Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council referring Mr B and his partner, Mrs C, to its safeguarding team when they approached it about Mrs C applying to the housing register, causing them both significant distress and upset. We could not achieve more than the Council’s own investigation or a different result.

The complaint

1. Mr B says:
• the Council wrongly referred him and his partner, Mrs C, to its safeguarding team when they approached it about Mrs C applying to the housing register;
• this resulted in police involvement and Mrs C not having Mr B’s support in interviews about her housing;
• it caused them both significant distress and upset which they and the Council could have avoided by having a simple, open conversation early on;
• they are also unhappy the Council failed to refer Mrs C to a suitable advocacy service which was not competent to handle both differences in language and cultural understanding, thus adding to their distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainants and the Council’s responses. I also discussed the matter with Mr B and shared my proposed decision with him by telephone to allow him to comment.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs C had moved to the UK from another country; she had married but has since divorced. She was living in unsuitable accommodation so Mr B suggested she apply to the Council for social housing, and they attended for an interview as part of the housing register application procedure.
6. Council officers appear to have had some concerns about Mrs C’s safety and wellbeing. Mr B says they insisted on interviewing Mrs C without Mr B present, but also without a suitable interpreter/advocate who understood both housing procedures and Mrs C’s first language to a necessary level. He says this was especially distressing because the country and culture Mrs C came from has no equivalent of social housing or some public services which exist in England. So both language and culture affected her understanding of any discussion.
7. The law and guidance on modern slavery tells authorities not to “use an accompanying person as interpreter for the potential victim, and where safe to do so a potential victim should be spoken to away from anyone accompanying them”. It also suggests councils appoint an existing officer or team to lead work on the subject, which in this Council is the Adult Safeguarding team. (section 49, Modern Slavery Act 2015 and paragraphs 4.20 and 12.13 of statutory guidance for England and Wales)
8. Mr B says without first asking him and Mrs C about the circumstances of their connection, housing officers referred to the safeguarding team, who in turn referred to the police. Police interviewed Mrs C and Mr B before deciding to take no further action. The safeguarding team also closed its referral case without further action. The Council eventually accepted Mrs C onto the housing register.
9. Mr B and Mrs C complained to the Council about the way its officers had treated them and the extreme distress caused. The Council has not said what officers based their concerns on. Mr B is unhappy they made assumptions from Mrs C’s ethnic origin, him as a White British man, or that Mrs C’s hesitancy in discussions stemmed from being under duress or having a learning disability (she does not) rather than language and cultural differences.
10. In its replies to Mr B and Mrs C, the Council accepted officers could have handled matters differently. They could have ensured it secured proper and suitable advocacy and interpretation services, and asked more basic questions before acting on suspicions about coercive control, trafficking or other abuse. The Council apologised and committed to learn from what had happened.
11. I recognise the Council likely caused Mr B and Mrs C significantly more distress and upset than might have been necessary. It will no doubt wish to learn from what happened, as it has said. But it is unlikely the Ombudsman could achieve more than the Council’s own investigation and response has already. We could not decide, for example, whether the Council discriminated against Mr B and Mrs C, or achieve compensation for any harm they suffered. Only the courts could do that.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B and Mrs C’s complaint because we could not likely achieve more than the Council’s own investigation already has or a different result, so it does not warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman