Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it decided Miss X and her children were not eligible for support under its Restorative Justice (Grenfell Tower) Programme.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to stop paying her and her children a fund under its Restorative Justice (Grenfell Tower) Programme. Miss X was unhappy the Council decided to recover the funds it paid her in 2024-2025.
2. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused her upset and uncertainty and negatively impacted her children’s wellbeing.

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. 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

What I have and have not considered

5. In addition to the matters set out in paragraph one, Miss X also complained about the Council’s decision to ask her to move out of her Council-owned property after her ex-partner, Mr Y, left the home and ended their tenancy, and about how it communicated that decision to her. The Ombudsman cannot consider matters about a council’s actions when the council acted as the person’s landlord. Therefore, I cannot consider this element of Miss X’s complaint. She can choose to complain to the Housing Ombudsman, who investigate complaints about landlords, including councils.
6. When Mr Y ended the tenancy, the Council took an application from Miss X to join its social housing register, to wait for a new property. Miss X is unhappy about how the Council assessed her and her family’s housing needs, including how many bedrooms she needed.
7. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal, or to have used their right of review when it was available to them. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
8. The Council’s allocation scheme sets out an applicant can ask for a review of certain decisions it makes about its social housing register. This includes how many bedrooms the person needs. Miss X has not asked the Council to review how it assessed her housing needs and it was reasonable for her to do so. As a result, I have not investigated that part of Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

11. In 2023, the Council agreed to the Grenfell Global Settlement Agreement (GSA). This was a civil compensation agreement worth around £150 million, reached after individuals affected by the Grenfell Tower fire began civil claims against the Council and other organisations. The GSA included a requirement for part of the money to be spent for the benefit of bereaved people, survivors the fire and the local community.
12. As a result, and following consultation with those affected, the Council implemented the Restorative Justice (Grenfell Support) Programme (RJP). The RJP sets out how the Council will support people affected by the Grenfell Tower fire between 2024 and 2028. It began in June 2024.
13. To be eligible for support under the RJP, a person had to be:
• Immediately bereaved (lost a partner children, sibling or parent);
• A bereaved relative;
• A former resident of the Tower and who escaped it on the night of the fire;
• A visitor to the Tower, who escaped it on the night of the fire;
• A former resident of the Tower who was not present on the night of the fire;
• A former resident of Grenfell Walk, who escaped their property on the night of the fire; or
• A bereaved person or survivor who do not fall into the other categories.
14. Eligible people would receive a sum of money as well as the option of other support including access to key workers. Children living in a household with an eligible person are also eligible for support.

What happened

15. Mr Y was living at the Grenfell Tower at the time of the fire. Miss X had a child with Mr Y and was pregnant. Miss X was moving her belongings into the Tower in preparation for her and their child to move in.
16. In June 2024, the Council decided Mr Y was eligible for support under the RJP because he had a tenancy at the Tower when the fire occurred. It assumed Miss X was also on the tenancy and that the children were living with her and Mr Y too.
17. Therefore, Miss X received funds of £5,500, made up of £2,000 each for her and her first child and £1,500 for her second child. Miss X also had access to key workers to support the family. Her children received education bursaries as part of the RJP, for a total of a further £15,500 in funds.
18. In February 2025, the Council service responsible for making decisions on the RJP became aware Miss X had not been on Mr Y’s tenancy at the Tower and had not been living there at the time of the fire. As a result, it decided Miss X had not been eligible for support under the RJP. The Council explained that, as a result, Miss X would no longer have access to the key workers.
19. The Council said that her children were not eligible either, because they had not been living with Mr Y in June 2024 (when the RJP started). The Council said “we cannot apply any discretions to the eligibility process”.
20. The Council said that because Miss X and her children were not eligible, it would recoup the money she had not yet spent. This amounted to around £12,500. The Council recouped the funds and has confirmed it is not seeking to recover the remaining money from Miss X.
21. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s decision. She said that while she had not been at the Tower during the fire, she had been in the process of moving in and her belongings were there and had been burnt. Miss X said she had a real lived connection to the Tower. The Council confirmed its decision and said it was “based purely on the eligibility decisions…and does not relate to the broader challenges and vulnerabilities you have set out”.
22. Miss X disputes that Mr Y was not living with her and her children in June 2024. She says he “officially” moved out in August 2024. The Council has provided evidence which shows Miss X told it she had separated from Mr Y in 2022. It also shows Miss X applied for a single-person’s discount to council tax and for the tenancy agreement to be in her name only in that year. Miss has been unable to provide evidence that Mr Y moved out in August 2024.

Findings

23. Typically, if a council has funds available to support certain people in its area, it will create a policy which sets out what eligibility criteria an applicant must meet in order to receive that support. In addition, councils normally have the choice to provide the support to people who do not meet the eligibility criteria, but who have exceptional circumstances which justify the council making an exception. This is called discretion.
24. However, the RJP is funded by the GSA, which was agreed following a legal process and which, as a result, is restricted only to people who meet the eligibility criteria. In this case, the Council cannot apply any discretion. The Council was not at fault in how it decided Miss X was not eligible for funds under the RJP; she did not meet the eligibility criteria and no discretion was possible. Therefore, it was entitled to recoup the funds it had mistakenly paid. When Miss X explained that she felt she had exceptional circumstances which warranted support under the RJP, the Council confirmed she was not eligible. While it may have been preferable for the Council to have explained why it did not have any discretion and therefore why the exceptional circumstances Miss X had set out had no bearing on its decision, this does not amount to fault.
25. Miss X feels her children are eligible for support because their father, Mr Y, was a resident of the Tower. However, support for children is only available if there was an eligible person in the household at the time the RJP began in June 2024. Although Miss X disputes this, evidence from the Council indicates Mr Y was not living with her and their children in June 2024. Miss X has been unable to provide evidence in support of her view that Mr Y moved out in August 2024. Therefore, on balance of probabilities, it is likely Mr Y moved out before June 2024. This means Miss X’s children were not eligible for support under the RJP.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find the Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman