Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council retaining his deposit for accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and subsequently, we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council unfairly retained a deposit he paid to stay at its residential arts centre once he had cancelled the booking. He also complained the Council poorly managed his complaint. The matter caused Mr X frustration. He wants the Council to consider providing him with a full or partial refund of the deposit and to improve its complaint handling to prevent a recurrence of fault.

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 to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In mid-2025, Mr X booked accommodation to stay at the Council’s residential arts centre in mid-2026. He paid a 20% deposit of the total price and signed the Council’s terms and conditions which stated the deposit was non-refundable.
6. In early 2026, Mr X contacted the Council and requested it to cancel his booking. The Council offered Mr X alternative dates but Mr X declined this.
7. Mr X wanted the Council to give him a refund of his deposit whether this was full or partial. He did not think it was fair for the Council to keep it. He said he had given the Council sufficient notice for it to fill the booking with another customer. The Council informed Mr X it would consider providing him with a refund if it was able to secure another booking. However, it could not do so and informed Mr X of this.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It acted in line with its terms and conditions. Mr X agreed to the Council’s terms and conditions when he made the booking, which clearly stated that the 20% deposit was non-refundable.
9. The Council also made reasonable efforts to mitigate the impact of Mr X’s cancellation. It offered him alternative dates, which he declined and subsequently considered whether the accommodation could be re-booked so that it could potentially provide him with a full or partial refund.
10. Subsequently, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
11. As we are not investigating the substantive matter Mr X complains of, we will not consider how the Council managed his complaint. This is because we generally do not consider complaint handling as a standalone matter as it is not a good use of public funds to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and subsequently, we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman