Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council handled her complaint about the service she received from the housing advisors in its Future First Team. She says it took too long to deal with the complaint and its responses have failed to address the concerns she raised, as she is still not getting the support she needs. Likewise, she feels it has not acted to remedy the injustice caused by its faults and states the payments it has offered her are insufficient. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not ensuring the stage two investigation into Miss X’s complaint was completed within the requisite timeframe. However, we have found the actions it has taken adequately remedies the injustice caused by this fault and those already identified by the investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Miss X, complains about the way the Council handled her complaint about the service she received from the housing advisors in its Future First Team. She says it took too long to deal with the complaint and its responses have failed to address the concerns she raised, as she is still not getting the support she needs. Likewise, she feels it has not acted to remedy the injustice caused by its faults and states the payments it has offered her are insufficient.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. The Council has considered Miss X’s complaint under the children’s services statutory complaints procedure. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman will only investigate the substantive complaint if we consider a council’s stage two independent investigation of it was flawed. In this case, I have no major concerns about the way the investigation was conducted. Therefore, I have investigated whether it was completed on time, whether the Council properly considered its findings and recommendations, and whether these recommendations adequately remedied the injustice that Miss X was caused.

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. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as housing associations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
6. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have:
• Read Miss X’s complaint and considered the information she submitted in support of it.
• Considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
• Provided both parties with an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Miss X lives in a property owned by a housing association and is a care leaver. In mid-August 2018, she submitted a complaint to the Council about the housing advisor allocated to support her, Mr Y. She said she had been trying to resolve a dispute with the housing association about the condition of her property for the last two years, but Mr Y had failed to provide her with enough support during this period. She said she felt she needed an advocate to represent her when dealing with these matters and raised concerns about the level of communication between the Council and the housing association.
9. Five days later, the Council emailed Miss X and said it would respond to her complaint within 10 working days, meaning a response was due at the end of the month. It added it may respond within 20 working days if it considered the complaint complex, but said it would notify her if this extra time was needed. It also provided details of an advocacy service which could support her in making her complaint.
10. The following day, Miss X met with Mr Y, her personal advisor and an assistant team manager to discuss the issues which she had raised in her complaint.
11. The day after the meeting, Miss X emailed those present to confirm what was said. She said Mr Y had unwittingly called her from his phone or ‘pocket dialled’ her, as it is otherwise known. She said he had ‘slagged’ her off and stated he would not be inclined to help her resolve her housing issues. She acknowledged he had apologised for the call during the meeting, but stated she was yet to receive a written apology. As well as this, she requested weekly contact with Mr Y to discuss her housing issues, amongst other things.
12. Mr Y subsequently sent an email to Miss X to apologise for the distress she was caused by his frustrations about the way her complaint was being dealt with. He said his frustrations were not about her personally and clarified he had not ‘slagged’ her off. Shortly after, Miss X responded and said she was not content with the apology. She stated the verbal apology he gave during the meeting concerned the lack of support he had provided and the content of the inadvertent phone call. She said this apology did not match his written apology and stated he had manipulated it.
13. At the end of August, the Council wrote to Miss X and stated it needed an extra 10 working days to investigate her complaint. It said its response was now due in mid-September.
14. In mid-September 2018, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It said it had provided her with an appropriate level of support, stating it had advocated for her when dealing with the housing association about outstanding repairs to her property. It noted this matter was yet to be resolved and advised her of her right to escalate her concerns to the Housing Ombudsman, adding it would help her to do this. In summary, it did not uphold her complaint.
15. Miss X subsequently escalated her complaint to stage two of the children’s statutory complaint procedure. In response, the Council appointed an investigating officer and independent person to conduct and oversee an independent investigation. They met with Miss X in mid-December 2018 and established she wanted to complain that:
• Mr Y’s written apology did not address the issues which led to her complaint and differed from his verbal apology.
• The Council’s stage one complaint response did not correspond with what was said in the meeting or Mr Y’s written apology.
• Mr Y had failed to contact her on a weekly basis following the meeting, despite this having been agreed. She stated he had only contacted her once within a three-month period.
• One of Mr Y’s colleagues, Ms Z had also failed to provide weekly support despite agreeing to do so in place of Mr Y. She said Ms Z had only contacted her twice within a two-month period.
• The Council delayed in supporting her to address the outstanding housing issues, which had been ongoing for three years and were referenced in her action or pathway plan.
16. To remedy the situation, Miss X requested a sincere apology from Mr Y and one from the Council for failing to adhere to her pathway plan. She also asked that her pathway plan be updated and that she be given a reliable point of contact with whom she could discuss her housing issues. Finally, she requested compensation and asked the Council for assurances that it had learnt from her complaint.
17. At the beginning of March 2019, the Council emailed Miss X after she asked when the stage two complaint investigation would be completed. It informed her of the statutory timeframes and said it expected the process to be complete by the beginning of April. It added it would let her know if there were any delays.
18. At the beginning of April 2019, Miss X emailed the Council and said she was yet to receive a stage two response to her complaint. She noted the deadline had passed and requested that her complaint be escalated to stage three of the children’s statutory complaint procedure.
19. A few days later, the Council emailed Miss X and said the delay had been caused by the independent person. It confirmed it had now received his and the investigating officer’s final report, which its adjudicating officer would consider. It stated it would send Miss X the adjudication response by the end of the month and provided details of the children’s statutory complaint procedure.
20. In her report, the investigating officer upheld every part of the complaint and suggested the Council considered implementing the remedies that Miss X had requested. The officer made three specific recommendations in response to her findings. She recommended that:
• The Council reviewed how meetings were recorded by its officers.
• It made its officers aware of the need to maintain confidentiality when using mobile telephones in order to avoid breaches of confidentiality.
• It considered how housing disputes with large partner providers were addressed at the micro and macro level in order to avoid unacceptable delays in action being taken.
21. In his report, the independent person stated he agreed with the findings and recommendations of the investigation, adding it had been carried out thoroughly and fairly. He acknowledged there were delays in finalising the investigation report but said these were understandable given the circumstances and the need to verify information.
22. At the end of the month, the adjudicating officer wrote to Miss X on behalf of the Council. He said it accepted the findings of the stage two investigation and apologised that it had been unable to resolve her concerns previously. Likewise, he apologised on behalf of the Service for the failings identified in the report, including the failure to adhere to Miss X’s pathway plan. He stated her plan would be reviewed and a meeting would be arranged to progress this. He also offered her £150 for the time and trouble she incurred when making her complaint and a further £250 for the inconvenience and distress she was caused. Furthermore, he said the Council would act to address the three specific recommendations made by the investigating officer.
23. Miss X subsequently emailed the Council and stated she was not happy with the outcome of the stage two investigation. She said she had complained to the Ombudsman about the matter and did not want her complaint to be escalated to stage three of the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council then agreed to an early referral being made to the Ombudsman.
24. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss X says the Council’s faults have caused her severe distress, inconvenience, and she feels she has been neglected. She adds her housing situation and mental health have been affected. To remedy the situation, she wants the Council to provide her with the level of housing support that she needs, address the concerns she initially raised, and increase the payments it has offered her.

Analysis

25. I note the investigating officer and independent person met with Miss X in mid-December 2018 to discuss her statement of complaint. The adjudicating officer issued the Council’s response to the stage two investigation at the end of April 2019. The period between these two dates is approximately 89 working days. The statutory guidance which details the complaint procedure says that stage two investigations should take no longer than 65 working days. Therefore, I have found the Council was at fault for not ensuring the investigation was completed within the requisite timeframe.
26. Miss X feels the payment she was offered by the Council does not remedy the injustice she was caused by its faults. The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies states we can recommend that councils pay complainants between £100 and £300 for any time and trouble they incurred in making their complaint. In this case, the Council has offered to pay Miss X £150. This is an appropriate amount as there was some delay at stage two but this was not overly prolonged.
27. Our Guidance also states we can recommend payments of £100 to £300 if a complainant was caused any distress, which encompasses uncertainty, inconvenience and frustration. When calculating the size of a payment, we consider factors such as the vulnerability of the complainant and can recommend more than £300 in cases where the distress was severe or prolonged.
28. In this case, the housing association ultimately held responsibility for resolving Miss X's housing issues. This means the distress she was caused by these issues going unresolved cannot be attributed, in full, to the Council. The investigating officer found it did try and help Miss X resolve these issues, but it did not escalate the matter when it could have. Therefore, it is possible the issues could have been resolved sooner had there been some form of escalation, however I cannot say with any certainty this would have happened. This means the Council’s fault has caused uncertainty. It has offered Miss X £250 for the distress she was caused by this fault. This is a fair offer given the Council was not responsible for resolving the issues and was providing a supporting role.
29. The Council has stated that its total offer of £400 remains open. Therefore, if Miss X wants to accept this offer she should contact it and request that this payment is made.
30. I understand the Council has now issued Miss X a revised pathway plan. It has also advised her to raise any housing-related issues with her personal advisor so this person can liaise with its housing team and the housing association on her behalf. Miss X has stated she is unhappy that Mr Y is still her allocated housing support officer and I appreciate why she feels this way. However, the Council has tried to resolve her concerns by making her personal advisor her first point of contact for housing issues, which prevents her from dealing directly with Mr Y. This is a proportionate response to her concerns and an appropriate level of support.
31. The stage two investigation report acknowledged the Council had tried to resolve the ongoing housing issues but a lack of action by the housing association had thwarted its efforts. The report also indicated the Council should have escalated these issues when progress was not being made, given the circumstances of the case. Miss X states these issues, which I understand relate to outstanding repairs and damp, are still unresolved.
32. As I have noted above, the housing association is ultimately responsible for resolving these issues. The evidence I have seen indicates it may also have provided conflicting information about Miss X’s tenancy status. I understand this has been a difficult time for Miss X and her mental health has suffered, therefore she should consult her personal advisor and consider submitting a formal complaint to the housing association about these matters. She can ask it to resolve any outstanding housing issues as well as request compensation for any faults that occurred which caused her significant distress.
33. If Miss X does submit a complaint to the housing association and is unhappy with the outcome, she can than consider submitting a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. The issues discussed above are within its remit and it is able recommend a compensation payment if it finds the housing association was at fault.
34. Regarding the three service improvements that were recommended by the investigation officer, I am content the Council’s actions have addressed these. In particular, I note it reviews pathway plans every 6 months and its managers consider any unresolved issues before signing off each plan. At a wider level, it is meeting with its partners regularly to discuss strategic issues as well as specific housing cases which require attention. In this case, I understand it met with the housing association in June and September 2019.

Back to top

Final decision

35. The Council was at fault for not ensuring the stage two complaint investigation was completed within the requisite timeframe. However, I have found the actions it has taken adequately remedies the injustice caused by this fault and those already identified by the investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

36. I did not investigate Miss X’s substantive complaint. Likewise, I did not investigate any of the matters that she raised with the Ombudsman which were not considered during the statutory investigation of her complaint. If she wants to complain about these matters, she should submit a formal complaint to the Council so it can consider them first.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman