The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to pay Mr X £425 for a rent deposit on a property. This is because the Council has now agreed to make the payment.
The complaint
Mr X complained that, when he found a property to rent, the Council refused to pay him the £425 deposit. He said this caused him stress and financial problems.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X was homeless and the Council owed a duty to secure accommodation for him. The Council offered Mr X a property. Mr X was initially keen but, after viewing the property with the landlord, he refused it. Meanwhile, the Council had already ended its homelessness duty to Mr X, stating this was because he had accepted the offered property.
Later, when Mr X found a property and asked the Council for help with the deposit, the Council refused, saying it no longer had any homelessness duty to him. Mr X moved into that property without Council help.
When I contacted the Council about the complaint, the Council agreed with me that it had been wrong to end its homelessness duty on the ground that Mr X had accepted a property, because Mr X had not in fact signed up to the tenancy so had not been able to live in that property.
Even if that fault had not happened, it would not necessarily follow that the Council would have given Mr X the £425 deposit Mr X later wanted. This is because the Council might, for example, have instead ended its homelessness duty on the alternative ground that Mr X had refused a property the Council considered suitable. While Mr X would have had the right to review such a decision, we cannot know what the result would have been. The Council would not necessarily still have had any housing duty to Mr X by the time Mr X asked for help with the deposit. Moreover, the Council would only have helped with a deposit if the circumstances were in line with its policy on giving such help.
So the Council’s fault did not necessarily directly cause Mr X to be without the £425. However, the fault does leave Mr X with avoidable uncertainty about what might have happened if the Council had avoided the fault. That is an injustice.
Nevertheless, the Council told me it would offer to pay Mr X £425. That is what Mr X wanted. It is more than we would be likely to recommend in the circumstances. The Council said it is offering this as a goodwill gesture and to be pragmatic, rather than involving Mr X and the Council in a possibly time-consuming and unfruitful process of withdrawing the flawed decision letter and issuing a new one.
Therefore, in the circumstances, I consider this is a satisfactory remedy for the injustice the Council’s fault caused.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has agreed a satisfactory remedy. I have suggested the Council should make the payment within one month of today.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman