Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s dealings and communication with him regarding his role as a host for guests under the Government’s Homes for Ukraine scheme. We have found fault by the Council in its communication with Mr X about its decision on his suitability as a host. We consider the Council has already taken suitable action to remedy the injustice this caused. We have not found fault by the Council on the other parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, complains about the Council’s dealings and communication with him regarding his role as a host for guests under the Government’s Homes for Ukraine scheme. He says the Council failed to:
1. consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010 when setting up its process for the checks it was required to make under the scheme. This included making adjustments for people with disabilities;
2. make reasonable adjustments for him as a person with disabilities in its communications and dealings with him about the scheme;
3. properly consider the impact of his disability in its decision-making process regarding his suitability as a host under the scheme;
4. properly communicate with him about this decision;
5. conduct a proper investigation of his complaint about the way it made its decision; and
6. properly follow its own complaints process. It escalated his complaint to stage two of its procedure and issued a final response without completing a proper review of its stage one response.
2. Mr X says, as result of these failures, the Council discriminated against him because of his disability. The way it dealt with him caused him stress and anxiety and had a detrimental effect on the management of his autism and long- term health problems. He has had to stop working because of this.
3. Mr X wants the Council to admit its failings and apologise for its discrimination against him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Mr X, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr X and the Council provided about the complaint.
8. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Homes for Ukraine scheme

9. The Government launched the Homes for Ukraine scheme (the scheme) on 14 March 2022. The scheme allowed Ukrainains to be sponsored to come to the UK and stay as guests in their sponsor’s home. Sponsors received a monthly thank you payment from the Government for hosting their guests.
10. The scheme set out the eligibility and suitability requirements for approval as a sponsor. Only sponsors who met these requirements were eligible for the thank you payments.
11. Some checks on sponsors were completed by the Home Office. Local councils completed accommodation and safeguarding checks.
12. The scheme said local councils:

• would make at least one in-person visit once guests had arrived to see if there were any welfare concerns or formal assessments which should be made;
• assess whether any of the information gathered through these checks impacted on a person’s ability to act as a sponsor; and
• had the discretion to recommend a sponsor as unsuitable if they were not satisfied with the outcome of safeguarding or welfare checks.

13. The Council set up a dedicated team to manage the process for the accommodation and safeguarding checks on sponsors living within its area.

Equality duty

14. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
15. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act include disability.
16. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Public sector equality duty

17. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities

18. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
19. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
20. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

The Council’s published equalities policy statement

21. This includes:

• with regard to the delivery of services, the Council will ensure all services are provided fairly and without discrimination. Reasonable adjustments will be made so that services are accessible to everyone one who needs them; and
• Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessments (EHRIAs) will also be carried out on council services to assess how services are provided to individuals and different sections of the community. The results will highlight areas for improvement which will be addressed through service plans.

The Council’s published complaints procedure

22. This says:

• Once a formal complaint is recorded, the Council will nominate an appropriate officer to investigate the complaint. The officer will then issue the Council’s stage one response to the complaint;
• If a complainant is dissatisfied with the stage one outcome, they should contact the complaints team who will review the response to see if there is any further clarification that can be made or any new issues. If there are, the responding manager or officer will be asked to re-consider the matter. These requests will be considered at stage two;
• The Council will then issue its response to the stage two complaint. It will also direct the complainant to the next appropriate stage, which is usually our service.

What happened

23. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Complaint background

24. Mr X applied to sponsor Ukrainian guests under the scheme. He contacted the Council in March 2022 to find out when it would carry out the checks it was required to make.
25. The Council says Mr X mentioned early on, in a phone call to an officer on the team managing the checks, that he had autism, to explain the manner of his persistent communication. But he did not, at that stage tell it about any specific needs or ask for any adjustments to the Council’s communication with him.
26. The Council completed its checks and confirmed Mr X’s suitability as a sponsor on the Government’s system. Mr X was then able to host his first Ukrainian guests under the scheme.

July 2022: Mr X sponsors his second Ukrainian guests

27. In July 2022 Mr X sponsored and hosted further guests – a family including children - under the scheme.
28. The Council’s Childrens Services team received a referral about concerns the parent had returned to Ukraine and abandoned the children.
29. A record of a call between a scheme support worker and Mr X, following the referral, says Mr X was asked to explain what was happening. He said one parent was returning the next day and the other parent at the weekend. They had gone back to collect more clothes.
30. The following day two officers from Children’s Services made an unannounced visit to Mr X’s home to check the situation. It was confirmed on this visit both parents were in Ukraine.
31. After contact with Children’s Services, the parent immediately returned to Mr X’s home. Children’s Services spoke to the parent and decided no further action was needed regarding the children’s welfare.

August 2022: Council’s decision about Mr X’s suitability as a sponsor

32. Children’s Services told the team managing the scheme about the outcome of their enquiries. The team considered the information from Children’s Services.
33. It decided Mr X should be marked as unsuitable to be a host on the Government system. The reason for this decision was recorded as being because he had provided misinformation to guests about the scheme’s rules regarding children being left in the host’s care. The Council updated the Government system with its decision.
34. The team manager told Mr X, in a phone call, the Council had decided he was not suitable as a scheme host. Mr X says he was told this was due to safeguarding but not given any other information.
35. The manager said they would have a meeting with him to explain the reasons. But Mr X heard nothing further about this although he contacted the manager and the Council many times.
36. Mr X stopped receiving the Government scheme thank you payments. His first guests moved to new accommodation. His second guests continued to live with him, outside of the scheme, making their own arrangements to pay him rent.

December 2022: Mr X tells the Council about the impact of his disability and asks for adjustments

37. A scheme worker contacted Mr X to arrange a visit to meet him and his guests and discuss any support the Council could offer.
38. Mr X said in an email before the visit:

• He was autistic and severely dyslexic. Paperwork was normally provided for him on light blue paper. If there was a lot to digest and fill in, he would ask for this in advance; and
• He had a job aide to help support him with his various disabilities at work. One of their jobs was to read through paperwork and scribe for him, and make sure he did not read the wrong meaning into a question.

39. The home visit went ahead. The Council’s record of the visit says Mr X told the support workers he had a disability and autism. He said this may have been the reason for the misunderstanding at the July visit.

January 2022: Mr X’s contact with the Council about its decision

40. Mr X’s second guests told him they planned to move out. He applied to sponsor another guest. The Council told him he could not be a host at this time because of its decision he was unsuitable to be a host.
41. Mr X contacted the new manager, who had recently taken over the scheme’s management at the Council. Mr X said the Council had never explained why it had decided he wasn’t suitable as a sponsor. He asked for a meeting.

February 2022: meeting with Mr X

42. The new team manager had a meeting with Mr X, who was supported by his job aide. The manager provided Mr X with a written explanation of the Council’s decision and gave him time to read this and ask questions.
43. Following the meeting the manager agreed to review the decision Mr X was unsuitable to be a host.

Mr X’s complaint to the Council

44. Mr X complained about its communication with him and decision about his suitability as a host. He said:

• It had discriminated against him because of his disability; and
• He should be re-instated as a suitable host under the scheme.

The Council’s review decision

45. In April, after another meeting with Mr X, the Council told him it had It had reviewed its decision about his suitability as a host. It had considered the information he had provided about his disability and the impact of his autism on his communication. It had decided to reinstate him as a suitable sponsor and host for adult guests.

The Council’s first response to Mr X’s complaint

46. The Council said:

• It agreed it should have shared the information he had autism with Children’s Services. But as the team managing the scheme had only limited information about his autism it is not clear this would have made a material difference to the conduct of Children’s Services’ visit in July;
• There was insufficient information to determine whether consideration of his autism and its impact on his communication would have made a difference to the decision in August about his suitability;
• It accepted he should have received further communication about the suitability decision. It apologised for the lack of communication about this; and
• The team supporting the scheme was now at full capacity and steps in place to improve communication with hosts and guests.

47. It also said:

• It did not uphold his complaint it had not made reasonable adjustments to communicate with him, taking into account his disability. It endeavoured to make the reasonable adjustments requested in all its recent communication with him;
• It had reviewed its processes to ensure the scheme obtained and recorded relevant information from hosts and guests regarding any specific needs to support working well with them. Where reasonable and appropriate it would adapt how it worked with Mr X and others on the scheme going forward; and
• It had reviewed what additional training regarding working with adults with autism may be required for scheme staff and put in place appropriate training for relevant staff.

Further discussions with Mr X about his complaint.

48. The Council had a further meeting with Mr X. He replied to the Council’s complaint response. He asked for compensation for the unpaid thank you payments, and the stress, damage to his reputation and time off work.
49. The Council said it would consider his comments and reply. It asked if he wanted to keep the complaint at stage one or proceed to stage two. Mr X said he would be happy to stay at stage one. He wanted the complaint resolved through the Council’s complaints procedure, if possible, without having to bring it to us.

The Council’s final response

50. The Council then issued its final (stage two) response in which it said:

• its decision remained he was not considered suitable to host children or families with children under the scheme;
• it did not consider there had been any disability discrimination against him;
• it offered a goodwill payment of £1,700 (as half of eight months’ “thank you” payments). This was on the basis he may have chosen to host adults instead of the second guests who had rented rooms with him for eight months from July 2022 to February 2023; and
• This was its final position. He could refer the complaint to us if he was not satisfied with its response.

My analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Complaint (a) Council’s Equality Act duties when setting up the scheme

51. I have not found the Council failed to consider its Equality Act duties, or any adjustments it should make for people with disabilities when it set up its scheme to carry out the required checks. This is because:

• It is not mandatory to complete an equality impact assessment before setting up a service. Here, the Council had to set up the scheme at very short notice. I do not consider it had time to complete an equality impact assessment before it was required by the Government to start completing checks on sponsors;
• It already had an equalities policy statement in place. This required the Council to make reasonable adjustments so that services were accessible to everyone who needed them. This policy applied to the delivery of the scheme services. It has told us the scheme officers responded to any stated accessibility needs on a case-by-case basis; and
• It has reviewed:
1. its processes to ensure the scheme obtains and records relevant information from hosts and guests regarding any specific needs to support working well with them. It would adapt how it worked with those with specific needs, where reasonable and appropriate to do so; and
2. what additional training might be required for scheme staff about working with adults with autism and put this in place.

52. I have not found fault by the Council regarding this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Complaint (b) reasonable adjustments for Mr X in its contact with him

53. I have not found the Council failed to properly consider making reasonable adjustments for Mr X. This is because:

• The Council anticipated it might need to make reasonable adjustments for service users and had a policy in place requiring it to make reasonable adjustments so that everyone who needed them could use its services; and
• Although the Council could have been more proactive when Mr X first said he had autism, it considered his request properly in December 2022, when he told it about the impact of his disability and reasonable adjustments he needed. The Council considered his request and put the adjustments he had asked for in place for the welfare visit, and its subsequent meetings and communication with him.

54. I have not found fault by the Council regarding this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Complaint (c) properly consider the impact of his disability when making its suitability decision

55. I don’t consider the Council failed to properly consider the impact of Mr X’s disability when making its decisions about his suitability as a host. This is because:

• The Council’s reason for its decision in August was not his communication with children’s services officers on their visit in July, which Mr X explains was impacted by his disability;
• At the time the Council made its decision in August, Mr X had not told it about the extent of the impact of his disability. Once he provided this information, following his contact and meeting with the new team manager, this was considered by the Council in its review of its decision.

56. I have not found fault with the Council in the way it made its decisions about Mr X’s suitability as a host.

Complaint (d) communicate properly about its suitability decision;

57. The Council accepts it failed to communicate properly with Mr X about its decision in August. It said it would explain its decision to him at a meeting. But it did not do this or reply to Mr X’s contact until January. In my view this was fault.
58. I consider the Council’s delay in arranging a meeting and explaining its decision caused Mr X frustration. The Council has already apologised for these communication failures. It also put this right by having a meeting with Mr X in February 2023, providing him with a written explanation of its decision and giving him the opportunity to respond. It then reviewed its decision, having considered everything he said about what had happened and the impact of his disability.
59. And it has told us its offer of a goodwill payment of £1,700 is still available should Mr X decide to accept this.
60. I consider the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the frustration caused by the delay in communicating with Mr X about its suitability decision. I have not asked the Council to take any further action.

Complaint (e) conduct a proper investigation of his complaint

61. I consider the Council conducted a proper investigation of Mr X’s complaint. The information I have seen shows the new scheme manager:

• had meetings with Mr X to discuss his concerns;
• considered the evidence Mr X provided about his disability;
• obtained the available records of the Council’s contact with Mr X about the scheme;
• made enquiries of officers working on the scheme at the relevant time; and
• reviewed Children’s Services’ records of its involvement with Mr X and the guests.

62. I appreciate Mr X feels the Council has not provided answers to all his questions. But my view is it properly considered and investigated his complaint before providing its response.
63. I have not found fault with the Council regarding this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Complaint (f) properly follow its own complaints process.

64. As explained above, in my view the Council properly investigated Mr X’s complaint before issuing its first complaint response.
65. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response. I note Mr X told it he would prefer to resolve his complaint through its complaint process. But after considering Mr X’s further comments, the Council decided its view of his complaint had not changed.
66. On that basis, I do not consider it was fault by the Council to issue its final response – giving Mr X the opportunity to bring his complaint to us if he was still unhappy with the outcome.

My conclusion

67. I do not consider, based on the information seen, there is evidence Mr X was treated less favourably than anyone else using the scheme service because of his disability.
68. I have not found fault by the Council regarding parts (a), (b) (c) (e) and (f) of Mr X’s complaint.
69. I have found fault by the Council in failing to communicate with Mr X properly about its suitability decision (part d of the complaint). But I consider the Council has already taken appropriate steps to remedy the injustice this caused, and I have not asked it to take any further action.

Back to top

Final decision

70. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council causing injustice, which has already been suitably remedied by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman