Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for an Out of Borough payment. This is because the Council has already offered a payment to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her Out of Borough payment application. She said it too long to make its decision and gave inconsistent and misleading information. Although the Council accepted some fault and offered to pay her £750, she does not consider this is sufficient to remedy the financial loss and emotional distress caused.

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 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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X contacted the Council about its Out of Borough payment scheme on 13 August 2024. This scheme provides a financial incentive of up to £5,000 to assist council and housing association tenants who decide to relocate out of its area. A week later she moved to another property. In late August, the Council asked Ms X to provide additional information, which she did and it told her a manager would need to decide if she was eligible but they were on leave for three weeks.
6. In October 2024, Ms X complained about the delay. Later that month, the Council confirmed she was eligible for the payment but in November it said she was not eligible. This was because, at the time she made the application, she was living in temporary accommodation provided by the Council and was not either a council or housing association tenant, so did not meet the criteria.
7. Ms X was unhappy and made a further complaint. In its complaint response, the Council accepted a delay in making a decision and that it had given inconsistent information about whether she was eligible, for which it apologised. It said it would review the information on its website to ensure it was clear and remind relevant staff of the need to pay greater attention to detail when considering requests so they gave accurate information. To recognise the impact of its failings, it offered Ms X £750 towards the cost of moving. In response to our enquiries, it said it had considered recent removal quotes it had received for similar sized properties, which ranged from £498 and £1,440 and had made an offer of just over half the high end of the quotes.

My assessment

8. The Council accepts it delayed making a decision and providing inconsistent information about whether she was eligible for a payment. In fact, Ms X was not eligible for the payment because she did not meet the scheme criteria. I note she moved around a week after asking for the payment so had incurred moving costs before having any written confirmation about her eligibility. Therefore, the injustice caused due to the failings identified is limited to her frustration in relation to the miscommunication and the avoidable time and trouble pursuing the Council to get a decision. On that basis, the payment the Council has offered is a sufficient remedy and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council has offered a payment to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman