Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr H’s complaint about it failing to provide financial support to help him move to accommodation it found him. It failed to show it had proper processes and guidance in place when dealing with obtaining, assessing, deciding, and paying quotes. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr H complains about the Council failing to provide financial support to help him move from his previous home, despite telling him it would help: as a result, he had to arrange the removal of all his belongings himself, which he found difficult due to the cost and his disabilities.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, 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 investigated

5. I did not investigate the following complaints:

• Any complaint he had about the Council’s poor communication with him around the offer of his current home. This is because the Council already accepted this, and the possible date for signing and paying rent, was lacking. It agreed to credit his rent account to cover the two periods of overlapping rent from when he was offered the property to when he signed the tenancy agreement.
• Any complaint he had about the crossover in council tax liability for his current and previous property. The Council cleared this from its discretionary council tax reduction scheme which means he does not have council tax arrears from this period.
• Investigating the above would not be justified in all the circumstances. This is because it would not result in a different outcome to that which he already has. I am satisfied the Council remedied the injustice arising from the fault it accepted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered all the information Mr H provided, the notes a colleague made of the telephone conversation they had, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr H and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr H, who has disabilities, lived in interim accommodation (Property 1) due to homelessness. In 2022, the Council accepted it owed him a full homelessness duty.
8. Near the end of February 2023, the Council nominated him for permanent accommodation (Property 2). He verbally accepted Property 2 and a week later, went to view it but was confused as the Council referred to making him a ‘provisional’ offer. While unclear whether this was a definite offer of a new home, he accepted it two days later having signed and returned an acceptance form. At this point, he asked the Council whether there was any financial help available with the costs involved of moving to Property 2.
9. The Council told him it referred his case to an officer who would contact him about giving support to move. It was prepared to help financially with the moving costs by way of a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). This is a payment an applicant can receive at a council’s discretion which helps towards housing costs.
10. The Council obtained the following quotes, having randomly chosen three removal firms from the internet:

• Firm A: The quote was £2,160 (quote1) and dated 30 March. It explained this included a contents volume not exceeding 1,500 cubic feet subject to a visit to Mr H’s house on 4 April a few days later.
• Firm B: The quote was £1,040 to move all the house contents. A Council officer emailed the firm and asked whether this would include the heavy tool box. The firm said it could provide a larger van at extra cost but, would need the Council to arrange for a forklift to be available at both properties.
• Firm C: The quote was £1,195. It would move all contents except the heavy tool box. There was nothing to show whether the Councill explored whether it could move this tool box at extra cost.

11. The Council confirmed it paid quote 1 from Firm A on 30 March.
12. The same day, the Council told Mr H it would pay his moving costs ‘in full’ through the DHP which would be paid directly to the removal firm. The award was £2,160 which was, ‘towards your removal costs’.
13. Firm A visited Mr H to do the survey in early April, which was the date set out on quote 1 for a survey. Having done so, it issued an additional separate quote (quote 2) on 12 April. This was only for the removal of the contents of the garage. This quote was for £2,640. It also reissued quote 1 for the same price previously given but clarified this was for ‘House Contents Only’ and subject to the items listed on the inventory.
14. The Council confirmed while it paid quote 1, it would not pay quote 2. This meant Mr H would either have to pay quote 2 or arrange to move the garage contents himself.
15. On 18 April, Mr H emailed the Council saying he understood the removal arranged by the Council was for everything. Mr H was shocked with the amount in quote 2 and said the ‘only way to treat this behaviour is to give them nothing’. He also said he could not let Firm A ‘rip the tax payer off’ and nor would he let the Council agree to it.
16. He was unable to pay quote 2 and began to move possessions to property 2 himself with the help of friends whom he paid.
17. The following day, the Council emailed Mr H in response to his missed call. The officer asked whether he wanted Firm A to do the removal in early May. Mr H said someone needed to visit to see how much he had moved himself. The officer said she needed to know if he intended to do the removals himself or wanted the Council to arrange it.
18. On 20 April, the Council emailed Mr H and asked whether he still wanted the funding for the house contents.
19. A week later, the Council emailed him again explaining the DHP had been paid to Firm A but, if it was not used, it would ask for a refund.
20. Mr H arranged to move the contents from the house and garage himself by using friends to help move gradually by 30 April. He said he had to pay his friends for help. He sent copies of payments he said were made from his account to a friend for help moving. These payments amounted to £2,575.
21. By 30 April, Mr H had moved out of Property 1.
22. He complained the Council’s offer of financial help:

• did not include the contents of the garage; and
• was not properly considered. He believes had this been done properly, a lower quote than the combined quote 1 and quote 2 could have been obtained by the Council for the removal of all contents.

My findings

23. I found fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. The Council failed to show it had any rationale for choosing the three firms to give a quote in the first place. Nor could it show any factors taken into account when it did so. It failed to show it had any system in place for deciding which removal firm it would ask for a quote. Instead, it randomly picked three off the internet.
2. I consider applicants, who could ultimately use one of the firms approached, should have confidence the Council carried out some rudimentary, preliminary assessment of firms chosen to ensure they were reputable and suitable, for example, without evidence of major concerns or complaints against them.
3. Nor did it show how it reached the decision to accept Firm A’s quote 1 or what factors were taken into account when it did so. It provided no procedure or guidance given to officers about how to do so.
4. It also failed to explain why it accepted quote 1 from Firm A and paid it before the survey was done several days later.
5. When it accepted and paid quote 1, it failed to clarify with Firm A whether: this was a provisional quote subject to change; all the contents (house and garage) were included in the quote; the cubic feet volume limit for contents included those in the garage.
6. When it told Mr H on 30 March that it would pay his removal costs ‘in full’, I consider it was reasonable for Mr H to assume this meant both house and garage contents. This email failed to place any conditions on his removal costs. Nor did it warn this might be subject to change due to the visit from Firm A the following day. This raised his expectations.
7. On balance, I consider it more likely than not that when it paid quote 1, the Council thought it likely the quote included both the garage and contents as it was about £1,000 higher than those received from Firms B and C who specifically excluded the garage/tool box. I say this because Firm A was the only quote the Council had not gone back to clarify in terms of the garage contents.
8. There is no evidence of the Council asking Firm C whether it could also quote for the garage contents/tool box separately. It did ask Firm B about the tool box removal. Firm B replied saying it could do it with an extra vehicle and the Council arranging a forklift.
9. I am satisfied the Council failed to clarify the issue of the garage/tool box and its costing with Firm A when it accepted quote 1. In addition, it initially raised Mr H’s expectation that the Council would pay all the removal costs in full.
10. I also note Mr H was quite clear the Council was to pay Firm A nothing and that he would not let the Council agree to it.
11. I consider the above failures amount to fault. I am satisfied the fault caused Mr H injustice in the form of distress. He had the uncertainty of not knowing whether he could have had the DHP pay for the removal of all contents from his house and garage, rather than just the house, without him having to pay the additional quote 2 or arrange for it to be done himself. This is because he lost the opportunity to have quotes properly assessed and considered. He also had his expectations raised.
12. I am also satisfied Mr H had the time, trouble, and expense of moving the contents from the garage himself with help.
13. I have not included the cost of the removal of the contents of the house Mr H arranged and moved himself as part of the injustice. This is because the Council paid for quote 1 and so the removal of house contents could still have been done at no cost or inconvenience to Mr H had he wished to use Firm A.
14. While Mr H sent copies of financial payments he made to a person amounting to £2,575, there is nothing to show what these were for. I also note the payments were made between July and December 2023, months after the move.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. I considered our guidance on remedies.
25. I also considered the fact the Council paid for quote 1 and so Mr H could have proceeded with the house content removal at no cost to him and without him having to arrange for this removal himself.
26. The Council agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, unless otherwise stated:
1. Send Mr H a written apology for failing to: show it had any rationale for choosing the three removal firms to give an initial quote; show any factors were taken into account when it did so; show it had a system in place for assessing and deciding which removal firms it would ask for a quote; show how and why it reached its decision to accept a quote; show why it decided to pay the quote before the survey visit; clarify whether this was a provisional quote subject to change, covering both house and garage contents, and checking the specified cubic feet volume limitation was enough; clarify with another firm whether it could provide a quote for the garage contents too.
2. Pay £350 to Mr H for the injustice caused.
3. Pay a contribution of £250 to Mr H for the cost of moving the contents of the garage/tool box.
4. Within eight weeks of the final decision on this complaint, to ensure it has procedures and guidance in place for officers for: i) choosing firms to provide removal quotes; ii) assessing and deciding which quote to accept; iii) deciding when to make payments of quotes.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I found fault on Mr H’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman