East Hertfordshire District Council (19 007 429)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 05 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss C complains about the priority the Council gave to her housing application. We uphold the complaint, finding fault in how the Council considered Miss C’s medical priority and how it responded to reports of disrepair in her flat. We consider this has caused distress to Miss C as without this fault she may have received an offer of re-housing. The Council has agreed proposals to remedy the complaint set out at the end of this statement.

The complaint

  1. I have called the complainant, ‘Miss C’. She complains the Council did not give proper priority to her application for re-housing, considered under its housing allocation policy.
  2. Miss C says because of this she had to maintain the tenancy of a property that was unsuitable for her and her son because of disrepair, which worsened their health. Miss C says rather than stay in the property, she spent several months ‘sofa surfing’ between friends and family to protect their health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
  2. 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. 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

  1. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:
  • Miss C’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information she provided, including that gathered in a telephone conversation with her.
  • The Council’s replies to Miss C’s complaint which pre-dated our investigation.
  • Information provided by the Council in reply to written enquiries.
  • Any relevant law, policy or guidance as referred to in this statement. In particular, the Council’s Housing Register and Allocations Policy.
  • Comments made by Miss C and the Council in response to a draft decision statement setting out my proposed findings.

Back to top

What I found

General Legal Background

  1. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out its procedures for allocating housing, including how it prioritises applications. All allocations must be made in accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
  2. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
  • homeless people;
  • people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
  • people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
  • people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others; (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
  1. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) A person may be considered homeless if it is not reasonable to expect them to live in accommodation because of its condition. This includes a damp property which could have a negative impact on health (see R v Medina BC, ex parte Dee (1992)).

Council Housing Allocation Policy

  1. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. The Council places applicants on a housing register. It will award each applicant on the register points that take account of the ‘reasonable preference’ criteria above. The Council will offer housing to the applicant bidding with the highest points total, although there are some exceptions to this rule which I return to below.
  2. Of relevance to this complaint I note the Council will award the following points in line with its policy:
  • 20 points for each bedroom that a household lacks in accord with published criteria. The criteria say a couple require one bedroom. A child does not need their own bedroom until they are one year old.
  • Between 5 and 15 points where someone lives in ‘poor or unsatisfactory housing’. The policy defines this as where its Environmental Health Service has identified the property has ‘Category 1’ hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Ratings System (HHSRS). The policy does not elaborate on the HHSRS, but this refers to a risk-based approach for assessing different hazards associated with poor quality housing. It includes consideration of matters such as damp and mould. A qualified Environmental Health officer should inspect premises and rate any identified hazard as category 1 or 2. Category 1 hazards are the most serious. Councils have legal powers to require landlords or property owners take immediate action to remedy these.
  • Up to 50 points where the applicant has a residency or local connection to the Council’s area.
  • 10 points where an applicant has limited financial means; for example, if they are in receipt of certain means-tested benefits.
  • Between 5 and 75 points where someone has a medical need to move. The Council says to consider an award of medical points the applicant “must obtain a medical form” from its Housing Options Team. A medical adviser considers the information provided and will recommend an award. They will recommend 10 points if the case is considered low to medium priority, defined as a “moderate detriment to health”. They will recommend 15 points for medium priority cases defined as those with “chronic health conditions”. High priority cases merit 25 points, defined as those with a “serious detriment to health”. While urgent cases receive 50 or 75 points dependent on whether the condition is life threatening.
  • 20 points for those living in an assured shorthold tenancy with a social landlord such as a housing association.
  • 5 points for pregnant applicants and 10 points for each dependent child.
  • 2 points for each year on the housing register.
  • Between 10 and 50 points if the applicant needs a move on welfare grounds. The policy contains various examples of hardship scenarios; for example, having an “urgent need to move” because of harassment or domestic violence.
  1. The policy explains various ‘exceptions to the rule’ explaining how in some circumstances the Council will not offer properties to the applicant with the most points or based on their preference. Of relevance to this complaint, I note the following:
  • For houses with two double bedrooms the Council may prioritise applicants who need two double bedrooms over those who require a double and single bedroom. The Council has said that further to Miss C’s complaint it no longer applies this policy. This decision took effect from the end of May 2019.
  • In cases where it gives priority to applicants with a local connection to a particular settlement. For example, new developments in village settlements may require the developer provide social housing for those with connection to that parish.
  • For homeless applicants the Council reserves the right to make a direct offer of accommodation after more than two months in order to discharge its legal duty to provide an offer of re-housing.

Key facts

Miss C’s housing application

  1. Miss C joined the housing register in May 2017. Her household included her partner. She was living in a one-bed flat let from a social landlord on an assured shorthold tenancy. On her application form Miss C said she had health problems caused by the condition of the flat which she said had “serious mould in every room”. Miss C also said both her and her partner were victims of anti-social behaviour from neighbours, for which she gave some examples.
  2. The Council awarded Miss C’s application 95 points. This comprised 20 points for her current tenancy; 50 points for her residency connection and 25 points on welfare grounds. The Council awarded welfare points after considering evidence which supported Miss C’s statements she and her partner were victims of anti-social behaviour.
  3. In August 2017 the Council removed the 25 welfare points as it understood the tenants causing anti-social behaviour moved away. So, Miss C’s total points fell to 70.
  4. In April 2018 Miss C told the Council she was pregnant. It increased her points award to 75. This award increased to 77 points in May 2018 when Miss C had been on the housing register for 12 months.
  5. Around the same time the Council also awarded Miss C 10 medical priority points, so taking her total to 87. This followed her completing a medical needs form. Miss C explained on the form she had asthma and took medication for this and provided supporting information confirming this. Miss C said she had suffered asthma as a child, which had returned since living in her flat. She said her GP attributed its return to the damp and mould spores in the property. Miss C also said her asthma worsened because of her pregnancy.
  6. The notes of the Council’s medical adviser explain the decision to recommend 10 medical points followed them noting Miss C received an “average dose” of medication for her asthma.
  7. In December 2018 Miss C’s pointing award increased by another five points (to 92) following the birth of her son the previous month, whom I will call ‘D’.
  8. In January 2019 the Council increased Miss C’s award by a further 15 points to 107, for living in poor and unsatisfactory housing. This followed a joint inspection of her flat by its environmental health service and landlord. I will return to the involvement of the Council’s environmental health service below.
  9. Later in January 2019 the Council increased Miss C’s award by a further 10 points to 117 after learning she received a means-tested benefit. This entitled her to points for having limited financial means.
  10. In February 2019 the Council increased Miss C’s award by a further 5 medical points, taking her total points to 122. This followed Miss C providing evidence about D’s health. Miss C explained that since his birth D had suffered repeated chest infections and breathing difficulties. He had repeatedly visited the GP and hospital accident and emergency. He now had a diagnosis of asthma and received medication for that. D’s health improved when he stayed away from the flat for a week, which continued to experience damp conditions with mould. Miss C provided a letter of support from her health visitor who confirmed mould in the flat. Miss C also provided photographs of the mould and a short film of D’s breathing difficulties. The Council said it could not forward the film to its medical adviser (I understand for technical reasons). But it considered the other information Miss C provided gave its medical adviser enough information to make a recommendation.
  11. The medical adviser recorded their advice as follows: “medical priority increased to 15 on account of baby’s symptoms which are attributed to the mould in the accommodation”.
  12. Miss C appealed the award of points, arguing D’s medical needs justified a high priority or urgent award of medical points. She provided a further letter of support from D’s GP who expressed concerns about Miss C’s home conditions and the link these had with D’s health. Miss C met with one of the Council’s housing officers. She said that he made comments dismissing the comments made by the GP. The officer said they would ask the Council’s medical adviser to review their recommendation. The Council provides proof they did this. The adviser recorded that they considered no further increase in medical points appropriate.
  13. In May 2019 the Council increased Miss C’s award by a further 2 points as she had been on the housing register two years. This took her total award to 124.
  14. In November 2019 Miss C’s award increased by 20 points on D’s first birthday. However, by now Miss C had found alternative accommodation in a neighbouring authority area. She gave up the tenancy of her flat the same month and the Council suspended her housing application.

Miss C’s bids for properties

  1. The Council has provided me details of 26 properties Miss C bid for under its choice-based letting scheme between December 2018 and September 2019. I noted that on three occasions, Miss C had more points than the successful applicant. In March 2019, the Council offered a property to a household with a lower pointing total based on them needing two double bedrooms. On another two occasions the Council offered properties to households with a lower point total because they had a connection with the local parish.
  2. I noted also Miss C’s application was within 10 points of the successful bid on two further properties she bid for in March and April 2019.
  3. The Council provides information about another 38 properties which Miss C could have bid for, but chose not to, in her areas of choice, between December 2018 and September 2019. In nine cases Miss C had more points than the successful bidding household, although in two cases a bid would not have succeeded because it went to a household needing two double bedrooms. So, potentially Miss C could have successfully bid for seven properties including flats which became free in March and April 2019. I noted Miss C preferred generally (but not exclusively) to bid for houses in her areas of choice.

Miss C’s contacts with Environmental Health Services

  1. The Council first recorded contact between its environmental health service and Miss C in April 2018. It says that it gave advice to Miss C about “the best use of [her] heating system”.
  2. In July 2018 one of its officers undertook a site visit having made some enquiries with Miss C’s landlord. The landlord told the Council Miss C had complained of damp and mouldy conditions in her flat in late 2016. It had applied an anti-mould solution to the walls and given “lifestyle advice”. The Council found when it visited that not all heaters worked in Miss C’s flat and it had blocked trickle vents, which allow ventilation. It understood the landlord would repair these before the end of the summer months. It says it kept in touch with both the landlord and Miss C to ensure repairs followed. An email on the Council’s files from the landlord says it repaired the heaters in October 2018.
  3. In November 2018, in response to contact from the Council, Miss C said problems with the flat had returned. In January 2019 its officer visited with the landlord. The landlord agreed to commission a report from contractors, who decided on a visual inspection that mould in the property resulted from condensation. It said Miss C contributed to this, through not keeping the property warm enough and drying washing. Miss C says she knew drying washing could make the mould worse and she did not do this. The contractor’s photos show only a dry towel in her bathroom. Miss C says the contractor was not thorough in their inspection, for example, they did not use damp meters to record moisture content in walls.
  4. In March 2019, following another visit, the Council calculated if Miss C had enough space heating in the property. Afterwards, the landlord said they would fit an extra heater as well as more ventilation in the kitchen.
  5. The next involvement by the Council was in August 2019 when it asked the landlord to provide a history of repairs to the property. The Council then closed its case the following month, understanding the landlord would carry out all works requested by the Council. It said where these had not completed it was because contractors could not gain access to Miss C’s flat. Miss C says she cancelled two visits from the landlord’s contractors as they were at short notice and she could not attend in time as she was staying away from the flat. The history provided by the landlord confirms Miss C cancelled two appointments in 2019 (one in April and one in May) where it arranged repairs.

Miss C’s complaint to the Council

  1. In April 2019 Miss C made a complaint to the Council that it had not re-housed her. Her complaint form said she was not staying in her home because of its condition and its impact on D’s health. Miss C complained at the pointing award made following the medical adviser’s recommendation. She complained too about the comments attributed to its housing officer. Miss C also complained that households with lower points totals had successfully bid for properties she had bid for.
  2. In its reply the Council defended its decisions taken in this case. It advised Miss C that she would have increased priority from November 2019, when D turned one. It also advised Miss C she may have more chance of bidding successfully for a property if she bid for more flats.
  3. Miss C was unhappy with that reply and escalated her complaint to Stage Two of the Council’s corporate complaint procedure. As part of its consideration of that complaint, the Council met with Miss C. In its response it provided more explanation for its view that it had considered her housing application properly. It also addressed that part of the complaint concerned with its housing officer’s comments. It considered Miss C had misunderstood their comments.
  4. The Council also considered if Miss C was homeless. It said any assessment of this issue had to take account of her landlord’s works to try and remedy problems with the flat. In comments in reply to my enquiries the Council has further explained that it considered Miss C was not homeless because:
  • Her landlord co-operated in recognising problems with her flat and worked with the Council to resolve these.
  • That Miss C had delayed repairs by not allowing access to the landlord for repairs.
  • That any issues with disrepair arose from condensation and not penetrating or rising damp.
  • That Miss C could have secured a move under the Council’s allocation scheme had she “extended her bidding choices” (see paragraph 29).
  1. In its response the Council also said it would change its policy towards allocating two double bedroom properties. It would no longer prioritise those households who specifically needed that type of accommodation over all applicants needing two bedroom property. It recognised this potentially disadvantaged applicants in Miss C’s position.

My findings

  1. I begin by considering in general terms if there is anything in the Council’s housing allocation policy that I would consider potentially flawed. While I consider there are passages in the policy which might benefit from further explanation (I will explain why below), I do not find there is. I am satisfied the policy satisfactorily takes account of the law to give reasonable preference to those groups who should receive that.
  2. I consider the issue at the crux of this complaint is therefore how the Council has applied its allocation policy to Miss C’s circumstances. I consider many of the Council’s decisions around the priority given to the application sound. I see no need to address in any detail those awards of points given for Miss C’s residential connection, tenancy agreement, limited financial resources or on the anniversary of her application. The Council’s decisions on these points were based only on the facts and could not result in any finding of fault.
  3. I am also satisfied the Council took proper account when Miss C and her partner were the victims of anti-social behaviour. Its award of welfare points reflected the seriousness of the problems faced by Miss C when she first applied for rehousing. The removal of those points reflected the change in circumstances when the perpetrator of anti-social behaviour moved away. There is nothing in the case papers to suggest fault in the timing of either decision.
  4. That leaves me to consider two areas. First, the award of points based on medical need and second those points awarded for disrepair.

Medical priority

  1. I note that despite Miss C referring to health problems on her application in May 2017, there is no suggestion the Council considered an award of medical points before May 2018. But I do not find fault here. This is because the allocation policy places the responsibility on the applicant to complete a medical form. There is no record of Miss C doing this before May 2018.
  2. I also do not find fault in the Council’s award of medical points in May 2018. I consider the award of 10 points to Miss C’s case reasonable. It would be helpful for the allocation policy to explain more about the need to link a medical condition with the condition of the property. But it implies the link in its decision making. In this case the Council’s medical adviser identified a link between the damp conditions and Miss C’s asthma. They reasoned by considering Miss C’s medication dose that her asthma was of a moderate severity. I consider the award of 10 points consistent with that.
  3. But I consider there was fault in the decision taken in February 2019 when the Council learnt also of D’s poor health and diagnosis of asthma. I cannot make any finding on what the Council’s housing officer told Miss C when receiving her GP letter, but I am satisfied the Council did not dismiss any evidence Miss C provided. It properly referred it to its medical adviser. I note the adviser did not see the short film clip of D’s breathing difficulties, but I do not consider anything turned on that. Because Miss C’s comments and supporting evidence explained what the film showed.
  4. The Council then acted on the adviser’s recommendation of points. But I find insufficient information in the case papers to explain that award. Specifically, I cannot see why the Council considered D had a ‘chronic’ as opposed to a severe need to move, which would make the difference between 15 and 25 points. The Council accepted a link between D’s health and the property disrepair. But there is no explanation of what weight it gave to the following factors:
  • D’s extensive contact with the GP and repeated hospital admissions.
  • D’s medication. Unlike in Miss C’s case there is no comment on the dosage or if it is common for young children to be receiving such medication.
  • The statements provided by Miss C on how D’s health improved significantly away from the flat.
  • The nature and extent of the disrepair in the flat which the Council’s environmental health service had now inspected. I note the award of disrepair points suggested this was significant as consistent with the property having a Category One hazard.
  1. It is important to stress here that I do not have a view on how many points D’s circumstances merited. That is a judgment for the Council that it must make on the facts. But it must be able to explain why it has awarded the number of points it has. It must show that it has taken relevant evidence into account. Because I cannot see what weight it gave to those factors listed in paragraph 47 I am not satisfied it took its decision properly here. That merits a finding of fault.
  2. I consider the injustice this causes Miss C is that of distress in the form of uncertainty. I cannot say if Miss C’s application merited 122 or 132 points from February 2019 onward. But had it been the latter then this would have led to Miss C potentially succeeding in bidding for two properties where she was unsuccessful. I consider there is an arguable case therefore that Miss C potentially could have secured alternative accommodation by around April 2019, or around seven months before she eventually did so.
  3. I set out below action the Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Council’s approach to disrepair

  1. I note it was not until January 2019 the Council recognised the poor condition of Miss C’s flat merited an award of points. I am concerned about this timing.
  2. This is because I note the award did not follow until Miss C had been on the housing register for 18 months. On her application form to join the register Miss C drew attention to the poor condition of her flat. Further, this award was nine months after Miss C first had contact directly with Council environmental health services. And around six months after that service found out the factual basis for Miss C’s statements about the flat’s condition. I must question therefore why the Council did not consider awarding these points sooner.
  3. This in turn highlights an omission in the Council’s current housing allocation policy. The policy makes clear the housing service will award points based on the disrepair of a property acting on advice from its environmental health service. But it does not make clear what happens when an applicant tells the Council about disrepair. Does it expect the applicant to contact environmental health services and ask for an inspection of their home? Or is there a responsibility for its housing officers to pick up on statements like those made by Miss C on her application form and alert colleagues in environmental health services. I consider the Council policy flawed therefore in not adequately explaining how applicants will receive consideration for points awarded based on disrepair of their existing property.
  4. However, had Miss C received an extra 15 points on her housing application from the outset, this would not have resulted in her successfully bidding for a property. So, I do not consider I can conclude the Council’s fault here overall disadvantaged Miss C’s housing application.
  5. I also had some concern about the basis for the Council awarding points to Miss C’s application for disrepair. The policy says it awards these where a property has Category One hazards. But I have seen no evidence the Council identified such a hazard (although commenting on a draft of this report it says this was the case). It did not communicate that to Miss C or her landlord; nor do its records state this.
  6. This did not disadvantage Miss C’s housing application, because she received the maximum points for disrepair. But it highlights if the Council might have done more to ensure the safe condition of her home. I am concerned the Council did not set out clearly to Miss C’s landlord what the hazard was; nor its view of what caused this and how the landlord should resolve it and by when.
  7. I do not find fault in the Council working co-operatively with a landlord to carry out repairs. But this should not be at the expense of looking to ensure safe living conditions for tenants. I note the Council allowed drift during 2019 in following up what action the landlord took after the communications both parties had at the beginning of the year. Taken alongside the lack of definitive statement about Category One hazards this suggests some inattention by the Council, in the support it gave to Miss C. That justifies a finding of fault.
  8. The injustice this creates is again that of some distress. The Council accepts the link between Miss C’s housing conditions and her health and that of D. That caused Miss C distress. The Council was not the direct cause of the distress. But a more thorough approach by its environmental health service may have led to an improvement in the home conditions and a lessening of the distress.
  9. I set out below action I want the Council to take to remedy this injustice. But in doing so I find there is also some mitigation for the Council. First I recognise that while it appears unfocused the Council’s environmental health service still offered Miss C some support for the disrepair in her property. It visited more than once, liaised with her landlord over repairs and checked the effectiveness of the flat’s space heating. Having a more attentive approach may not have achieved more.
  10. Second, I consider by 2019 Miss C’s focus was clearly on moving away from her property. The evidence suggests she put a lesser emphasis on having repairs to the property than securing alternative accommodation. Which in turn may have delayed inspections and repairs, something for which there is some evidence on the file.
  11. I also consider that if the Council had taken a more robust line with the landlord and they had carried out effective repairs, this would have had a knock-on effect on Miss C’s housing application. Her award of points could have reduced to remove the points awarded for disrepair at the time there was no longer a category one hazard.

Other considerations

  1. As part of my consideration of this complaint I also note the occasions the Council did not offer a property to Miss C despite her having more points than the successful bidder. I do not find fault in how the Council has applied its local parish connection policy, which led Miss C to bid unsuccessfully on two properties. I also consider the Council could reasonably choose to allocate two double bedroom properties specifically to those households who needed them. I consider it to the Council’s credit it has revisited this policy further to Miss C’s complaint. But that decision does not lead me to find fault in the policy.
  2. I have next considered the Council’s approach to the question of whether Miss C was homeless. I consider the Council could have asked itself that question much sooner, from January 2019 when its award of disrepair points implied Miss C lived in a property with Category One hazards. As I explained above the threshold for considering homelessness is low. The Council does not need for an applicant to ask it to consider them homeless or complete a specific form. So, it was potential fault for it not to have considered if Miss C was homeless.
  3. That said, such consideration would not have automatically led the Council to find Miss C homeless. It could, as it suggests, have also worked to resolve her homelessness by requiring repairs to her property. That re-introduces the prospect the Council could have reduced Miss C’s priority through a removal of disrepair points (see paragraph 61).
  4. Also, while being homeless may have resulted in a higher priority to Miss C’s application, it may also have had another potential downside. As I explained above the Council reserves the right to make a direct allocation of housing to some homeless households. So, Miss C may have lost some choice around her re-housing. On balance therefore, I find any fault in the Council’s consideration of homelessness, does not result in any further injustice to Miss C than that already identified.
  5. Finally, I have considered comments by the Council around Miss C choosing not to bid for certain properties for which she could have received an offer of housing (see paragraph 29). I consider this is potentially relevant to considerations about the injustice which results from its faults. I accept Miss C could have successfully bid for property in Spring 2019, even without extra medical points. But these were not properties of her choice. There is therefore still an injustice to Miss C in not being able to successfully bid for properties she wanted.

Agreed action

  1. In paragraphs 49 and 58 I have identified where fault by the Council led to an injustice to Miss C. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed that within 20 working days of this decision it will:
  • Provide an apology to Miss C accepting the findings of this investigation; and
  • Pay Miss C a financial remedy of £500 in recognition of her distress.
  1. I have reached my view on the appropriate financial remedy having taken account of the Ombudsman published guidance on remedies. This suggests applying a tariff of between £150 and £350 for each month where a complainant remains in unsuitable accommodation longer because of Council fault. In this case I have not found it possible to say if the Council could have re-housed Miss C much sooner but for its fault. Or that defects with her property could have been resolved sooner without a negative consequence for her housing application. Taking account of this, I do not consider it appropriate to apply this guidance to this case. Instead, I am recommending an award that I consider appropriate to recognise the significant uncertainty in this case resulting from the Council’s poor decision making.
  2. The Council has further agreed that within three months of this decision it will review and update its housing allocation policy to provide more explanation:
  • For how it awards points based on disrepair to an existing property. It should explain how its housing and environmental health services liaise over such cases. It should explain what responsibility rests on the applicant to take any action in cases where they give disrepair as a reason for needing to move.
  • For how it awards points for medical priority. The current explanation of banding does not sufficiently explain how the Council will determine cases between bands nor the link between housing and medical conditions.
  1. Within three months the Council has also agreed it will issue advice to relevant housing staff to ensure it records adequate reasons for medical need points awards. This should also apply to other pointing awards which require subjective judgement.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Miss C. The Council has agreed actions that I consider provide a fair remedy to the complaint. Consequently, I can now complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings