Lancashire County Council (20 001 188)

Category : Other Categories > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 21 Apr 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains about inadequate services and support provided by the Council’s Syrian Resettlement Programme. The Council is at fault but remedied this with an apology before Mr X approached the Ombudsman.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X. has complaints about the Council’s Syrian Resettlement Programme (SRP). He complains that:
      1. The SRP has not provided him with a sufficient service regarding access to education and employment, and support in using NHS services. In particular, he was not supported to attend an appointment at a London hospital.
      2. The SRP has reneged on promises to offer him paid employment and has unreasonably refused his offer to work as an interpreter, despite others in the Syrian community voicing support for his employment.
      3. The SRP has not provided him with a mechanism to provide feedback on the SRP other than by making a formal complaint;
      4. An SRP staff member abused his power by taking unilateral decisions about the Programme without considering Mr X’s ideas or consulting properly with the community; and
      5. The SRP unreasonably blocked Mr X’s access to Facebook groups run for the community, and then did not keep to a commitment to reinstate his access.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated the SRP’s provision to Mr X.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’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

  1. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I have sent Mr X and the Council my draft statement and considered their comments before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X came to the UK from Syria in 2016 under the Lancashire Syrian Resettlement Programme (SRP) which is co-ordinated by the Council across two counties. The Council directly commissions services and employs a team which includes a health and well-being officer, who was appointed in recognition of the challenges refugees have in accessing NHS services.
  2. Mr X was unhappy with the Council service and made various complaints. He complained that he was not given money for train tickets or accompanied to attend a hospital appointment in London. The Council’s response was that transport to hospital is the responsibility of the NHS and that it expects programme members to learn to use the NHS service. It said accompanying refugees to hospital appointments was not the job of its health and well-being officer.
  3. However, the Council acknowledged to Mr X that it could have provided a better service to him and apologised. In my view an apology is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. The Council told me it has now commissioned a refugee advocacy service to ensure refugees are better supported to access health services. Mr X feels the advocacy service could have been put in place more promptly but he has not been further affected by any delay.
  4. Mr X also complained SRP failed to provide him with a sufficient service regarding access to education and employment. He said it reneged on promises to offer him paid employment as a graphic designer for a Syrian cultural festival and unreasonably refused his offer to work as an interpreter. The Council said its refugee-tailored support service offers help with CV writing, further and higher education opportunities, education on UK work culture and assistance in job searches. It said it had signposted Mr X to an interpreting course, which he completed successfully and that he had also attended enterprise/business support sessions provided by the Council. The Council provided a list of other support on offer including a year-long free English language course and assistance to attend Job Centre events.
  5. In relation to work on the festival, the Council said this was only ever a possibility, the festival had not yet taken place and as yet no design opportunity had emerged. Mr X was told immediately after his enquiry that the festival was still at a very early stage and that there were no positions yet available. In response to my draft decision Mr X provided evidence that a steering committee had been set up in 2019. He also provided examples of product designs for the festival that had been completed. This shows some work on the festival was under way but does not prove there was a position available that was unreasonably denied him.
  6. With regards to the interpreter job, the Council said recruitment to interpreter posts went through the Council’s processes and Mr X was able to apply for these roles but had not done so.
  7. I can see no evidence of fault in the Council’s provision of services to facilitate access to education or employment. There is no evidence of fault in relation to offers of employment. There is no evidence the festival job Mr X sought ever existed in practice. It remains open to him to apply for interpreter opportunities at the Council through the usual processes.
  8. Mr X said the SRP had not provided him with a mechanism to provide feedback on the SRP other than by making a formal complaint. The Council said refugees had various formal and informal routes for providing feedback including via caseworkers and use of a Facebook group as well as the Council's standard feedback form. It is not clear what mechanism the refugees had to complain about individual programme team members given the Facebook group was run by the team manager. An independent contact for complaints may have been helpful to Mr X but there is insufficient evidence for a finding of fault by the Council.
  9. With regards to Mr X’s complaint that an SRP staff member abused his power by taking unilateral decisions about the Programme without considering Mr X’s ideas or consulting properly with the community, the staff member concerned has now left the SRP. The Council has provided copies of all email communications between Mr X and the staff member which do not support the complaint.
  10. Mr X has provided a copy of an email of July 2020 that appears to be from the SRP staff member asking other staff not to sign up Mr X or refer him to commissioned projects “for the time being” as he posed a risk to the integrity of such services. I have been provided evidence that in August 2020 the Council was scrutinising the SRP in the context of complaints about the staff member concerned. There is no evidence Mr X was excluded from services or projects or otherwise caused injustice as a result of the email.
  11. The July 2020 email also asked that Mr X be excluded an online group run for the community. Mr X complained the SRP unreasonably blocked his access to the Facebook group and then did not keep to a commitment to reinstate his access. The Council said it blocked Mr X from the group because he had posted derogatory comments about individual Council staff members. It provided a screenshot of the post that prompted Mr X’s removal. Mr X also provided me with a copy of an internal discussion which refers to complaints from other group members about a previous “outburst” and the risk of families disengaging.
  12. The Council reinstated Mr X’s access to the Facebook group on 31st July but did not inform him of this until 5 August. It then provided additional guidelines to users on appropriate posting. Mr X objected to these guidelines.
  13. I can see no fault in the Council’s decision to remove Mr X from the group temporarily. The Council is at fault for failing to inform Mr X of his reinstatement for five days but there is no evidence this caused significant injustice to him.
  14. In response to my draft decision Mr X gave me the name of a staff member who he said had written a report for the Council as part of the Council’s investigation into his complaint. I asked the Council about this. It said no such report had been produced.
  15. During my investigation I have been provided with evidence of conflict between SRP staff which may have had an impact on Mr X. Employment disputes are not within the Ombudsman’s remit. I did not investigate the impact of poor employee relations on Mr X as there is no evidence of injustice likely to warrant a remedy, key staff members have since left the Council’s employment and it is unlikely I could add to the Council’s own investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have closed my complaint with a finding of fault by the Council, which had already been remedied with an apology before Mr X approached us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings