• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Agreed action
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has failed to implement its agreed recommendations in relation to her complaint. The complaint was about the Council not helping her and her family when they were made homeless. We find the Council was at fault for the unexplained drift in the case. This caused significant stress to Mrs X. To address the injustice caused by fault, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council has failed to implement its agreed recommendations in relation to her complaint. The complaint was about the Council not helping her and her family when they were made homeless. Mrs X said this has caused her significant distress and financial hardship.

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 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 considered all the information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s complaints process

6. The Council has three stages to its complaints process. At stage three the complaint is investigated by an Independent Adjudicator (IA). The IA will write to the customer within 35 workings days of receiving the complaint explaining:
   • their decision on the complaint and the reasons for that decision;
   • any action that they have asked the Council to take as a result of their findings on the complaint;
   • how to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman or the Housing Ombudsman service if they remain unhappy.

What did happen?

7. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
8. For background, Mrs X’s complaint was that the Council did not help her family properly when they were made homeless. The Council considered this complaint at stage three of its complaints process.
9. On 25 April 2023, the IA concluded their report and identified the following faults:
   • the Council failed to comply with the homelessness code of guidance;
   • the Council did not provide adequate information about storage arrangements;
   • the Council wrongly changed the family’s priority date on their housing application;
   • the complaint was not handled in accordance with the Councils procedure.
10. To remedy the faults identified the IA recommended six recommendations:
    • recommendation one was to apologise to Mrs X and her family;
    • recommendation two was to pay Mrs X £1000 to acknowledge the avoidable stress and uncertainty, £1000 for the extra food costs of staying at a hotel, £600 for the lack of amenity associated with staying at the hotel beyond the initial six weeks and £300 to acknowledge the avoidable time and trouble in pursuing the complaint;
    • recommendation three was for the Council to restore the original banding priority date of 2 November 2012 to the family’s housing application while they remain in band three. If this means the family has missed out on an allocation of housing, consider using its discretion to increase their priority to ensure the success of their next bid;
    • recommendation four was to confirm to Mrs X that her family’s belongings are still safe in storage. Exercise discretion to allow Mrs X to extract essential items from storage without any charge. Continue to keep the family’s belongings in storage until they have settled in accommodation, if this is Mrs X’s wishes;
    • recommendation five was for the Council to ensure that officers are able to recognise and reclassify a member enquiry as a complaint in situations where the complainant is represented by a councillor. Also, to be conversant with the requirement of the complaint procedure to progress a complaint to stage two, when the Council has issued a stage one response which the complainant is dissatisfied;
    • recommendation six was for the Council to share the adjudication with relevant teams to identify any staff training requirements.
11. Mrs X complained to us in May 2023. She said since the report, she had not heard from the Council. She said the recommendations had not been implemented.
12. The Council issued an apology letter to Mrs X on 3 July 2023. It said:
    • it had amended her priority date to 2 November 2012;
    • requested her bank details so the agreed financial remedies could be paid;
    • it had contacted the storage company and confirmed she could take any essential items at no charge. It also said items would remain in storage until Mrs X requested they be delivered;
    • it was taking full responsibility and taking necessary steps to prevent it from happening in the future;
    • it will make sure it provides relevant training to all officers concerned as well as reviewing its processes.

Analysis

13. I asked the Council to explain why the report did not detail any timeframe for the recommendations to be completed by. I also asked whether Mrs X was made aware of when the Council expected to complete them. The Council said its stage three adjudicator protocol states the head of service will prioritise implementing the IA recommendations. Where recommendations involve more than one service, the relevant director will ensure the recommendations are implemented. Therefore, it said the report did not include timescales because the expectation was that they would be implemented as soon as possible. The Council said this was explained to Mrs X on 2 May 2023. But Mrs X said she had no contact from the Council until she received its apology letter in July 2023. We have two differing accounts and I therefore cannot take a view on this.
14. Whilst I understand the Council’s response, I think there is an unexplained drift in this case. The Council took nearly 10 weeks to send Mrs X the apology letter as stated in paragraph 11. The Council has also provided us with an email where a council officer has stated on 22 June 2023 ‘please can you address these recommendations this week as it seems it has fallen through the gap’. Therefore this supports the fact that there was an unexplained drift in the case. This is fault. This caused Mrs X significant stress and she spent unnecessary time and trouble in having to complain again.
15. We recognise that the Council has now evidenced it has completed recommendations one, two, three and four as detailed in the apology letter. The Council has also evidenced to us that it has completed recommendations five and six.

Back to top

Agreed action

16. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
    • apologise to Mrs X for the unexplained drift in this case;
    • pay Mrs X £150 to acknowledge the distress caused to her when she had to spend unnecessary time and trouble in complaining again.
17. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice for the reasons explained in this statement. The above agreed actions provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page