Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to ensure suitable support and accommodation was available when she moved to a different council area in a crisis situation involving her daughter. We found the Council was at fault because it did not make the referral when it said it would. The Council has already apologised, and this is an appropriate remedy for the distress experienced by Ms X. We found no evidence the Council told Ms X to move to the new area.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to provide support when her daughter was at risk of serious harm from a grooming gang. In particular, she complains the Council:
1. advised her to move out of the area, without ensuring support would be available for her and her daughter; and
2. delayed in making a referral to the new area. Having explained her circumstances in some detail to a particular officer who promised to make the referral personally, he then failed to do so straight away.
2. She says this caused considerable distress and adversely affected the support they received in the new area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered:

• the information provided by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her; and
• the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided.

6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. In November 2023, Ms X contacted the police due to concerns about the welfare of her daughter (P). She had become involved with what Ms X believed to be a grooming gang. This had led to a sudden and drastic effect on P’s behaviour and propensity for becoming involved in harmful, grooming activity.
8. The Council’s child protection team became involved. An assessment was carried out and it was decided the threshold for further action was met.
9. Ms X says she was advised by both the police and the allocated social worker (Officer J) to leave the area to protect P. Based on this advice, Ms X decided to move to a different council area (Council B). She had been told by Council B that she would be offered emergency accommodation because of her circumstances. Initially, she arranged to stay with a family member in Council B’s area.
10. She says Officer J promised to personally make an immediate referral to Council B, so it was aware of the situation as soon as she arrived.
11. Once she had moved to Council B, Ms X was disappointed to discover it was unaware of her case. She says she tried to contact Officer J on several occasions but did not receive a response. She says other officers in the Council whom she contacted in his absence were dismissive and unhelpful.
12. The Council says the referral was made seven days later than it should have been.
13. When Council B processed her homelessness application, she was only offered unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation. Soon after they moved in, P was approached by undesirable male residents. Ms X felt she had no choice but to leave Council B and return home.
14. Ms X says she only moved to Council B because she was told by Officer J she would receive proper support and safe accommodation. Ms X complained to the Council about the way she had been treated.
15. In response, the Council:

• accepted it had not made the referral to Council B straight away as promised by Officer J. This was due to an IT issue, not because of Officer J not completing the relevant paperwork at the correct time. The Council apologised for this mistake; and
• it did not advise Ms X she should move to Council B. It said this was Ms X’s choice to do so, and supported this by making the referral to Council B.

16. Disappointed by this response, Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Delay in making the referral to Council B

17. In response to both Ms X’s complaint and the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council accepted it failed to make the referral to Council B straight away due to an IT error. For this, it has already apologised. Whilst I understand Ms X’s frustration that she felt Officer J had broken his promise to do so personally, this was not the case. He followed the Council’s internal procedure by completing the relevant online form, but an IT error meant it was not processed.
18. However, there is a discrepancy as to when the referral was actually made.
19. The Council says it took a week for the IT error to be corrected and for the referral to be made.
20. Ms X says she was told by Council B it received the referral after two weeks.
21. It is not possible on the evidence available to determine when the referral was made. It is possible it took Council B several days to process the referral once it was received. But for the purposes of this decision the exact date does not matter. This is because it was already late.
22. This was fault.

Injustice

23. I consider Ms X’s injustice was limited to:

• frustration and disappointment because she believed she missed out on support and accommodation that she expected would be made available in Council B; and
• frustration caused by having to contact Officer J on several occasions without a response. This has been evidenced by emails provided by Ms X.

24. I have seen no evidence the delay led to Ms X missing out on services and support in Council B. One of Ms X’s needs at that time was for accommodation. It is common for councils to offer bed and breakfast accommodation in a crisis situation such as this. I cannot say, this would have been any different had the referral been made when Ms X expected it to be, particularly as Council B was not the relevant housing authority. Information contained within the referral would not have had any influence over the quality of the accommodation offered. This was a decision for the housing authority to make, by reference to its own local social housing market. Nor can I say other support would have been available sooner because this was the responsibility of Council B, not the Council.
25. I consider the Council’s apology is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X. Nor will I make any service recommendations because I am satisfied the Council has addressed the cause of the delay and spoken to Officer J about not responding to emails. The Ombudsman cannot add anything further to this.

Advice to move to Council B

26. Ms X strongly believes both the Council and the police advised her to move out of the area. I have examined both the Council’s case records and the response from the police to Ms X’s complaint about the same issue. There is no evidence to support what Ms X says happened here. This is not to say I disbelieve her, just that I have no evidence to support what she has said. In this part of the complaint, the issue relates to one person’s word against another. There is no independent evidence or witness. As I cannot prefer one account over another, I am unable to make a finding on this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I found the Council to be at fault. The Council has already remedied the injustice to Ms X and I cannot add anything further to this.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman