for her rental property into a government approved tenancy deposit scheme and that it has failed to cover the costs arising from damage to her property caused by the tenant placed in her property by the Council. Miss X also complains about delay by the Council in dealing with complaints she made about this. Miss X wants the Council to make its policies clearer for landlords and for an appropriate amount to be offered for the damage caused by their tenant.

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 or fault causing injustice, to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant, information on the Council’s website about the Deposit Service and information on the Government’s website about tenancy deposit protection.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

7. Miss X signed a Deposit Service agreement with the Council in 2019 when it placed a tenant in her rental property.
8. In its complaint responses to Miss X, the Council explained that under the scheme, the Council guaranteed the tenant’s deposit, but as no actual money was paid, there was nothing as such to protect. The Council said that if Miss X felt the ‘deposit’ required additional backing under the Housing Act 2004, by using a government backed tenancy deposit scheme, then it was her responsibility to arrange this.
9. The Council said that at the end of the tenancy, Miss X reported damages as per the process provided under the scheme, accepting that the Council would adjudicate on her claim. The Council did this in May 2023, advising Miss X of what it would offer to cover the damages.
10. Miss X considers the deposit should have been protected by an independent scheme who would have then independently adjudicated on the damages claim at the end of the tenancy. Miss X is unhappy with the amount the Council has offered to pay.
11. Miss X also remains unhappy as while she made several complaints to the Council, they were not properly dealt with until early 2024.

Back to top

My assessment

12. Miss X signed a legal agreement with the Council and can take action in court to obtain the recompense she considers she is entitled to under the agreement. Miss X has previously been advised of this by a national landlord association. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to take such action and we will not therefore investigate.
13. Notwithstanding this, even if we were to investigate it is unlikely we could achieve the outcome Miss X seeks. We cannot question the Council’s decision on the amount it considers it should pay for the damages unless there was fault in the way it made that decision. Miss X provided her evidence to the Council; it considered this and made its decision. That Miss X disagrees with this decision does not equate to the Council being at fault in how it was made.
14. Lastly, the Government’s webpage ‘Tenancy Deposit Protection’ states that a landlord must use a tenancy deposit scheme even if the tenant’s deposit is paid by a third party, including a deposit scheme. This supports what the Council said about this, and again, I consider it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council, were we to investigate.
15. I recognise Miss X remains unhappy about the Council’s handling of her complaints but in isolation, this does not cause Miss X a level of injustice that would justify our further involvement.
16. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to take action in court for the remedy she seeks, and it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman