Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly communicate its decision about Mr X’s Supported Lodging application. This left Mr X unsure about the Council’s decision making and caused him to complain. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision making process when it considered him and his wife, Mrs X, to be Supported Lodging Providers. Mr X says:
• The Council has not properly explained why it chose not to accept them as supported lodging providers.
• The Council has not provided its decision in writing with reasons/rationale or given him the chance to respond.
• The Council should have told him at the start of the process whether there were any eligibility criteria which may impact on him and his wife being accepted as Supported Lodging Providers.
• The Council has not responded to the questions outlined in his complaint.
2. Mr X says the whole process was very invasive for him and his family and they have been caused considerable distress.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of this investigation I considered the complaint made by Mr X and the response from the Council. I discussed the complaint with Mr X via telephone. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the response received.
7. I sent a draft of this decision to both Mr X and the Council and considered the comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Supported Lodgings Scheme Policy

8. The Council’s Supported Lodgings Scheme Policy says the process to becoming Supported Lodging Providers begins with an initial application form. The Council will use this application form to shortlist suitable candidates who the Council will then visit at their home.
9. The Council will produce a report on the applicant’s suitability. During the assessment the Council will complete relevant checks for all household members over 16 years old. The Council will also obtain references for the applicants.
10. The Council will prepare a draft assessment report to identify any areas where further work is needed or issues clarified. When the assessment is completed the Council will provide the applicant with a copy of the assessment, prior to sending it to the Family Placement Panel.

The Council’s Supported Lodging Scheme information pack for providers

11. To become a Supported Lodging Provider an applicant:
• Must be over 21 years old.
• Must not have any serious convictions or convictions relating to children or young people.
• Must have the time and determination to make a difference to a child’s life.
• Can be single or in a relationship.
• Does not require any qualifications.
12. Once an applicant has completed a registration form, the scheme co-ordinator, Accommodation Worker, Leaving Care Team, will arrange an initial home visit to discuss becoming a Supported Lodgings Provider and to explain the assessment and approval process to help applicants decide whether they want to continue with their application.
13. Following this the Council will carry out an assessment of the suitability, and the safety and suitability of the applicants premises. Applicants must be able to produce proof of identity, birth and marriage, divorce and Insurance papers. The applicants and those living in the household who are 16 years or older must, at this stage, give written permission for statutory checks.
14. If the applicant is suitable they will be required to attend a training and assessment course to identify the applicants skills and experience and enable applicants to examine their attitudes and values across a range of issues relevant to living with and supporting young people.
15. The Council will hold further meetings to complete the assessment.
16. On completion of an assessment, a full report will be submitted to the Family Placement Panel for approval. A copy of the final report will be given to the applicants. The applicant will be informed, in writing, of the outcome of their application. Advice will be given if improvements are required to meet the scheme’s minimum standards.
17. Applicants who are not selected at any stage in the process will be informed in writing as far as confidentiality allows and offered the opportunity to discuss the issues further.

What happened

18. On 9 September 2019 Mr and Mrs X applied to become Supported Lodgings Providers. At the end of September 2019 the Council started its assessment process and allocated two social workers to carry out the assessment investigations.
19. Between September and December 2019 the social workers visited Mr and Mrs X’s home several times as part of the assessment process. During this time Mrs X explained she did not want her ex-partner contacted as a reference due to historical issues of domestic violence.
20. From January 2020 to May 2020 the Council requested statutory checks for Mr and Mrs X and obtained references for them. The Council also spoke with some of Mr and Mrs X’s family members.
21. In May 2020 the Council contacted Mr and Mrs X outlining some gaps in the assessment so far. The Council asked Mr X to provide some further information about his relationship with his ex-partner and children. The Council also provided Mr and Mrs X with a provisional date, at the end of July 2020, that their application could go to the Family Placement Panel for approval.
22. The Council continued Mr and Mrs X’s assessment and sought to obtain further information from Mrs X and spoke to other family members. At the end of June 2020 the Council emailed Mrs X to say there were some vulnerabilities in the application which need discussing. The Council also said this would impact on the Panel date the Council had provisionally booked.
23. On 1 July 2020 the Council emailed Mrs X listing some of the issues the Council felt were vulnerabilities with their application. These included:
• The length of their relationship.
• The Council had no ex-partner references.
• Issues concerning the relationship with some of their children.
24. The Council told Mrs X they would need to obtain ex-partner references however then later agreed this was not necessary given Mrs X requested the Council not contact her ex-partner. The Council sought to verify her relationship through other methods. The Council was also unable to obtain a reference from Mr X’s ex-partner, however this was because she did not wish to provide one.
25. The Council carried out further investigations and spoke with other references. In late September 2020 the Council decided not to proceed with Mr and Mrs X’s application. This was due to the Council not being able to verify Mrs X’s previous relationship. The social workers involved and team manager made this decision.
26. On 6 October 2020 a social worker visited Mr and Mrs X at home to explain the Council was ending the assessment process. Mr X said the reasons given by the social worker was that the Council could not speak with their ex-partners and the length of their relationship. The Council say they ended the assessment process as they were unable to verify Mrs X’s previous relationship.
27. On 7 October 2020 Mr X contacted the Council to request a meeting with a senior manager and to give feedback on the process. He also asked the Council to delete his data following this meeting.
28. The Council responded to tell Mr X it had passed on his request to the relevant department to consider. The Council responded to Mr X on 4 November 2020 to say it will retain Mr X’s data for three years. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s request for a meeting to discuss his Supported Lodging application.
29. On 20 November 2020 Mr X raised a complaint to the Council. He complained about the experience he and Mrs X had with the assessment process, the flaws in the process and the level of communication he received. Mr X raised concerns about the Council’s eligibility criteria and why the Council listed some things as vulnerabilities in their application. He provided a list of questions with his complaint and requested a meeting with someone so he could discuss these.
30. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 9 December 2020. The Council said:
• Mr and Mrs X were made aware of the initial criteria to become Supported Lodgings Providers. The Council said all assessments develop according to the information assessors are provided with therefore they cannot determine at the outset of the process whether someone definitely qualifies as a Supported Lodging Provider.
• It upheld Mr X ‘s concerns about the lack of written confirmation provided to him following the Council’s decision not to progress his application.
• It did not end his application because of the length of Mr and Mrs X’s relationship or due to Mrs X’s previous relationship. The Council ended the assessment process as it could not validate her relationship through references.
• It partly upheld Mr X’s concerns about the conflicting information given about the need for ex-partner references. The Council said at the onset of the assessment it told Mr and Mrs X ex-partner checks were not required. When a new manager came to the team they insisted these checks were undertaken. However Mrs X’s ex-partner was not contacted to provide a reference, at Mrs X request and the assessing social worker attempted to verify the relationship by alternative methods.
31. Mr X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

32. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body. We cannot question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made.
33. In this case the Council carried out an assessment of Mr and Mrs X. This involved, carrying out checks, interviewing family and friends and obtaining references. After the Council had complied all its information concerning Mr and Mrs X it decided not to proceed with their application. This was on the basis it could not verify information about Mrs X’s past relationship. I do not consider the Council at fault for making this decision as it has considered all the information presented to it. Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decision, but I do not consider there was fault in the Council’s decision making process, so cannot criticise it.
34. Mr X raised concerns about the Supported Lodgings eligibility criteria and believes the Council should have told him at the start of the process what could impact on his eligibility to become a Supported Lodging Provider. Mr X satisfied the initial criteria, listed in paragraph 10 above. But this does not mean he would automatically qualify as a Supported Lodging Provider, rather the Council would go onto assess his and Mrs X’s circumstances. The assessment for each applicant is subjective and the Council would need to consider the personal circumstances of each individual. I am satisfied the Council was not at fault for failing to tell Mr X at the outset whether his family’s circumstances would impact the application.
35. The Council was at fault for how it communicated its decision to Mr and Mrs X. Its information pack for providers says where applicants are not selected at any stage in the process, they will be informed in writing. The Council did not write to Mr X to tell him of its decision and explain the reasons. Instead the social worker visited Mr and Mrs X’s home to tell them their application was unsuccessful. The Council’s position was that it could not verify information from Mrs X’s previous relationship, and this is why their application was not successful. However, Mr X said this was not what was discussed at the meeting and the social worker mentioned factors such as the length of their relationship and no ex-partner references being factors. Had the Council provided its decision in writing to Mr X this would have provided some clarity to Mr and Mrs X about why their application was unsuccessful.
36. Following the Council’s decision on their Supported Lodging application, Mr X wrote to the Council asking for a meeting to discuss his concerns with the process and reasons given. The Council did not respond to this request and ultimately Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. This is also fault. The Council’s information pack for providers says where the Council does not progress an application the applicants will be given the opportunity to discuss this further.
37. Mr X also says the Council has not adequately addressed the questions he asked in his formal complaint to the Council. While the documents show the Council discussed the questions Mr X raised in his complaint before responding, it has not provided answers to all the points Mr X raised.
38. As I have found fault I need to consider whether this caused injustice to Mr X. The assessment process for the Supported Lodging Scheme was intrusive into Mr and Mrs X’s life and the lives of their children. Mr X clearly feels the decision making has not been adequately explained to him. If the Council had provided its decision to Mr X in writing and offered him the chance to discuss any concerns as per its policy, it could have addressed Mr X’s concerns and questions about the process. The Council could also have better explained its own decision making and reasons for not progressing the application. This could have avoided a complaint from Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Apologise for the faults identified.
• Pay Mr X £200 to recognise the failure to properly communicate its decision to him and resulting time and trouble he spent complaining.
• Offer Mr X a meeting to discuss his outstanding concerns either in person or via telephone, if this is not possible.
• Ensure staff from the Family Placement Team are reminded of the need to ensure all decision on Supported Lodgings Applications are communicated to applicants in writing.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in the way it communicated its decision about Mr X’s Supported Lodgings application. The Council have agreed to carry out the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman