Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approach to vetting sponsors under the Homes for Ukraine Scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision to require sponsors to undergo Standard, rather than Basic Disclosure and Baring Service checks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains that the Council’s approach to vetting sponsors under the Homes for Ukraine Scheme does not conform to Government guidance, and has resulted in his application being unfairly refused. Mr X says this has caused him distress and ended his relationship with the person he was sponsoring.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In March 2022, the Government launched the Homes for Ukraine Scheme, which allowed Ukrainian refugees fleeing the war in their country to enter the UK and stay with a sponsor in their home.
7. Under the scheme Councils are required to carry out safeguarding enquiries, including arranging for Disclosure and Baring Service (DBS) checks to be carried out of the sponsor. The Government issued guidance to Councils which says that in cases where a sponsor is providing a home to an adult with no additional support needs, a Basic DBS check should be carried out. A Basic DBS check highlights unspent convictions.
8. The Council’s website explains its approach to safeguarding checks under the Homes for Ukraine Scheme. It says that whilst it is only required to carry out a Basic DBS check, it has made that it has made the decision to carry out a Standard DBS check in the interests of safeguarding. A Standard DBS check highlights unspent and spent convictions.
9. Mr X applied to sponsor a refugee under the scheme. His Standard DBS check highlighted a spent conviction which led to his application being refused. Mr X complains that if the Council had followed the Government guidance this conviction would not have been highlighted, and he would have been able to continue to act as a sponsor. He says the Council’s decision led to the breakdown of he and his sponsors relationship and has caused him distress.
10. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In making its decision the Council considered the Government guidance and its safeguarding duties and decided to implement a higher level of DBS checks. This is a decision it was entitled to make, and we therefore cannot question the merits of that decision. Whilst Mr X may strongly disagree with the Council’s approach, this does not mean it has done anything wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman