Summary: Ms C says the Council based its decision to refuse her application to house Ukrainian refugees on incorrect information, extended that restriction to any Ukrainian refugee and refused to put her complaint through the Council’s complaints procedure. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Ms C’s application under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. The Council gave Ms C misleading information about the extent of the restriction and there was confusion about how the Council dealt with her complaint. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C, complained the Council:
• unreasonably refused her application to house Ukrainian refugees;
• prohibited her from providing accommodation to any Ukrainian refugee, without any power to do so;
• refused to allow her to challenge the Council’s decision under its complaints procedure until she complained to the Ombudsman.
2. Ms C says the Council’s actions have affected her ability to provide accommodation to Ukrainian friends she has contact with as part of her charity work and has caused her stress.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms C's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Ms C and the organisation 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

What should have happened

8. In March 2022 the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DHLUC) set up a scheme which would allow UK citizens (sponsors) to house Ukrainian refugees (guests).
9. The DHLUC ran the scheme and councils had a role in supporting sponsors and guests locally who had been 'matched'.
10. According to the guidance councils are responsible for ensuring Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are completed.
11. The guidance also says councils have a duty to promote the welfare of all adults and children and ensure there are no safeguarding concerns relating to an application to join the scheme.
12. Councils must make at least one in-person visit prior to the arrival of guests wherever possible. Councils have full discretion on the approach they take to accommodation checks and the judgements they make during these visits. Councils may consider any factors they deem relevant in order to assess whether accommodation is suitable, enabling flexibility at a local level to deal with individual cases on their merits.
13. The safety of beneficiaries and sponsors within the Homes for Ukraine scheme is paramount. Councils should assess whether any of the information gathered through their checks impacts upon a sponsor’s suitability.

What happened

14. Ms C applied to be a sponsor for Ukrainian refugees under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Ms C was offering use of one of the bedrooms in her property. The Council contacted Ms C to arrange an inspection visit in May 2022. The Council told Ms C it would need a copy of a passport, driving licence or council tax statement for any adults staying in Ms C’s property. At the time Ms C had a lodger who had lived in the country for two years.
15. The Council’s officer visited Ms C’s property on 23 May 2022. Ms C’s lodger was present but did not have any of the ID documents the Council had listed. What happened during that visit is disputed. The Council officer that completed the inspection identified some areas of significant and historic water damage to the ceiling which, in the officer’s opinion, was resulting in falling elements. After leaving the property the Council’s officer raised concerns with a manager about what he said had taken place at the property. The Council’s officer reported that Ms C had removed his mask without permission. Ms C disputes that.
16. The Council wrote to Ms C following the visit to tell her it had not accepted her as a suitable sponsor. The Council explained this was because Ms C’s lodger did not have the necessary ID documents, due to concerns about water damage in the property and concerns about Ms C’s actions during the visit. The Council told Ms C she could not allow any Ukrainian refugees to stay with her. The Council told Ms C there was no right of appeal against this decision.
17. Ms C put in a complaint on 18 June. The Council responded to that on 2 August and apologised for the delay. In that letter the Council told Ms C there were certain subject areas it would not consider as a complaint which included disagreement with a Council policy decision. The Council therefore explained it had not dealt with Ms C’s concerns as a formal complaint. The Council went through the concerns Ms C had raised and explained why it had not accepted her as a suitable sponsor.
18. Following a complaint to the Ombudsman the Council wrote to Ms C again in December 2022. The Council’s letter is headed ‘stage 2 complaint response’. In that letter the Council again said it had not dealt with Ms C’s concerns as a complaint but had, nevertheless, responded to the concerns she had raised. The Council reiterated the reasons for its decision not to accept her as a sponsor. The Council apologised though if the information in the letter in May 2022 had not been clear and confirmed the Council’s decision only affected Ms C’s ability to house Ukrainian refugees under the Homes for Ukraine scheme.

Analysis

19. Ms C says the Council unreasonably refused her application to house Ukrainian refugees. In particular, Ms C says the Council was not clear with her about what ID her lodger would have to provide at the visit, about the concerns raised on the state of the property not being accurate and about what was alleged to have taken place at her property, which she said did not happen.
20. In terms of the documentation the Council needed from Ms C’s lodger, I am satisfied the Council confirmed the documentation required before the visit took place. The notes from the visit record none of the ID requested was available for Ms C’s lodger. As I am satisfied the Council told Ms C in advance what documentation was required and invited her to contact it if the household member could not provide the required documentation I have no grounds to criticise it.
21. The second issue is whether Ms C’s property was suitable. I am satisfied the officer dealing with the case viewed Ms C’s property and recorded concerns about some water damage. He decided that meant the property was unsuitable. I appreciate Ms C strongly disagrees with the view reached by the officer. However, as I said in paragraph 4, it is not my role to comment on the merits of a decision reached without fault. In this case the officer viewed the water damage at Ms C’s property before reaching a decision. I therefore could not say there was fault in that process. I consider it likely though the Council would have addressed that issue with Ms C separately had there not been other issues preventing the application going forward. So, while Ms C may have had an opportunity to address the officer’s concerns had other issues not prevented the Council approving her as a sponsor that was not an option in this case due to the other concerns raised.
22. I appreciate though Ms C strongly disputes she removed the Council officer’s face mask without his permission during the visit. That is one of the reasons the Council refused the application as it did not consider Ms C’s conduct acceptable. I understand Ms C says this incident did not happen. The Ombudsman cannot take evidence on oath and I therefore cannot adjudicate on whose recollection of the visit is accurate. I do note though shortly after that visit the officer concerned provided details of what he said had happened during the visit, which reflects the reasoning set out in the Council’s letter of 25 May 2022. The Council has wide discretion when deciding whether an applicant is suitable to be a sponsor for the Homes for Ukraine scheme. In this case as the officer had reported difficulties during the visit shortly after it took place and given there were other concerns raised during that visit I could not criticise the Council for deciding Ms C should not be accepted as a sponsor under the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
23. I am concerned though that when telling Ms C about the decision the Council said she must not permit any Ukrainian refugees to stay with her. I understand why that would have caused Ms C concern because she is involved in a charity which provides help to Ukrainian and Belarusian children and she therefore has had Ukrainians staying with her at her property previously. I would have expected the Council to make clear in its decision letter that the decision only affected the ability of Ms C to allow Ukrainian refugees stay with her as a sponsor under the Homes for Ukraine scheme and that it would not affect her other work which did not involve that arrangement. Failure to make that clear is fault. I am satisfied the Council apologised for the confusion in its response to Ms C’s stage two complaint in December 2022. I consider that a reasonable outcome for this part of the complaint.
24. Ms C is also concerned about the Council’s refusal to take her complaint through its complaints procedure. I consider the Council’s communications with both Ms C and the Ombudsman have been confusing in relation to that point. The responses were also delayed, which is fault. The Council’s initial letter to Ms C in August 2022 told her she could not have her complaint considered through the complaints procedure as it related to a policy decision. That is also information the Council gave to the Ombudsman. The Council reiterated that information in its stage two response, despite referring throughout that response to the ‘complaint’ submitted by Ms C and that she had received a response at stages one and two of the Council’s complaints procedure.
25. I appreciate there is no right of appeal against the Council’s decision not to approve somebody as a sponsor under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. However, that should not prevent Ms C or any other applicants pursuing a complaint about how that decision was reached. Ms C had raised specific concerns about the information taken into account by the Council in reaching the decision and I would have expected the Council to deal with that under its complaints procedure. While failure to do that is fault, I am nevertheless satisfied the responses in August and December 2022 dealt with the concerns Ms C raised in the same way the Council would have done if it had accepted it as a complaint. Nevertheless, the way in which those letters are worded is confusing and any suggestion the complaint could not be dealt with under the complaints procedure is fault. I recommended the Council apologise to Ms C and send a memo to officers dealing with complaints to remind them where there is no right of appeal against a Council decision the person affected has the right to pursue a complaint through the Council’s complaints procedure if concerns are raised about the information taken into account in the decision. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Ms C for the confusion over her ability to provide accommodation to Ukrainian refugees not housed under the Homes for Ukraine scheme and for the confusion over how her complaint was dealt with; and
• send a memo to officers dealing with complaints to remind them if a person raises concerns about how a decision that affects them has been reached it can be dealt with under the complaints procedure for those matters where there is no right of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Ms C an injustice. The action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman