Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to no longer support rehousing a refugee family through the Syrian Vulnerable Person Resettlement Scheme (SVPRS). Ms X says the Council inspected a property she had found and agreed it was suitable. She said the Council later told her it did not have the resources to commit to settle a family in the property Ms X had bought. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation. This is because the matter is still ongoing.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to no longer support rehousing a refugee family through the Syrian Vulnerable Person Resettlement Scheme (SVPRS). Ms X says the Council inspected a property she had found and agreed it was suitable. She said the Council later told it did not have the resources to commit to settle a family in the property Ms X bought.

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 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

4. I spoke with Ms X and considered the information she provided.
5. I reviewed the information provided by the Council.
6. I sent a draft decision to Ms X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. In 2017, the Council agreed to take part in the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (SVPRS). The Council agreed to settle up to five Syrian families. To date, the Council has settled two families.
8. Ms X said the Council had explained the main obstacle to accepting more families was the lack of housing. The Council said it relied on finding private landlords who were willing to use their homes for this purpose. As the rent received is at below market value, it has been difficult to find willing landlords with suitable homes.
9. In December 2018, Ms X decided to buy a house the Council could use for the SVPRS. In February 2019, Ms X found a suitable property. The Council inspected the property and confirmed it was suitable for the scheme.
10. In March 2019, the Council contacted Ms X and told her it could no longer support additional families through the SVPRS. The Council told her it would not be going ahead with the house Ms X was due to buy. The Council explained it did not have the resources to commit to the scheme and that its priority was meeting its statutory duties first. The Council said the SVPRS was a voluntary scheme and there was no obligation on the Council to follow through or be part of the scheme.
11. Ms X was not happy with the decision and lodged a complaint. The Council investigated the matter through stage one and two of its complaints procedure. The Council again explained it did not have the staff resources needed to commit to the scheme because it had to focus on meeting its statutory duties. The Council accepted it would receive funding from the government but that the funding would not allow the Council to employ more staff.
12. In June 2019, the Council considered the issue within its Homes Policy Development Group meeting. The housing team produced a report for the group to consider. The report recommended the Council end involvement with the scheme due to the pressures of the Council’s statutory housing duties. During this meeting, the group heard from members of the public who were in support of the scheme, including Ms X.
13. The group considered the following:

• the advantages and disadvantages of using a third party agency;
• using a charity support group to prepare, help set up, and support the resettled families;
• the implications on the housing team following the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017; and,
• the statutory legal obligations of the Council.

14. The group agreed for the issue to be brought back to the next meeting after investigations had been made for the following:

• what could be achieved with working with third parties and;
• how other local authorities were managing to resettle families given that they were also required to comply with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and would be experiencing the same time constraints.

15. In August 2019, the Homes Policy Development Group met again to discuss the SVPRS. The group considered the updated report provided by the housing service which covered the use of third parties and how other local authorities were managing the scheme. It also considered the following:

• support of local residents;
• there was a property available;
• funding was recoverable from the government;
• amount of officer resources needed;
• tenancy management costs;
• models used by other local authorities;
• original commitment to settle up to five families; and,
• investigation into a new model which could allow the scheme to be progressed by a third party.

16. The group agreed for representations to be made to Devon County Council asking it to develop a scheme that allowed landlord to accept Syrian refugees with a direct contract with the landlord.
17. The Council provided evidence of its discussions with Devon County Council regarding the development of another model to support refugee resettlement. The evidence showed Devon County Council were developing specific proposal for consideration.
18. Ms X has kept her property vacant while she waits for a decision from the Council. Ms X said this is costing her money but will continue to keep it empty while the Council explores its options.

Analysis

19. The available evidence suggests the matter is still ongoing. This is because the Council is still working with Devon County Council to identify if there are any alternative models under which the SVPRS could operate. The Council has therefore not made any final decisions on its participation with the SVPRS.
20. It is difficult to conduct an effective investigation when a matter is still ongoing. Therefore, while the Council continues to work to find a solution, I cannot investigate.
21. I will therefore discontinue my investigation to allow the Council the opportunity to review its options.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have discontinued my investigation. This is because the matter is still ongoing, and the Council needs the opportunity to finish its enquiries.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman