Summary: We have found the Council at fault causing an injustice. The Council’s poor communication, record keeping, and general delays caused Mr X and his vulnerable family to live in overcrowded accommodation for nearly 2 years. The Council has agreed to remedy the family’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide suitable accommodation before and after a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) was made in December 2020. This has left the family in overcrowded accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. I have decided there is good reason to investigate Mr X’s complaint from December 2020 when the Special Guardianship Order was granted.
5. 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

6. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and have spoken to him about it.
7. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mr X and to my enquiries.
8. Mr 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

Policy

9. All local authority organisations including housing have a duty to promote the needs and well-being of children subject to SGO plans.
10. The Council’s home choice policy recognises the need to prioritise households who have taken on the role of special guardian for children where a larger property is needed. These households should be placed in Band B Higher Housing Need.

What happened

Housing situation

11. Mr and Mrs X live in a 3-bedroom, housing association home. They have two birth daughters (Y and Z). The Council supported their application to become special guardians for their great niece (K) and great nephews (L and M). The SGO was granted in December 2020.
12. The SGO support plan stated the family would need to be supported to access a larger home provided by the local authority. It said, they would need a 5 bedroom property.
13. Since the children came to live with Mr and Mrs X on a permanent basis, the three girls have shared a bedroom, as have the two boys. This means most of the children’s storage is in the hallway and Mr and Mrs X’s bedroom. The house is overcrowded.
14. Mr X said the living arrangements make the children subject to the SGO feel like the home is not a permanent one and that they are merely staying over at their cousins. Mr X said that given what the children have been through, it is so important that they have their own space that they know is home.
15. Mr and Mrs X’s daughter, Z is studying for her A-levels. Sharing the room with her older sister, Y and much younger cousin K is affecting her concentration and ability to study. Mr X said this is having an effect on her mental health.

Council’s actions pre-SGO approval

16. In July 2020, the Council completed the Special Guardianship Assessment of Mr and Mrs X. This recommended that the family would need support accessing larger accommodation if the SGO was granted. The Council carried out a financial assessment to calculate the SGO Allowance.
17. I have seen correspondence between Mr X and the Council from December 2020, ahead of the hearing. The various options for both extending the existing house and moving to a larger property were discussed. The housing association agreed to extend the property if they were provided with comprehensive plans and pricing.
18. There was discussion regarding the potential cost of an extension being around £40,000. A figure of £10,000 was also mentioned. There is no evidence that these figures were presented to a panel or agreed by the housing association or the Council.

Council’s action after SGO approval

19. In January 2021, the Council contacted the housing authority. It explained the family’s situation and asked what was being done to meet the family’s needs. The Council asked for confirmation of the family’s priority banding and timescales for moving the family to suitable accommodation.
20. The housing authority responded the next day. It explained that no 5 bedroom properties were available. It also explained the family was only awarded band C. This was because a home visit would be needed to confirm the overcrowding (to be eligible for band B) and due to the National Covid-19 lockdown, these were not taking place.
21. A permanence planning meeting took place in May 2021.This requested £35,000 as a deposit for the family to purchase their own home. There was no outcome recorded, as it appears to be a draft document. The Council was unable to find any documentation related to a High Cost Panel.
22. The Council did not actively pursue the housing issue for the majority of 2021.
23. The option of an extension had not been progressed as the housing association required architect plans. The Council would not agree to pay for these.
24. No suitable larger properties became available for Mr and Mrs to bid on.
25. In December 2021, the Council considered the options available for Mr and Mrs X. It identified that there were only two 5-bedroom properties in the area, and both had tenants. It also explored the ‘home swapper’ option with the housing association that Mr and Mrs X are currently with. Mr X confirmed they had tried the ‘home swapper’ option but it did not work out. The Council spoke to the housing association about the ‘exceptional transfer list’.
26. In January 2022, the Council agreed to increase the family’s priority banding to band B and updated the application to reflect this. The Council suggested that Mr X should consider bidding on 4 bedroom / 7 person properties as more become available.
27. The Council contacted the housing association about the possibility of extending Mr X’s existing property.
28. In March, Mr X placed a bid on a potentially suitable 4 bedroom property that could be adapted to meet the family’s needs. He contacted the Council in July to say the property was still vacant. The Council said it was experiencing delays due to contractors handing back properties.

My findings

29. The Council’s poor communication, record keeping, and general delays caused Mr X and his vulnerable family to live in overcrowded accommodation for nearly 2 years.

Poor communication

30. The Council had been in contact with the housing association and the district council’s housing department about this matter. However, the discussions did not reach a resolution or indeed a conclusion. The correspondence suggests that emails were sent days before the SGO panel hearing to try and fulfil the promises made to the family about moving to/extending into a larger home.

Poor record keeping

31. The Council was unable to locate any records of the Resource Panel Meeting where the costs of an extension to the family’s existing house were discussed. In addition, it was unable to find documentation relating to the High Cost Panel where the option of providing the family with a deposit to purchase a home was discussed.
32. The fact that no records are available suggest either the meetings did not take place, or that the outcomes of the meetings were not followed up. Either way, this was fault. This fault caused the family prolonged uncertainty and potentially extended their time spent in an overcrowded house.

Priority banding

33. Despite the SGO being granted in December 2020, the family’s priority banding remained band C until January 2022 when the Council agreed to increase it to band B.
34. The Council delayed increasing the family’s application to a band B. The Council said this is because a site visit was needed to confirm the house was overcrowded and these were not taking place due to the Covid-19 Lockdown.
35. The Council knew the family’s situation as it has supported their SGO application and identified the need for a larger property. The Council was at fault for not increasing Mr X’s banding to a band B because the overcrowding had not been witnessed. This fault meant the family were in band C longer than they should have been.
36. It is not clear whether this fault caused the family an injustice by missing out on suitable properties. It is evident that there are very limited 5 bedroom properties in the area and therefore it seems unlikely.
37. The current home choice policy prioritises SGO families as band B.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the delays, raised expectations and for leaving a vulnerable family in overcrowded accommodation for nearly 2 years.
2. Pay Mr X £7350 to remedy the injustice of the family living in overcrowded accommodation for 21 months (£350 per month).
3. Pay Mr X £300 for the time and trouble it has taken him to pursue this complaint.

Within 12 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:

4. Finalise its revised Special Guardianship policy, including guidance on the process for considering requests for extensions and adaptations to properties occupied by those with an SGO.
5. Be able to demonstrate how the Council’s record keeping has been improved to ensure clear audit trails are available in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for failing to adequately support the family with their housing need following an SGO. This left the family in unsuitable, overcrowded accommodation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman