Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support the complainant received from the Residents’ Support Scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s response after he applied for help from the Residents’ Support Scheme (RSS). He says the Council accused him of fraud, breached his privacy, offended him, and provided inadequate goods.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. This includes Mr X’s application, the Council’s response and details about the RSS. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The RSS helps people who need immediate help and have no other source of financial help. When people apply for furniture, the Council provides the items rather than vouchers. The scheme is discretionary and subject to available funding.
5. Mr X applied for help because he was moving into an unfurnished flat and had no furniture or household items. He applied for help to the value of about £4000. His application included an air fryer, cooker, flooring, clothing, bedroom furniture, kitchen equipment and a vacuum cleaner.
6. The Council refused his application because the scheme supports people in a crisis who have no other support, and said the RSS is not intended to provide an alternative source of income. Mr X challenged the decision and said he has no other support.
7. The Council made an award. The items it provided included an air fryer, microwave, fridge, sofa and a bed. It declined to fund all the items Mr X had requested. It said it could not fund some of the larger items because he was a single applicant.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about the quality of the goods. He also said the delivery driver breached his privacy by announcing where the goods had come from.
9. In response the Council explained it provides items based on the budget it has available. It invited Mr X to provide photographs of any item he thinks is inadequate. It said it would pass to the delivery firm his concerns about privacy.
10. Mr X says the Council accused him of fraud and says he is offended by the Council giving him an air fryer and microwave rather than a cooker.
11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The RSS provides support for people in a crisis but is not designed to help someone fully equip a new home; it provides the basics.
12. I have not seen any evidence the Council accused Mr X of fraud. It said Mr X might have access to other support, but this is not the same as the Council accusing Mr X of fraud.
13. Mr X complained about the quality of the furniture. The Council responded appropriately by inviting him to provide photographic evidence; the Council told me Mr X has not done this so it could not pursue this further.
14. Mr X was offended by the Council’s provision of an air fryer and a microwave. However, he included an air fryer on the application and the Council has discretion as to what support it provides.
15. The Council responded appropriately by passing on Mr X’s comments about the lack of privacy to the delivery firm. I appreciate Mr X may have felt embarrassed, but this does not represent a level on injustice which requires an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman