Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council withholding part of a leaving care grant awarded to the complainant. This is because the complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to investigate the matter now.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms L, says, through her advocate, that the Council:
• Unfairly charged her for damage to a property she rented when she left care; and
• Refused to use her Leaving Care Grant to reimburse her from for rent paid to the private landlord of another property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Ms L’s advocate and I sent a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. When Ms L left care, a Leaving Care Grant was agreed to help with housing costs.
6. However, the Council later refused to pass on the full amount of the grant. It said that when she left a rented property in 2013, (property A) the property inspection revealed a considerable amount of damage for which the Council was invoiced. It deducted this amount from the grant.
7. Additionally, the Council deducted an amount which Ms L said she had paid to landlord of another property (property B) in 2014, but for which she had no receipts.
8. Ms L complained about the deductions. She said that she did not cause damage to property A, it was in a poor state from the start, and that the landlord did not in fact carry out repairs as nothing had changed 3 years later when she returned there. She provided some photographs and documents which she said backed up her case.
9. Ms L also challenged the withholding of part of the grant for the rent for property B. She said that she did not have any receipts because she paid the money to a private landlord who did not provide her with receipts, and who had now disappeared, she believed, to Africa.
10. Ms L has now complained to the LGSCO but we will not investigate the complaint. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about matters known to the complainant more than 12 months previously, unless there are good reasons to do so.
11. In this case, the inspection report on the condition of property A dates from 2013, and the rent payments for property B from 2014. Ms L complained in 2016, so she clearly knew about the issues at that point.
12. The Council responded in May 2016, but Ms L’s advocate did not follow up the matter for a year. After the Council again responded, the advocate waited a further year before again following up the matter.
13. Consequently, the complaint to the LGSCO is made late, and I see no good reasons to investigate it now. Ms L could have come to us at any point since 2016.
14. Additionally, it is unlikely that we would be able to add anything to the Council’s response regarding the damage to property A so long after the events. Also we would be unlikely to find fault with regard to property B because the money was a leaving grant to cover housing costs, and the Council was given no evidence that rent payments were made so it concluded the terms of the grant were not met.

Back to top

Final decision

15. Subject to any comments Ms L might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is made late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman