Summary: There was fault by the Council including a delay of several months in issuing a personalised housing plan and written decisions on Ms E’s application for housing. The Council also failed to take action when Ms E raised concerns about poor standards in her temporary housing. The delay caused Ms E uncertainty about the action the Council would take to help her secure housing and meant she could not challenge a decision using the statutory review process. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise and make Ms E a symbolic payment of £250.

The complaint

1. Mr F, a solicitor, complains for Ms E about the way London Borough of Hackney (the Council) dealt with her request for assistance with housing. He says it:
1. Failed or delayed completing a homeless assessment and/or a personalised housing plan (PHP)
2. Failed or delayed issuing written decisions
3. Failed to provide interim accommodation
4. Provided poor or no information about a tenancy swap and the availability of accommodation (Properties L and N)
5. Provided poor quality and inappropriate accommodation (Property M, Hotel O and Property X)
6. Failed to assist her with private lettings between November 2018 and January 2019
7. Failed to provide her with appropriate support
8. Failed to make reasonable adjustments when dealing with her
2. Ms E says she suffered avoidable distress, a recurrence of ill-health and expenses and further incidents of domestic abuse. She seeks reimbursement of expenses, an apology and a payment to reflect her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered Ms F’s complaint to us on Ms E’s behalf and supporting documents, the Council’s responses to her complaint and records described later in this statement.
6. Ms E 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

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code of Guidance) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance is statutory guidance on how councils should carry out their functions and they must have regard to it.
8. 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) 
9. A person is homeless if they do not have accommodation that they are entitled to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them (and their household) and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in. (Housing Act 1996, section 175)
10. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called the interim housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. Priority need groups include people fleeing domestic abuse. (Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002)
12. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. This is known as the assessment duty. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with an applicant to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be set out to the applicant in a written personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
13. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must tell the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. Councils refer to applicants in this situation as being owed ‘the main housing duty.’ (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
15. Where the council is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and has become homeless unintentionally, the relief duty comes to an end after 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, Section 189B(4)).
16. Councils should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty. Where a council has the information it requires to make a decision as to whether the applicant is in priority need and became homeless unintentionally, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In cases where significant further investigations are required it is recommended that housing authorities aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed (Homelessness Code of Guidance 14.16)
17. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
18. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:
• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household;
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)
19. Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation.  It should only be used as a last resort in an emergency and then for the shortest time possible. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.24 and from 3 April 2018 17.30) 
20. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of various decisions including the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
21. Officers from the Council’s housing department see each applicant in person when they offer interim accommodation. This is to assist with a housing benefit application where appropriate and to talk the applicant through the legal terms of the license agreement, charges and answer any questions. The staff member also gives the applicant the contact details of the property’s managing agent and tells them where to meet. The Council says it does not always inspect properties but managing agents are aware of standards expected and the Council re-uses the same properties and so has some history and knowledge of them.
22. The Council runs a Domestic Abuse Intervention Service (DAIS) which provides up to six weeks of support providing information and support on legal and housing rights. To use this service, people need to be experiencing or at risk of domestic abuse and living in Hackney. If they are not in Hackney, officers from DAIS will refer people to services local to where they are living.
23. Public bodies, like councils, must not treat someone worse just because of one or more “protected characteristics”. Protected characteristics include people with disabilities, such as mental health problems. To make sure a disabled person can use the service as far as is reasonable to the same standard as a non-disabled person the public body must make reasonable adjustments. (Equality Act 2010 sections 20 and 29)

What happened

24. I have taken the key events from information and documents from Mr F (Ms E’s solicitor) and the Council’s case records which include notes of contact, forms and emails between officers about what happened.
25. Ms E had a tenancy with a different local authority (Council B). A support officer from Council B wrote to the Council’s housing department in mid-June 2018. The letter explained Ms E was the victim of domestic abuse from members of her household, had a council tenancy and wanted to return to live in Hackney where she had grown up. Council B’s support officer asked the Council to provide housing. The Council told me it received the letter from Council B and booked an appointment for Ms E to attend its offices. There is no evidence the Council told Ms E or Council B about the appointment and so naturally, she did not attend.
26. Ms E phoned DAIS in the last week of June 2018. She explained she was experiencing domestic abuse, had post-traumatic stress disorder and asked for support. Ms E said she was coming to the Council’s housing department the following week for an appointment about housing and had arranged to stay in a hotel for the first night. DAIS’s deputy manager explained an officer from her team would be available to support Ms E at the appointment. Ms E later spoke to an officer from DAIS, who encouraged her to call them when she arrived for the appointment and gave her advice on staying safe.
27. Ms E attended the appointment with a housing options caseworker (the caseworker) and an officer from DAIS. The caseworker started a homeless assessment and arranged Property L, a self-contained studio flat in a different London borough for Ms E for the following night. Ms E gave details of the domestic abuse and how this was affecting her mental health. She provided the caseworker with various letters setting out her mental health problems and history of domestic abuse.
28. The caseworker completed a housing advice and homelessness accommodation request form. The form noted Ms E had mental health problems and was fleeing domestic abuse. Ms E completed a health questionnaire saying she had a history of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. The caseworker completed a suitability and affordability form for temporary accommodation. This set out Ms E’s income, expenses and debts, her health problems, preferred areas and considered whether there were reasons she could not live outside London. Ms E said she would prefer to be in Hackney.
29. The following day, Ms E attended the Council’s offices and saw the officer from DAIS again. The officer liaised with Ms E’s GP surgery to get a prescription for Ms E. Ms E said she was not happy with the property being in a different borough. The DAIS officer arranged a taxi for Ms E where the managing agent of the property was due to meet her. When she arrived at Property L, Ms E called the DAIS officer and said the managing agent was not there. Ms E said she was not willing to stay there anyway as she felt unsafe and had seen someone being mugged. The DAIS officer said the Council may not provide any more housing.
30. Ms E told me she went to Property L by taxi and waited half an hour, but no-one came and so she returned to her permanent home in Council B’s area. The Council told me the managing agent for the property said Ms E had refused it and referred to a dispute, but the Council provided me with no details of the dispute or of any records of its communication with the managing agent on the day.
31. Ms E spoke to the caseworker a few days later and confirmed she had returned to her permanent home in Council B’s area. The caseworker said she would close Ms E’s case.
32. In mid-July, Ms E emailed the Council with a formal complaint. Ms E said she was stressed and panicky and was in the middle of a breakdown when she attended the Council’s offices. She said there was poor communication by council staff.
33. A DAIS officer emailed Ms E to ask if she wanted to be referred to domestic abuse support services local to her in Council B. The deputy manager spoke to Ms E and an advice worker and confirmed she was passing Ms E’s complaint on for a response.
34. At the end of July, Ms E’s legal adviser wrote to the Council asking it to provide her with interim accommodation while it completed inquiries into her homelessness. The legal adviser also said Property L was not available when she arrived to view it.
35. At the start of August, Ms E sent text messages to DAIS. Officers replied saying they could not support her until she was physically in Hackney and suggested she contact national domestic abuse support services or services local to her. An officer spoke to Ms E and emailed her legal adviser to repeat that DAIS could only support her if she was in Hackney and that if Hackney placed her out of the borough then DAIS would refer her to local services but would support her at appointments with Hackney housing.
36. In mid-August, Ms E returned to Hackney and the Council placed her in a second studio flat in South London (Property M) as interim accommodation. An officer from DAIS spoke to Ms E to check she had arrived at the property and was ok. The officer referred Ms E to local domestic abuse support services
37. The Council responded to Ms E’s complaint in September. It did not uphold the complaint saying:
• applicants are often housed in a different area and she told the caseworker she had returned to her permanent home because she was not happy with the area.
• being unhappy with an area was not a sufficient reason to refuse emergency accommodation.
• she had since asked for assistance again and was now in Property M. The Council would confirm its decision on whether she was owed the full housing duty.
38. The Council told me the managing agent found Property M empty with the keys inside after a few days and so it cancelled the booking. Ms E returned to her permanent home in Council B.
39. At the start of September, the Council wrote to Ms E saying it had discharged its duty to provide her with interim accommodation, noting its managing agent had inspected the property and she had left the keys inside with no belongings. There is no evidence the Council sent the letter to Ms E and later complaint correspondence suggested the letter may have remained on the Council’s files.
40. Ms E’s legal adviser appears to have issued judicial review proceedings about the Council’s provision of interim accommodation. I have not seen the Council’s legal records, but court proceedings are referred to in the Council’s complaint response (see paragraph 54 below). The Council’s lawyers agreed to reinstate the interim accommodation duty. Ms E’s legal adviser confirmed Ms E wanted to continue with her homeless application. The legal adviser asked the Council to make reasonable adjustments for Ms E when providing interim accommodation, including arranging it before her arrival, placing her in the borough and making referrals to support services. The adviser said without these adjustments, there was a risk any placement would break down. The adviser said Ms E had left Property M because it was not suitable, she felt at risk of violence and she had mental health issues.
41. At the start of October, Ms E’s legal adviser emailed the Council’s solicitor saying Ms E needed to live in Hackney so she could access domestic abuse support services.
42. In the first week of October, the Council wrote to Ms E accepting the relief duty and enclosing a PHP. The letter said:
• It had reason to believe she was in priority need because of mental health problems and so had provided her with interim accommodation
• It had arranged two properties for her, but she had abandoned both and so it had discharged the duty to provide further interim accommodation
• It owed her the relief duty.
43. The Council has a housing supply team whose role is to identify properties in the private sector through working with estate agents and then put applicants forward for vacancies they may be interested in. A housing needs and benefits officer identified several studio flats available in Property N to rent privately through a managing agent. He gave the managing agent Ms E’s details and the agent invited Ms E to view the flats. Ms E was not offered a flat and the records indicate the managing agent told her there were no properties available. A housing needs and benefits officer contacted the managing agent to find out what was going on and the managing agent responded several days later to say they had not accepted Ms E for a tenancy.
44. On 22 October, a caseworker emailed Ms E’s legal adviser to say the Council was offering her a room in a Bed and Breakfast (Hotel O) and would refer her to a support service provided by a third party. The support service visited Ms E over the weekend to assess her needs. Emails indicate Ms E was distressed and said she had been sexually assaulted by a member of staff at the hotel. Ms E reported the incident to the police who contacted the Council’s out of hours line and the following day a manager from the Council’s housing needs department visited her at the hotel to check on her.
45. The following day, the Council placed Ms E in a different Bed and Breakfast (Hotel P) for two nights. The Council told me this was an emergency placement which it decided was not suitable because of the proximity to the first hotel and so it decided to move her. Ms E was then offered a studio flat in Hackney, Property X, which she accepted.
46. At the end of October, an officer from DAIS noted she had seen Ms E in the office and discussed her support and housing needs. Ms E reportedly did not want to go to a refuge and said she was happy to be in mixed accommodation in Hackney or neighbouring boroughs. DAIS felt Ms E may have mental health problems and so the officer had referred her to mental health services in Hackney as well as to the safeguarding team. DAIS’s case records indicate that it made referrals over the following weeks on Ms E’s behalf to mental health services, adult safeguarding services, alcohol support and floating support services and arranged specialist therapy services which Ms E appears not to have attended.
47. Another housing benefits and needs officer put Ms E forward for another private flat at the end of October 2018 (Property Q). The managing agent said they would not offer her a tenancy.
48. In November, a housing needs and benefits officer sent Ms E details of a property (Property R) and arranged a viewing for her. The records do not refer to this property again and so I assume Ms E was unsuccessful. A couple of days later, another property (Property S) came up and Ms E confirmed she would go to view it. Again, there is no more information about this property and so I assume she was unsuccessful. Ms E told the Council she had arranged for her domestic abuse support worker from another agency to attend viewings with her in future.
49. In December, the housing needs and benefits officer told Ms E about another property (Property T) and she viewed it. The managing agent did not give any feedback about the viewing, despite the housing needs and benefits officer chasing them for a response. Also in December, Ms E found a flat (Property U). The agent offered this to someone else.
50. At the start of January 2019, the Council wrote to Ms E accepting the full housing duty. The letter explained she had a right to ask for a review of the suitability of her current accommodation. Ms E asked for a review. And, at the end of January a different domestic abuse support service wrote on her behalf asking the Council to provide suitable accommodation. The letter said Ms E’s current housing was too small, there was no heating, no cooking facilities, no hot water and it was too far from her support networks and was too close to the place was she was sexually assaulted.
51. Ms E and an officer from DAIS met at the start of March 2019 to discuss a safety plan. Ms E raised issues with Property X included mice droppings, a lack of cooking facilities and hot water, damp and bed bugs. The DAIS officer agreed to accompany her to the police to report as she had received a text message from the person who had assaulted her. The officer also completed a risk assessment and contacted Ms E’s email provider to see if the domestic abuse perpetrator’s email address could be blocked. Ms E instructed a solicitor who emailed the Council about the suitability of her housing and submitted a second review request saying the Council had placed Ms E in housing less than a mile from Hotel O where she was sexually assaulted.
52. The Council upheld Ms E’s review and acknowledged her current placement was not suitable. The Council told me the property was unsuitable because of the proximity to the Hotel O because Ms E said she had received a call from the alleged perpetrator. The Council offered Ms E Property V, a studio flat in Hackney at the start of April which she accepted. This was a private sector property the Council leased directly from a landlord.
53. DAIS’s case records indicate an officer tried to contact Ms E several times in May but she did not respond and so her case was closed to DAIS. Ms E moved into permanent social housing in July.
54. Ms E complained to the Council. I have summarised its responses below:
• There was no discussion with Council B about a reciprocal transfer as there was no agreement in place.
• She referred to an incident in South London, but this happened a long time ago and there was no evidence of any current risk
• The Council had no control over the managing agent of Property N rejecting her. It was not told about the decision until a few days later and Ms E had already returned to her permanent home.
• She returned to Hackney in the last week of October and was placed in the Hotel O. It provided alternative housing after Ms E reported an assault.
• DAIS made referrals for counselling, mental health services, safeguarding and supported Ms E to register with a GP.
• Ideally a PHP should have been completed on 28 June, but Ms E was agitated and did not want to.
• The Council may have sent a copy of the discharge of interim housing duty letter to her permanent address, but it had no record of this. It should have been sent by email.
• It was not possible to reserve emergency housing in advance. The Council’s lawyer misunderstood when he told her legal adviser that Ms E could have 24 hours to view all offers. It was sorry for this misleading information.
• She issued judicial review proceedings and in response, the Council agreed to maintain the interim accommodation duty. The letter saying the Council had discharged the duty was a mistake due to poor communication with the legal department. The Council was sorry for this. It provided Bed and Breakfast when she returned to Hackney in October.
• It is standard procedure for clients to attend offices to sign papers, explain charges and answer questions. The police enquiries took time and council officers also referred Ms E for a mental health assessment by which time the Council offices had closed and so the out of hours team placed Ms E in a second Bed and Breakfast as an emergency. She had to attend the offices again so the temporary accommodation team could find her another placement.
55. Unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint, Ms E complained to us.

Was there fault and if so did it cause injustice?

Complaint a: The Council failed or delayed completing a homeless assessment and/or a personalised housing plan (PHP)

56. The Council accepts it should have started a homeless assessment and PHP in June 2018. It did not do so until October. Taking three months to complete the assessment and PHP was not in line with section 189A of the Housing Act 1996 and paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18 of the Code of Guidance and so the Council is at fault. It caused Ms E uncertainty about the steps the Council would take to assist her to secure accommodation.

Complaint b: The Council failed or delayed issuing written decisions

57. The Council had enough information to decide Ms E was homeless and eligible at the end of June 2018. So, as well as completing a homeless assessment and PHP, it should have issued a letter accepting the relief duty at the end of June. It did not do so until October. The delay of about three months is fault and caused a delay in the Council taking steps to fulfil its relief obligations.
58. The Code of Guidance advises councils to proceed with completing their inquiries during the relief period and says they should not delay making inquiries as to what further duties are owed after the relief duty. There is no reason why the Council could not have notified Ms E about the full housing duty after the 56-day relief period because there does not appear to have been any missing information or any further inquiries made or needed to determine the duties owed. So I do not consider the Council had regard to paragraph 14.16 of the Code of Guidance when progressing Ms E’s case and so is at fault.
59. Had the Council acted without delay, the relief period would have ended around the end of August 2018 so there was a delay of around four/five months in notifying Ms E of the main housing duty because the Council did not issue the letter until January 2019. I consider this delay caused Ms E injustice because she was not able to use the formal review and appeal process to challenge the suitability of Property X (which she moved to at the end of October) until she had the Council’s decision on the main housing duty.

Complaint c: The Council failed to provide interim accommodation

60. The Council did not take any action to contact Ms E after Council B wrote asking it to house her in June 2018. The failure to consider and respond to Council B’s correspondence is fault. I note Council B explained Ms E was fleeing domestic abuse and so it is likely that had the Council provided an appropriate response, it would have offered a prompt appointment for Ms E to attend for interview so it could fulfil its interim accommodation duty and start a homeless assessment and PHP, as well as determining whether a relief duty was owed. This failure to provide a service meant Ms E waited two weeks longer than she should have done to get interim accommodation and other support. I note Ms E was unhappy with the location of the first interim accommodation (Property L), but her dissatisfaction with the general locality was not a legitimate reason for her to refuse accommodation which she had not seen.

Complaint d: The Council provided poor quality and inappropriate accommodation

61. The records indicate the Council considered the type of temporary accommodation that may be suitable for Ms E and the case worker noted her preferred areas on the papers. However, the Council did not have to provide accommodation in Ms E’s desired location. There is no evidence she could not live safely in a different London borough and so the Council is not at fault in placing her in South London or in Hotels O and P: Bed and Breakfast is permitted in an emergency when there is no other accommodation available.
62. I note Ms E raised concerns in January 2019 about the facilities and conditions at Property X. There is no documentary evidence to suggest that the Council tried to address any of the issues Ms E had reported. Although the Council moved Ms E to alternative temporary accommodation at the start of April on safety grounds, it still did not carry out an inspection to establish what, if any, repairs were needed to Property X. The failure to respond is fault.

Complaint e: The Council provided poor or no information about a tenancy swap and the availability of accommodation

63. The Council said there was no arrangement with Council B about tenancy swaps and so I do not find any fault in not advising Ms E about a scheme which did not exist.
64. There is a dispute about what happened when Ms E arrived to view Property L. She said there was no-one there to meet her and the Council said the managing agent told officers she had refused the property. The Council’s case records indicate Ms E told an officer she had seen a mugging and would not stay in the area. I am satisfied on the evidence available that Ms E had decided not to take the property based on what she told the officer afterwards. And, while there was confusion about what was agreed between the managing agent, council officers and Ms E about the viewing and its timing, there is not enough evidence to find fault by the Council.
65. Property N was a private rented property which the Council was attempting to secure for Ms E to fulfill the relief duty. This did not mean the Council had any control over whether Ms E was successful, as the Council was not the landlord and there was no contract between the Council and the owner of Property N. The records indicate the managing agent did not offer Ms E a tenancy. I note the managing agent did not respond to the housing benefit and needs officer’s request for feedback about the viewing for several days, but this was not within the Council’s control. There is no fault.

Complaint f: The Council failed to assist Ms E with private lettings between November 2018 and January 2019

66. I am satisfied the Council’s private letting team provided appropriate support to identify vacancies, put Ms E forward for privately rented properties and liaise with managing agents. It was frustrating and stressful for Ms E to be told she was unsuccessful and to have to chase up what was happening, but the Council had no control over how quickly managing agents responded or whether they chose to offer her a tenancy or not. So there is no fault by the Council.

Complaint g: The Council failed to provide Ms E with appropriate support

67. The Council provided Ms E with specialist support and advice through DAIS, which also made referrals for her to other specialist services (mental health, therapy, alcohol support and social services and floating support). And DAIS offered to refer her to local domestic abuse services when she was not in Hackney. I also note officers from DAIS were responsive to Ms E’s needs and took action that was beyond their remit including arranging prescriptions and therapy appointments for Ms E. I do not uphold this complaint.

Complaint h: The Council failed to make reasonable adjustments when dealing with Ms E

68. The Council had an anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments. What is a reasonable adjustment is for the Council and not the Ombudsman to decide.
69. Ms E’s legal adviser wrote to the Council asking it to make some adjustments to its homeless services to Ms E including: pre-arranging interim accommodation before she travelled to Hackney, placing her in the borough and arranging support services. I am satisfied the Council considered these requests and responded appropriately by making referrals to different support agencies. Where it was not reasonable to make an adjustment, the Council explained why. I have no grounds to criticise those explanations which were around the availability of emergency housing.

Agreed action

70. To remedy the injustice described in the previous section, the Council should, within one month, apologise and make her a symbolic payment of £250. In recommending this remedy, I have taken into account Ms E’s own action in turning down a self-contained studio flat (Property L) in a north London borough close to Hackney in June 2018. Had she taken Property L, it would have avoided the need for the later interim placement at Property X where there appear to have been unresolved repairs and maintenance issues.

Back to top

Final decision

71. I have upheld some of Ms E’s complaints. There was a delay in completing a homeless assessment and personalised housing plan, in issuing decisions and in providing interim accommodation. The delay caused Ms E uncertainty about the action the Council would take to help her secure housing and meant she could not challenge a decision using the statutory review process. There was also a failure to respond to Ms E’s reports of disrepair. To remedy the injustice, the Council should, within one month, apologise and make her a symbolic payment of £250.
72. I have completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman