Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in the Council considering his request for support to help cover the cost of moving and to furnish his new property. He also complains the Council failed to provide his reasonable adjustments. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in considering his request for support to help cover the cost of moving and to furnish his new property. He also complains the Council failed to provide his reasonable adjustments.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is registered blind. Mr X was living in temporary accommodation provided by the Council under its homeless duties.
6. In July 2023, Mr X contacted the Council and asked for support with moving into his new property. Mr X provided the Council with a quote for carpet, three removal quotes, and a list of items he needed for his new accommodation.
7. The Council asked Mr X to provide two more quotes for carpet and an officer from the Council’s temporary accommodation team was asked to help Mr X submit his application for welfare support. The Council received Mr X’s application at the end of July.
8. The Council explained discretionary housing payments were to help support with housing related costs, such as rent in advance, deposits, and removal costs. For items such as furniture and carpets, these are funded by the Council’s welfare support scheme.
9. In the beginning of August, the Council asked Mr X for further evidence, including:
• a letter from his landlord to confirm whether any furniture, white goods, or carpet were included with the property;
• further quotes for carpet and fitting; and,
• information about what the removal quotes were for.
10. The Council explained it had asked Mr X to provide further carpet quotes as the original quotes supplied by Mr X were from the same company and appeared quite expensive for a one-bedroom flat. The Council also confirmed it usually required three quotes from different companies.
11. Mr X provided the requested information by mid-August. However, the Council noted the information was not saved to Mr X’s records due to a system issue.
12. At the end of August, the Council made its decision regarding Mr X’s welfare support application. It agreed to award some items.
13. In September, Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. Following consideration of Mr X’s appeal, the Council agreed to award some further items and agreed to pay for removal costs.
14. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it should have dealt with Mr X’s welfare support application quicker due to his vulnerabilities and because he was moving into a property with nothing. The Council offered a financial payment of £50 to recognise the injustice caused by this accepted fault.
15. The Council also accepted it had not always complied with the reasonable adjustment recorded for Mr X as it failed to send out posted correspondence in large print. The Council said it was also recorded that Mr X required email communication in normal size font to allow his software to read it aloud. However, this was not recorded across all his accounts. The Council confirmed it would contact Mr X to clarify the reasonable adjustments he needed. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
16. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. This is because the Council’s complaint investigation is thorough and comprehensive, and the Council has acknowledged some fault. An investigation is not likely to lead to any different or further findings and so would not be a proportionate use of our limited resources. In addition, I am satisfied an investigation would not lead to any further recommendations as the Council has already implemented appropriate remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman