Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s Supported Needs Monitoring Group (SNMG) process. This related to the provision of supported accommodation for young people. He said that as a result a company of which he is a director missed out on the chance to provide the service. There was fault which caused injustice to Mr B. The Council will apologise and make a small payment.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant as Mr B. He is a director of a company, which I refer to as the Company. The Company provides semi-independent supported accommodation to young people aged 16 and 17. He complained about the Council’s handling of, and approach to, his intention to provide accommodation in the Council’s area. He considered the Council wrongly required him to go through a Supported Needs Monitoring Group (SNMG) process and then delayed in completing that process. He also complained about information the Council gave to another local authority about the provision. He said that as a result the company missed out on the chance to provide the service.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered any comments made.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. A group of local authorities in the north-west formed a framework which providers of supported accommodation can apply to join through a tendering process. This is referred to as the Placements North-West (PNW) framework.
7. The Council has its own internal supported accommodation provision. And it also has an internal framework of supported accommodation providers which was publicly tendered for. It will only place young people on the PNW Framework once it has exhausted these other options.
8. The Council has a Supported Needs Monitoring Group (SNMG). There is a document referred to as - proposed terms of reference for the Supported Housing Monitoring Group. The Council says that this is the same group only the name has changed. And that the terms of reference were approved in 2008.

What happened

9. The company leased a property in the Council’s area which it intended to offer as semi-independent supported accommodation to young people. It was accepted onto the PNW framework.
10. Mr B then approached the Council. He said that he had received referrals from three other local authorities but none from the Council. He asked if he could be added on to the Council’s list for referrals. Neither the Council nor Mr B has a copy of its response but Mr B completed a ‘supported needs – request for further information form’. This was to start what is referred to as the SNMG process. Mr B did not receive a decision from the Council and complained. The Council accepted there were delays in that process.
11. Mr B also complained about information the Council gave to another local authority who had contacted it to enquire about the company’s provision. The Council accepted the response was ambiguous and undertook to write to the authority clarifying the position. The Council did not do that until prompted by my enquiries on the complaint.

Analysis

The Council’s approach

12. It is for the Council to decide on how it wishes to organise the provision of supported accommodation in its area. Those policy decisions must follow the law and any relevant good practice. They should be clear to officers and to members of the public. The Council provided two documents which it said set out the relevant policy around the operation of the SNMG process. The one I refer to above and another which is a supplementary planning document from 1998. In responding to Mr B’s complaint the Council accepted there needed to be greater clarity about how the process operated. It said it has a draft document which it intends to consult with providers on. There is a lack of clarity about both how the SNMG process works and how it fits into the wider context of the provision of supported accommodation. That is fault.

Should this property have been subject to the SNMG process?

13. The Council said the Company was required as part of the PNW tender process to consult with the Council before submitting their tender but did not do so. The tender documents said “the Provider is advised to informally approach the relevant Local Authority housing lead before bidding to ensure that the proposed accommodation, including its location, is acceptable and does not conflict with other strategic priorities.”
14. This is not a requirement to consult with the relevant local authority. It advises to make an informal approach but that is not the same as an absolute requirement.
15. When Mr B approached the Council in August 2021 the Council should have been clear about its powers and on what basis it was proceeding. If the provider wished to be considered for provision of services to the Council then the Council was entitled to consider whether that fitted with its policy aims and provisions. And, in carrying out that exercise, it should be clear against what criteria a judgement is being made. That did not happen here. The Council’s correspondence with Mr B suggested it was considering whether it approved the property or not in a wider sense. It said “It is crucial that the Council can monitor and evaluate these applications…” and “the SNMG is separate from that. It's about whether the local authority supports the opening of the provision, whether it meets our commissioning needs/strategy, and whether it is in a safe place. If it doesn't meet these criteria, [the Council] can't support it. We have an obligation to follow due process when providers wish to open children's homes or group living homes”.
16. The Council was entitled to go through the SNMG process before it would place young people in the provision but it could not go beyond that and suggest this was some wider approval that was required before the provision could operate. In responding to Mr B’s complaint the Council said it had not suggested that the property could not operate, only that it would not place young people there until the SNMG process was complete. But the correspondence I have seen does not show that the Council was clear with Mr B about what the SNMG process meant for the Company and the operation of the property. Neither the Council nor Mr B has any record of a written response to his first enquiry so I cannot say the Council did explain its position in its early contact with Mr B. I do not consider the Council made its position clear until it responded to his complaint in April 2022. This lack of clarity in communication is fault.
17. The Council accepted there was delay in the process. And, I have seen nothing to show the Council ever told Mr B what the decision was of the SNMG process. This is fault.
18. Mr B said the first property in a council’s area of any new provider is not subject to the SNMG process. The Council said that whenever it is approached by a provider who is seeking to open a new service in its area, it would consider its existing sufficiency, whether it meets the commissioning aims and principles and where it is located to ensure there are no potential risks in the local area. And it would follow the SNMG process to do that. The fact that it was the company’s first property in the area was relevant – the Council would always seek to go through the SNMG process. But the problem was, as I have said, the lack of clarity about the basis of the SNMG process and under what powers the Council was acting.

Information the Council gave to the other local authority

19. In October 2021 a local authority who used the PNW framework asked the Council for a refence for the Company. The Council responded saying

“We have an internal process which evaluates all applications for providers who want to open new homes/provisions for children in our area, and unfortunately that has not yet been completed. We consult with colleagues in the Police, Adults, Children's and Neighbourhoods to make sure any new provision is not too close to existing services, or a high-risk area for ASB/Crime etc. Until that's completed, we can't recommend using them at this time.”

20. In responding to Mr B’s complaint in July 2022 the Council accepted the response was ambiguous and undertook to write to the other council to clarify. It failed to do that until prompted by my enquiries about the complaint.
21. The Council’s response to the other council was flawed. And that stemmed from the lack of clarity about the SNMG process.

Remedy

22. Where there has been fault we have to consider what the consequence is for the complainant and, if appropriate, ask the Council to provide a remedy for any injustice caused.
23. Mr B said that as a result of the SNMG process the company lost over £37,000. I do not have a breakdown of that figure. Where the complainant is seeking by way of remedy a significant sum for economic loss, we do not generally consider the complaint. Our role to remedy injustice, rather than to provide compensation. A claim for significant economic loss is best considered by the courts. That said, Mr B has some suffered some injustice from the fault found. Because the Council was not clear about its approach Mr B was not able to make informed choices about his business. There was also considerable delay and Mr B chased the Council frequently. The only way of providing some remedy to Mr B is by way of payment in recognition of the injustice to him.
24. In response to Mr B’s complaint the Council undertook to review the SNMG process. It is important that process is completed swiftly.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. The Council will apologise to Mr B and pay him £500.
26. The Council should complete its review of the SNMG process. It should ensure it explains how the process operates and where it fits in the wider supported accommodation provision.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions. The first within one month of the final decision and the second within two months.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was fault which caused injustice to Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman