Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s application to host a Ukrainian Refugee and its response to his subsequent concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council considered his application to host a Ukrainian Refugee, Ms Y, who wanted to relocate from a different part of the UK. He said it did not follow Government guidance. He said the Council had also failed to address all the concerns he had raised in its responses to him. Mr X wants the Council to address the complaints he has made to it.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered his application to host a Ukrainian Refugee. The Council’s complaint response provides a chronology of contact it had with Mr X, and advice it gave him about applying to be a host. The Council told Mr X that Ms Y could not move into his property until it had approved him as a host. The Council followed Government guidance. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
6. Mr X wanted to host a specefic refugee, Ms Y, who was moving from a different part of the UK. The Council turned down that rematch but agreed to rematch him with existing refugees within its own area.
7. In its complaint response the Council said Ms Y and Mr X had not followed the correct rematch process for Ms Y to transfer in from a different host area. It also said its initial decision to reject Ms Y was because it was not clear what financial support was available for her as she was moving in from different part of the UK. However, in its final complaint response it accepted the lack of financial support was not a reason to reject the application. It apologised for any confusion caused.
8. We will not investigate this complaint further. Any fault identified by the Council in its decision to reject Ms Y’s rematch application has not caused Mr X a significant injustice. The Council agreed Mr X could host an existing refugee in its own area. Ms Y could complain in her own right if she was unhappy about how the Council dealt with her application.
9. Mr X is unhappy the Council used the complaints procedure when he challenged its decision he could not act as a host for Ms Y. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it could have sent a service response but felt the complaint procedure was more fitting. It apologised for any delay in sending its complaint response. We will not investigate this complaint further. The Council’s decision to consider Mr X’s concerns through the complaint procedure has not caused Mr X a significant injustice.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has failed to respond to all his concerns. I have reviewed the Council’s complaint responses and it has provided a thorough and proportionate response to the complaints Mr X has made. It has explained the role of its complaint’s procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman