Summary: Mr B complains that he did not receive proper support from the Council through the Bristol (Syrian Refugee) Resettlement Scheme. The Council was at fault because it initially placed him in a property which was too small, did not explain deductions from a deposit, did not deal with a grant application, did not properly consider a request for a s17 child in need assessment and did not deal with his complaint properly. Mr B’s daughter missed out on a grant payment and it is unclear whether Mr B’s son requires help. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, pay Mr B’s daughter £304.80 and complete a s17 assessment regarding Mr B’s son.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complains the Council have not proper support for his family through the Bristol (Syrian Refugee) Resettlement Scheme in relation to housing, furniture, language support and for his son who was sick. Mr B is also unhappy because he says the Council did not deal with his complaint properly.
2. Mr B says he was left in overcrowded housing which suffered from damp problems and he did not get support he and his family required.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have spoken to Mr B about his complaint and considered the information he has provided to the Ombudsman. I have also considered the Council’s response to his complaint and its response to my enquiries.
9. I have written to Mr B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.
10. I have exercised discretion to investigate Mr B’s complaint, because although the events occurred over 12 months before Mr B complained to the Ombudsman, Mr B says his complaint was delayed because of language problems and making his complaint through other routes first.

Back to top

What I found

11. The government operates the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) which prioritises help for survivors of torture and violence and families deemed to be at risk. Refugees under this scheme are granted humanitarian protection giving them leave to remain for five years with full access to employment and public funds (including welfare and housing benefits). The VPRS differentiates between the needs of resettled clients during their first year in the UK and during the following four years.
12. The Council participated in the VPRS through the Bristol (Syrian Refugee) Resettlement Scheme by establishing a working group comprising relevant statutory agencies and voluntary sector organisations, in order to meet the needs of refugees.
13. Funding provided by the Government is made per person but may be pooled and managed across all beneficiaries supported by the Council. Councils have the freedom to judge how best to use the available funding and must maintain a complaints procedure.
14. Delivery outcomes for the first year of the scheme are set out in the funding instructions and include the provision of accommodation and furniture, initial reception arrangements, case work support for mainstream benefits and services, education for under 18’s and English language provision for adults.
15. After the first year, the focus of the VPRS should be to support resettled refugees on ‘their journey towards integration and self-sufficiency’. The Bristol scheme provides further support centred around language, employment and housing.

What happened

16. Mr B and his family came to the United Kingdom as part of the VPRS in March 2016. He is now in year four of the VPRS.
17. The Council provided support to Mr B and his family. Mr B made complaints to the Council through Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) and his MP, as well as the Council. Mr B says the provision of support to his family was inadequate.

Analysis

Housing provision

18. When Mr B came to Bristol his family included six persons. Mr B’s family was matched with property A, a house in Bristol. The Council inspected the property and stated it was suitable for a maximum of five people. Mr and Mrs B later had another child which meant their family was seven people in total.
19. Case notes from the Council show that Mr B’s family were offered properties B and C, both larger houses, in June 2016 and March 2017. This evidence also shows Mr B and his family did not accept either of these properties and would not consider private sector accommodation. Mr B does not agree with this and says he was only ever offered one property. Mr B’s family were given advice and assistance in bidding for properties on the housing register. The Council’s response to Mr B’s complaint said he was offered two properties, consistent with the Council’s response to my enquiries. On the balance of probabilities Mr B was offered two properties.
20. Mr B’s family was evicted from their initial accommodation in 2018 due to concerns about their overcrowding. Mr B’s family were then registered homeless and provided with accommodation for homeless families, in property D.
21. Mr B was initially provided with housing that was too small for his family. The Council should have recognised this earlier. This is fault by the Council. However, Mr B remained in overcrowded housing which suffered damp problems after June 2016 because he refused to move. There was no significant injustice to Mr B and his family because they refused offers of housing in 2016 and 2017 which would have resolved the overcrowding problems and Mr B did not experience damp and mould problems before larger housing was offered.
22. Mr B raised issues about damp and mould in property A from late 2016 onwards. These were addressed by Home Turf Lettings (HTL), which provided accommodation to the Council for the VPRS. HTL decided to deduct some of the deposit to cover costs in relation to work fixing damp and mould problems. The Council agreed to these deductions by EML. The Council wanted to arrange a meeting with Mr B to explain the deductions, but there is no evidence this took place. Case notes show that Mr B was sent a letter about the deposit deductions and took this to a drop-in session. This is fault by the Council. This did not cause Mr B any significant injustice because he complained to HTL and his deposit for property A was refunded in full.
23. The house Mr B moved to had a higher deposit. Mr B says he should have received the full £1800 deposit for the house he moved to. The Council clearly explained that it would allow Mr B to retain the refunded deposit for the first house as a contribution to his next deposit, but that it would not pay a further second deposit in full. This is not fault by the Council.
24. Mr B says his son has suffered medical problems as a result of the damp. I have not seen any evidence in Mr B’s son’s medical documents to support a direct link between damp and Mr B’s son’s illness. This is not fault by the Council.

Furniture

25. The Council provided some furniture for Mr B at property A. Mr B says the furniture was damaged and dangerous. I have seen pictures of the furniture provided by Mr B and the Council.
26. The contracts between the Council and the furniture suppliers sets out the standards that furniture had to meet. I have not seen any evidence that furniture provided by the Council did not meet the expected standards. A mattress was found to be faulty and Mr B negotiated with the supplier for a replacement that was a better quality. The Council fulfilled its obligations under the VPRS about furniture provided to Mr B. This is not fault by the Council.

Language Support

27. The Council has provided evidence of the Resettlement Scheme’s translation and interpreting costs. It is not possible to identify what part of this was provided to Mr B and his family. The Council has provided case notes which highlight interpreter use and that Arabic speaking staff either visited Mr B or were available over the telephone. The Council say that telephone interpreting is available to all staff and volunteers. Mr B says the Council did not provide adequate translation services in some situations. There is insufficient evidence about this to be certain what happened. On the balance of probabilities, language and translation services were provided to Mr B and his family appropriate to their needs. This is not fault by the Council.

Other Support under the scheme

28. The casework notes for Mr B’s family show Council has provided a significant range of support through the Bristol (Syrian Refugee) Resettlement Scheme. The support provided by the Council is in line with the objectives of the VPRS.
29. The Council has provided support related to Mr B’s son’s health. The Council have provided interpreters when he has visited hospital and assistance in travelling to appointments.
30. Mr B says the Council did not properly apply for a grant for his daughter. The casework notes provided by the Council show it sought to apply for a grant to provide a bus pass for her. A letter from the Syrian Grant Fund shows the Council made a grant application for Mr B’s daughter at the same time in March 2018. The Council agrees the Syrian grant fund asked for clarification about the length of time a bus pass was needed, as it could only be funded for six months. The grant application was withdrawn because the Council did not provide this further information.
31. The Council says the grant application would have been awarded a maximum of £304.80 due to the cost of a bus pass and the six month limit. The Council also says it does not believe the application would have been successful because Mr B’s daughter was not required to attend school full time from Easter. The fund asked for clarification of details rather than rejecting the application. The grant fund guidelines provided by the Council in response to my enquiries indicate that travel costs other than transport to school could be applied for. On the balance of probabilities, the grant application would have been likely to be successful to a total of £304.80. The Syria Grant Fund is now closed. This is fault by the Council. It is impossible for Mr B’s daughter to make another application.

Complaints Handling

32. Mr B approached the CAB who contacted the Council on his behalf about his housing situation and social services support for his children. The CAB requested the Council consider Mr B’s family as homeless and asked it to conduct a s17 needs assessment. The Council responded to the CAB about Mr B’s housing.
33. Shortly afterwards Mr B complained to the Council about translation support, quality of furniture, social services support and overcrowded conditions. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint providing an extensive list of the support it had provided to him. It did not uphold his complaint. The Council’s response did not give any information about how Mr B could take his complaint further or address Mr B’s request for assessment regarding his family’s needs.
34. Mr B then contacted his MP who wrote to the Council on his behalf. The Council wrote to Mr B’s MP detailing the support provided to Mr B. The Council said that Mr B could complain to the Home Office.
35. There is no evidence that the Council considered the request by complaint for a s17 needs assessment from the CAB or Mr B’s request to be assessed in his complaint to the Council. This is fault by the Council. I have not seen any evidence that shows Mr B or his family did require social services support. Mr B’s subsequent contact with the Council through his MP only raised translation and transport as concerns related to his ill son. It is unclear whether Mr B’s son has current needs.
36. The VPRS required the council to operate a complaints procedure. The Council have provided no details of any specific complaints procedure in place for the VPRS. I have therefore considered its response to Mr B’s complaint as having been made under its normal published complaints process.
37. The Council’s response to Mr B’s complaint took seven weeks. The Council says it will respond to complaints at stage one within 15 working days. The Council did not respond to Mr B’s complaint in the time it should have done. The stage one complaint response from the Council did not state how he could escalate his complaint. When the Council responded to Mr B’s MP, it did not give correct information about the complaints process. This is fault by the Council. Mr B was unable to complete the Council’s complaints process properly This did not cause Mr B any significant injustice because it did not impact on his housing situation and it is unlikely that there would have been a different outcome to his complaint.

Agreed action

38. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• apologise to Mr B for the fault I have identified.
• pay Mr B’s daughter £304.80 in respect of the failed grant application.
• complete a s17 needs assessment for Mr B’s son.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have found that the Council was at fault because it:
• placed Mr B’s family into housing which was too small.
• did not arrange a meeting to explain deductions from Mr B’s deposit.
• did not deal with Mr B’s complaint properly.
• did not deal with a grant application properly.
• did not respond to a request for a s17 needs assessment.
40. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman