Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her and her husband’s application to sponsor Ukrainian refugees at their home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her and her husband’s application, under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, to sponsor Ukrainian refugees at their home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X and her husband had previous sponsored a refugee and their child in their home.
7. In May 2022, the Council said it identified some concerns during a home visit as the support worked observed during the visit that Mrs X stated she intended to use the refugee to care for her, but that they were useless. The social worker also recorded that Mrs X had enquired about applying for carers allowance for the refugee.
8. The Council confirmed that sponsors cannot request any services in return for accommodation, including care. The Council outlined it had concerns the expectation of provision of care in return for sponsoring guests, whether intentional or not, was likely to have pressured the guests into an arrangement that is not what the Homes for Ukraine scheme was intended for. As a result, the Council marked Mrs X and her husband as an unsuitable sponsor.
9. The Council also said that further correspondence received from Mrs X and her husband indicated that the reason for sponsoring was due to a lack of social services support or the ability to pay for private companionship. Mrs X also told the Council that if she had known they have been marked as an unsuitable host, she would have opted to move into accommodation in an older person’s residence. Council said these comments were further evidence to suggest the intention to sponsor Ukrainian refugees was as an alternative to care provision.
10. We cannot find fault with a Council’s decision just because the complainant disagrees with the decision. To find fault, we would need to be satisfied there was fault in the way the Council made its decision. In this case, the Council has clearly explained its reasons for why it decided Mrs X and her husband were not suitable hosts and provided evidence to support its decision. As the Council has properly considered the matter, it is entitled to make its decision. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman