City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 004 494)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot host any more Ukrainian guests. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
- The complainant, Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to let her host further Ukrainian guests. She says the Council did not give appeal rights, listen to her perspective, or take into account relevant factors such as the personality of the guest. Mrs X wants the Council to reverse the decision and apologise.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
- We cannot disclose information about other people without their consent.
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, government guidance and information that I cannot disclose. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mrs X has hosted guests under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Mrs X tried to host another guest but was sent a letter by the government saying she is unsuitable to be a host.
- Mrs X complained to the Council; Mrs X raised many points including that the Council had not provided an explanation or appeal rights, had jumped to conclusions based on comments made by an unreliable guest, and had not given her the chance to present her side of the story.
- In response the Council said it followed government guidance which includes not disclosing information without consent. It explained it has a duty to safeguard the Ukrainian guests and there are many factors it must consider. The Council explained those factors and said it is required to assess a host’s suitability to house guests. The Council said it had considered Mrs X’s points but could not uphold her complaint.
- Mrs X disagrees with the decision. She says the Council has not provided the wording of the policy that prevents it from consulting with hosts before deciding if someone is unsuitable. She says there is no evidence the Council made a balanced decision, and it did not offer appeal rights. Mrs X also says the Council will not reconsider its decision even though she has provided ample evidence to show it should do so. She says it ignored her positive track-record as a host and the information she provided about the personality of one of the guests.
- I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have considered the government guidance and it is for councils to assess the suitability of hosts; if a council decides someone is unsuitable then it must notify the government and the government will notify the perspective host. There is no mechanism for consultation, discussion or appeal rights.
- I cannot share any information but I can confirm that the relevant issues were considered by the Council and, based on the evidence, it decided to record Mrs X as an unsuitable person to be a host. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees and I recognise she may feel frustrated that the details cannot be shared with her; but the law prevents me from sharing any information and I can only say the Council made an evidence-based decision and followed the guidance. I have not seen anything to suggest we need to start an investigation or ask the Council to apologise.
- Further, we do not act as an appeal body and it is not my role to decide if Mrs X is suitable to be a host. I have no power to tell the Council it must reverse the decision.
Final decision
- We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman