Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to honour its offer to make a payment to him in recognition of the injustice caused by fault in its handling of his late partner’s housing application. We found the Council was at fault in raising Mr X’s expectations in relation to the payment. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has failed to honour its offer to pay him £3,250 in recognition of the injustice caused by fault in its handling of his late partner’s housing application from early 2020 until his death in May 2022. Despite agreeing to make this payment to Mr X in April 2023, the Council later stated that the payment would, instead, be made to his late partner’s estate. Mr X says he has given the Council sufficient information to show it should treat him as the estate’s representative but it has refused to do so.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mr X, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
5. 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

Key facts

6. Mr X lived with his partner, Mr Y, in a Housing Association flat. In early 2020 Mr Y applied to the Council for a housing transfer on the basis that he needed to move for medical reasons. Mr X held power of attorney for Mr Y in respect of health and welfare and also property and finance. He liaised with the Council on Mr X’s behalf.
7. Sometime later, having completed medical assessments, the Council decided Mr Y did not qualify for a transfer.
8. Mr Y died in 2022.
9. In 2023 Mr X complained to the Council about how it had handled Mr Y’s application. A senior officer in the housing team, Officer A, responded at stage 1 of the Council’s complaints process in April. He accepted there were failings in the way the Council had handled Mr Y’s case (including delays and inadequate record-keeping) and apologised. He also offered a payment of £3,000 in recognition of the distress caused.
10. Mr X did not consider the payment to be sufficient and, in May, he escalated his complaint to stage 2.
11. A stage 2 investigator, Officer B, responded in June. He accepted there had been delays and service failure by the Council in relation to Mr Y’s application. He said “I join with [Officer A] in apologising to you and [Mr Y’s] estate. I am very sorry for the distress caused to you over such a protracted period of time…Communication between separate council services should have been better. Poor record-keeping has also contributed to the distress caused to you and [Mr Y]”. He said he was satisfied the compensation offered at stage 1 was appropriate and requested details of Mr Y’s estate so payment could be made.
12. In July Mr X asked Officer A to reconsider the amount of compensation saying Mr Y had wanted to leave a remembrance to a small number of charities and personal friends and he wished to fulfil Mr Y’s wishes. Officer A agreed to an additional £250 as a “further gesture of goodwill” and said this would be paid “on receipt of details of the estate”.
13. In September Mr X confirmed he would accept the offer of £3,250 and was happy to receive payment as power of attorney and next of kin/executor for Mr Y.
14. Officer A responded saying he thought Officer B was correct in saying that the Council would need to make the payment to the executor of Mr Y’s estate. He asked Mr X to provide documents showing who the executor was.
15. In October Mr X replied saying he was the executor and held power of attorney for Mr Y.
16. Mr X later provided documents relating to the closure of Mr Y’s bank accounts to evidence that the banks had treated him as the administrator of Mr Y’s estate. Officer A sought legal advice as to whether the documents were sufficient evidence that Mr X was the administrator/executor of Mr Y’s estate. The legal advice was that, although the documents confirmed Mr Y’s banks had treated Mr X as the administrator of the estate, there was nothing to confirm he was the administrator and no evidence had been provided to show who the beneficiaries of the estate were.
17. In February Officer A wrote to Mr X explaining he had taken legal advice and asked whether there was a will which could confirm the position in relation to Mr Y’s estate. He also requested evidence confirming Mr Y’s next of kin because the estate would automatically pass to them if there was no will.
18. In March Officer A wrote to Mr X explaining that, based on the information the Council currently had, it could not make the payment to him. He said it required clear evidence relating to Mr Y’s estate.

Analysis

19. The Council says the offer to pay £3,250 was made in recognition of the faults identified with its handling of Mr Y’s application and the impact on him. It considers the payment should go to Mr Y’s estate and says its legal team is not satisfied with Mr X’s evidence that he is the administrator of Mr Y’s estate.
20. Mr X says the Council originally offered the payment to him. He also considers he has provided sufficient evidence to show he is the administrator of Mr Y’s estate. He has explained that Mr Y left no will and the estate comprised of a small amount of money and some personal effects, so probate was not required. He says that, as he held power of attorney for Mr Y in respect of finance and property matters, the banks treated him as the administrator of his estate. He says the Council should do likewise.
21. In response to a draft of this decision, Mr X sent me a document signed by Mr Y in which he sets out his wishes in relation to his estate. Mr X says he has not provided this to the Council because the Council did not request it. It is not for the Ombudsman to become involved in the decision-making on whether this evidence is sufficient for the Council to pay the £3,250 to Mr Y’s estate. This is a matter for the Council to now decide.
22. The Council’s stage 1 response did not make it clear that the payment was intended for Mr Y’s estate. I find Mr X was entitled to rely on the letter as indicating an intention to pay him £3,000 to recognise the injustice he suffered because of the Council’s failure to properly deal with his late partner’s housing application.
23. Officer B has subsequently confirmed that Officer A had intended the payment to be made to Mr X. However, Mr X requested a review. Officer B says that, when issuing the stage 2 response, he agreed with the compensation amount but considered it should be paid to the executor of Mr Y’s estate.
24. Although Officer A intended the payment to be made to Mr X at stage 1, officers were entitled to change their view and decide that the payment should be made to Mr Y’s estate. Officers sought legal advice on this point and were entitled to follow that advice. In addition, it is a matter for officers’ professional judgement whether the evidence provided by Mr X was sufficient for him to be treated as the administrator of Mr Y’s estate.
25. However, the stage 1 response raised Mr X’s expectations. This was fault. The letter should have made it clear who the payment was for. As a result, Mr X suffered distress and disappointment when the Council later decided the payment should be made to Mr Y’s estate.
26. The Council has offered to apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 in recognition of his raised expectations together with £150 for his time and trouble in pursuing the matter and £150 for the delay in responding to his complaint. I consider this offer represents an appropriate remedy for the injustice the Council refers to.
27. However, Mr X also suffered considerable stress, anxiety and frustration in trying to persuade the Council to rehouse Mr Y and himself to a ground floor flat because of Mr Y’s illnesses, and uncertainty about their prospects of moving. He was also put to significant avoidable effort and inconvenience in repeatedly pursuing the matter with the Council over a lengthy period.
28. The Council, in its stage 2 response, accepted there had been significant fault in dealing with Mr Y’s application and that this had caused Mr X distress over a protracted period. The response said, “I am very sorry for the distress caused to you over such a protracted period of time” and went on to refer to “the distress caused to you and [Mr Y]”. This shows that the Council accepted Mr X had also suffered significant injustice in the form of distress. However, it has not offered Mr X a remedy for this, apart from an apology. It has only (as it is now clarified) offered a payment in recognition of the distress caused to Mr Y and intends to make this payment to his estate. I consider the Council should now offer Mr X a remedy for the distress he suffered.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• pay Mr X £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he suffered because of its failings in relation to Mr Y’s housing application;
• apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 for his time and trouble in pursuing the matter and £150 for the delay in responding to his complaint; and
• write to Mr X asking him to provide a copy of the evidence referred to in paragraph 28.
30. If Mr X provides the Council with new evidence, the Council will consider, within a month of receipt, whether this changes its view on payment of the £3,250 to Mr Y’s estate. It will write to Mr X explaining its decision. If the Council decides not to pay the £3,250 to Mr X, it will pay him £150 for raising his expectations. If the Council decides to pay the £3,250 to Mr X, it will not need to pay £150 for raising his expectations.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I find fault causing injustice.
33. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman