Summary: There was no fault that the Council decided Mr X could no longer be a sponsor under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. It took a decision it could take and there was no fault in the decision making. There was fault in the way it told Mr X about this decision and that fault caused him an injustice. The Council have agreed to apologise to Mr X to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council were wrong to finish his status as a sponsor for Ukrainian refugees, because it made an arbitrary decision and never gave him a reason.
2. Mr X said this caused him significant expense because he was hosting refugees without any funding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
7. I read the documents Mr X and the Council provided.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments I received before making a decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background to Homes for Ukraine Scheme

9. In March 2022, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DHLUC) set up a scheme which would allow UK citizens (sponsors) to house Ukrainian refugees (guests).
10. The DHLUC ran the scheme and councils had a role in supporting sponsors and guests locally who had been ‘matched’.

What should have happened

Safeguarding

11. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect.

Homes for Ukraine

12. The DHLUC issued separate guidance for sponsors and councils. It said the role of sponsors was likely to be a challenging one and highlighted guests may need extra support because of previous trauma.
13. The guidance also highlighted that councils should use existing safeguarding powers to respond to any concerns, including after the initial checks.
14. The guidance says councils should take action where there are safeguarding or welfare concerns and says, in these circumstances, the scheme would support guests to find another sponsor.

What happened

15. In late March 2022, DHLUC contacted the Council to let it know it matched Mr X with a Ukrainian family. It also told the Council one of the children had a serious physical disability, and an adult had a serious medical condition.
16. In early May, the Council visited Mr X, at which point the family had arrived and were living at his home. The Council said they completed an accommodation check and started the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) process, to check Mr X’s suitability to be a sponsor.
17. The Council confirmed Mr X completed the DBS process satisfactorily.
18. In early July, the Council started a safeguarding enquiry under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. The case notes say it had information there was a safeguarding concern, because of the conduct of one of the adult guests (H).
19. Following this, the Council asked H to leave Mr X’s property while it carried out its enquiries. In late July, H returned to the property and the Council notes reflect it saw Mr X’s presence at the property as being a ‘protective factor’.
20. In mid-August, there was a violent incident at Mr X’s property, when H tried to force entry to a room occupied by the other adult guest (K). the police arrested H, who was injured during the incident.
21. The Council recorded a concern in their case notes about the possibility of a further incident, and the risk this may pose to the safety of the children should this happen. They also had information Mr X had struck H during the incident.
22. The Council noted Mr X had said he had acted in self-defence. Notwithstanding, the Council notes show it was concerned it could not properly safeguard the children, because of the circumstances connected to the family living at Mr X’s home.
23. Two days after the incident the Council decided that Mr X could no longer be a sponsor for this Ukrainian family.
24. The Council’s record shows two council officers made this decision after they had a discussion together. The officers were from Childrens Social Care and the department responsible for overseeing the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
25. The Council records note the decision as ‘the family can no longer remain with (Mr X) due to the significant nature of the incident between him and (H)’.
26. The Council knew the police were taking no further action against Mr X at that point. It also recorded it would need to speak to the housing authority (Council B) about assessing the Ukrainian family’s needs or consider identifying a new sponsor for the family.
27. It also said it would need to speak to K about the fact they and their children could no longer live at Mr X’s property.
28. Following this, the Council then updated K they would have to leave Mr X’s property because of the safeguarding concern. They also contacted Mr X. The notes show Mr X was aware of the Council’s concern for the safety of the guest children while they lived at his property.
29. Mr X agreed to voluntarily move out of his property immediately, to avoid the need for K and their children to find alternative accommodation. Mr X agreed he would remain away from his home until late September. The notes of the discussion show Mr X was aware his presence, together with the family, were the cause for concern for the safety of the children.
30. The Council did not tell Mr X at that point it had decided he was no longer able to be a sponsor. This included the removal of the payments he would have otherwise been due under the scheme.
31. The following day, Mr X then started an exchange with the Council. He said he believed he had wrongly been labelled as ‘a risk’ to the safety of the children of the Ukrainian family and asked for an urgent review.
32. In early September the Council asked Mr X, H and K to each sign a ‘contract of expectations’. The Council made a record of the fact there was nothing to prevent Mr X returning to his home.
33. It also recorded at that point, there was no police investigation and the police had not charged anyone after the incident in August.
34. In a letter the Council sent to Mr X about a week later, it responded to some issues Mr X had raised. Alongside these it told him it had a concern there was still the potential for a police investigation.
35. In mid-September, the Council have a record they contacted Mr X, explaining he was no longer considered a suitable sponsor to host guests under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. It also said he would no longer be able to claim the hosting payments.
36. Around this time, during the complaint correspondence, the Council wrote to Mr X and confirmed that he could not continue as a sponsor under the scheme. The letter also told Mr X that Children’s Social Care had no objection to K living at his home. It said if he carried on with this arrangement, it would then be a private matter outside the Homes for Ukraine scheme and with no financial support available.
37. In late September, Mr X escalated his complaint through his Councillor. Mr X said he believed the Council should rehouse the family.
38. In early November, the Council sent a second response to Mr X’s complaint. It said as a goodwill gesture it would reinstate the monthly payments to Mr X. It said these would carry on until Council B had rehoused the family.
39. It told Mr X it was making the payments because it recognised he was in a difficult situation. It said it was also doing this because Council B had not yet found alternative accommodation for the family.
40. In early February, Mr X reiterated his complaint that the Council had not rehoused the family and notified his MP. He also told the Council he was making a complaint against Council B, about the family’s needs. Mr X’s MP then wrote to the Council asking it to review Mr X’s case.
41. In mid-February, the Council contacted the police to ask whether there were any proceedings after the incident in August. The police responded saying they were taking no action.
42. In a letter the Council sent to Mr X’s MP, the Council said it had suspended Mr X’s payments, because there was an ongoing police investigation and there were serious safeguarding and welfare concerns.
43. It also said because there was now no police investigation, it was reinstating Mr X as a sponsor.
44. When I spoke to Mr X, he confirmed the Council had paid the money that would have been due to him but for the suspension of his hosting arrangement.

My findings

45. Mr X said the Council decision to end his status as a sponsor was wrong, was arbitrary and it did not give him a reason.
46. The guidance makes it clear the Council can decide a sponsor is no longer suitable because of safeguarding concerns. The Council responded to a safeguarding concern and initiated steps to look for alternative accommodation for K and their family.
47. They decided that Mr X would be unable to sponsor this family. This was a decision that took place after a discussion between two council officers who had responsibilities under the guidance.
48. There is no fault in the way the Council decided to end Mr X’s status as a sponsor. This was not an unreasonable decision for it to take, therefore I cannot find fault with it.
49. Mr X expressed a view that because the Council paid him goodwill payments, this meant its original decision was at fault; I do not agree. The Council was not a housing authority and it recognised Mr X was in a difficult position. When it became evident K and their family were unlikely to be rehoused in a reasonable timescale, it recognised it could provide discretionary support. This is appropriate decision making.
50. The Council did not tell Mr X about the decision to end his status as a sponsor until a month after it decided. This was after he agreed to leave his home to avoid disruption to K and their children.
51. The Council told Mr X in a telephone conversation and confirmed this in writing in a response to his complaint. On both occasions It told him it decided it was ‘no longer appropriate’ for him to be a sponsor.
52. This was a fault in communication. The Council missed an opportunity to ensure it properly set out its rationale for why the arrangement was inappropriate. This would have also allayed any concerns Mr X may have had and allow him to make informed decisions about his housing arrangements.
53. I do note during contact over safeguarding considerations, the Council did explain to Mr X that it was concerned about the unique housing arrangements, rather than a risk Mr X himself posed.
54. However, it could have explained this in the context of why that also meant the sponsoring arrangement was now not suitable. This would have meant the Council would have been in a more defensible position.
55. It also would have meant a later concern Mr X expressed, over whether this decision hinged on their being a police investigation or otherwise, would not have existed. This fault caused an injustice because it left Mr X with uncertainty.
56. I also note the Council told Mr X if he continued to provide a home to the Ukrainian family, then this would be done so as a private arrangement. Therefore, by his own decisions, Mr X has partly contributed to any injustice he has experienced.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. Within one month of the date of my decision, the Council have agreed to apologise to Mr X for the fault in how it communicated its decision to remove him from the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
58. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

59. There was no fault in the Council’s decision making, but some fault in how it communicated this decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman