The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs B complained on her own behalf and that of her family, including her husband and seven children, including four looked-after children that Mr and Mrs B agreed to care for in 2017. She complained the Council had failed to find a satisfactory solution to provide enough living space for them all. This was Mrs B’s second complaint, after an earlier investigation found the Council had not made a satisfactory offer of support. On this occasion, we found the Council had made a largely satisfactory offer of support, although we found fault in the time taken to make that offer. The Council accepted this finding and agreed action to remedy the injustice caused as a result, set out at the end of this statement.
The complaint
I have called the complainant ‘Mrs B’. She complains on her own behalf and that of her husband ‘Mr B’. In addition, she is supported in her complaint by seven children and young people who live with Mr and Mrs B and form their household. This includes four looked after children who moved in with Mr and Mrs B in February 2018. Mrs B’s complaint is that the Council has failed to provide an adequate solution to meet the family’s need for enough living space. This is further to recommendations we made in August 2020, at which time the family were living in Mr and Mrs B’s house which was significantly overcrowded.
Mrs B acknowledges the family’s living situation is better than it was, as the Council is now supporting them to live in larger rented accommodation. However, she says the Council’s offer to continue this support subject to conditions, will create financial hardship and uncertainty. She is also distressed and frustrated at how long it has taken to resolve this complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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) 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) Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
How I considered this complaint
Before issuing this decision statement I considered the following: Mrs B’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and all supporting information she provided subsequently; Mrs B’s earlier complaint (reference 19 013 954 - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ) and information provided by the Council about how it carried out action agreed to remedy injustice caused to Mrs B and the family, resulting from our investigation of that complaint; further information provided by the Council in response to written enquiries; relevant law and Council policy summarised below; comments made by Mrs B and the Council in response to a draft version of this decision statement.
Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
Background
In July 2017 the mother of the four looked-after children at the centre of this complaint died. I will call her ‘Mrs C’. The children are two boys and two girls. At the time of Mrs C’s death, the boys were aged 15 and 9 and the girls aged 12 and 6 ( now aged 20, 14, 18 and 11 respectively).
Mr and Mrs B were relatives of Mrs C. In Autumn 2017 they made themselves known to the Council and said they would be willing to care for the children and become special guardians for them. The Council considered Mr and Mrs B suitable foster carers for the looked after children and they have lived with Mr and Mrs B since February 2018.
Mrs C’s children moved into Mr and Mrs B’s three bed family home, which they own. Mr and Mrs B already had three children in their household; a boy aged 12 and two girls aged 12 and 10 (so now aged 16 and 14). To accommodate the whole household Mr and Mrs B had to split their living room and use half of it as a bedroom for all three boys. The house had only one bathroom which caused stress when the family were getting ready for school or work, with morning routines beginning at 6:00am. The children struggled to find space to complete homework. There was no space for the family to enjoy meals together and Mr and Mrs B had to use their garage to keep their fridge and store food. Their children had to put items in storage and none of the children could have friends over for sleepovers.
Even before the Council began assessing Mr and Mrs B’s suitability as foster carers it recorded their concerns the family home was not big enough to accommodate Mrs C’s children. The Council recognised the household needed more living space and there were discussions between Mr and Mrs B and Council officers around extending the family home.
Mr and Mrs B obtained planning permission to extend their home to create three extra bedrooms, a larger downstairs living area, a second bathroom, extra WC and utility room at a cost of around £200,000. The Council considered these plans excessive. So, it asked its officers to draw up an alternative plan. This would extend the home to provide a second bathroom and two extra bedrooms. The Council considered its plans would cost around £100,000 to implement. It offered to loan this money to Mr and Mrs B, secured against their house, to be repaid in nine years. Mr and Mrs B said the Council plans would not meet the family’s housing needs and the loan terms were unaffordable.
Separately, from November 2019 onward there was dialogue between Mrs B and the Council about the alternative of renting accommodation. In response to Mrs B’s contacts, the Council put forward different proposals for how much rent it would contribute and for how long. All of these were either time limited or else relied on assumptions of what Mr and Mrs B could afford.
By January 2020, Mrs B complained to the Ombudsman that despite having first made a complaint in June 2018, no solution had been found to the family’s housing need.
In August 2020 we issued a decision statement upholding Mrs B’s complaint. We found the Council at fault because: it did not have a satisfactory policy to consider funding requests for supporting the housing needs of looked after children; it had not provided a satisfactory explanation for its position that it would support a smaller house extension than that proposed by Mr and Mrs B; it had not provided a satisfactory offer of financial support to meet the family’s need for larger accommodation. In particular, failing to demonstrate it had taken Mr and Mrs B’s ability to repay any loan or meet rental costs into account; it had delayed and missed multiple opportunities to resolve these matters and there were several times when it had failed to communicate effectively.
We said these faults had caused Mr and Mrs B and all the children involved injustice. They had been living in unsatisfactory living conditions for around 30 months. We considered that realistically the Council could have put forward a robust offer to meet their housing need within six months of Mrs C’s children moving in.
The Council accepted these findings and it agreed a series of actions to remedy the injustice caused. This included that it would carry out “a further review of the household’s housing need” in line with guidance we set out in the decision statement. It agreed “the review should complete within three months”.
The guidance in the decision statement said the review should contain the following elements: an assessment of how much space the family needed to meet their needs including an assessment of each child’s need for their own bedroom. We said the Council should consider consulting those with expertise in housing standards; for example, local environmental health officers. But that it should not restrict consideration to that of room size alone. This followed commentary in the decision statement where we said the Council also had to consider the needs of the child; a consideration of the cost of funding an extension on Mr and Mrs B’s home to meet these needs. We said this should include consideration of the cost of any temporary accommodation needed during building works; a consideration of the Council’s willingness to consider a grant to fund or part-fund the housing extension; a consideration of the Council’s willingness to consider a loan to fund or part-fund the housing extension, taking account of the affordability of any proposals it put forward; a consideration of the Council’s willingness to fund a larger extension than that it considered suitable to meet needs if Mr and Mrs B were willing to contribute additional funds to the cost; a consideration of the viability of supporting a long-term rental option for Mr and Mrs B as an alternative to a home extension. This would need to consider the costs involved to Mr and Mrs B of renting a home of suitable size; the feasibility of long term-rental; and a realistic assessment of any profit they may derive from renting their own home which they may contribute to their rent; a consideration of whether the Council could purchase a home of suitable size for rental by the family at an affordable rent, which we considered may result in less net cost to the Council over the long-term than other options.
We said the review should be carried out in the following way: that the Council could commission its own senior officer to author the review but they should be someone with no previous involvement in the events covered by the complaint; the review’s author should offer to meet with Mr and Mrs B and each of the children; that Mrs B should receive a copy of the review and be invited to comment before the Council considered it; that the consideration by the Council needed to be at Director or Cabinet level and in consultation with the senior Councillor with responsibility for looked after children; that once the review had completed the Council would confirm in writing how it proposed to support the household to move to larger accommodation.
We said the Council should try to resolve any dispute arising with Mrs B in the event she did not agree with its proposals. But that she could revert to this office if an impasse was reached.
Events since August 2020 The restrictions on working and schooling resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic increased the pressure on the household during 2020. At the end of September 2020, the Council had further discussions with Mrs B about the household moving to larger privately rented accommodation. They subsequently moved to a five-bed rented property in October 2020 and remain there. The household has converted a downstairs living room into a sixth bedroom. It has three bathrooms and a living area big enough for family meals. The Council agreed to initially support the rental agreement for six months, but it has since extended this agreement.
At the end of November 2020, a review of the family’s housing need completed, carried out by an independent person. The review explained the reviewer had spoken to Mr and Mrs B and six of the seven children. It noted that since the move to the rental property Mrs B reported a significant and positive change in the children’s emotional wellbeing. The children also confirmed the benefit to them of having a bigger home. They had more time to get ready in the morning; had their own space for homework or relaxing and could have friends visit.
The reviewer agreed with the Council that if the family home was extended it would need to provide five bedrooms. However, they considered the Council’s extension plans did not provide enough living or kitchen space and should provide a third bathroom.
The reviewer noted that to extend the family home therefore required fresh quotes for building work and checks on the availability of contractors. The reviewer said the Council and Mr and Mrs B needed to agree on the extra space required and how an extension should be funded. They said the Council must be realistic about what Mr and Mrs B could afford. It noted Mr and Mrs B had previously had their own plans drawn up for a larger extension. The reviewer said it could be ‘pragmatic’ for the Council to agree to this; agreeing to fund that percentage of the works necessary to meet the housing need, with the implication Mr and Mrs B fund the remainder.
In December 2020 Mrs B commented on the review. She welcomed parts but said it did not fully reflect the children’s views nor consider the need for each to have their own bedroom. She said the report failed to recognise that Mr and Mrs B wanted to obtain a Special Guardianship Order for the children and have a home for life plan. Also, the report did not address several of our recommendations. It did not: weigh up whether the Council should consider the option of a grant or a loan to fund an extension; consider the affordability of any options for Mr and Mrs B; did not compare the cost of long-term rental against funding an extension; did not consider if the Council had any option to buy a house and rent it to Mr and Mrs B.
At the end of December 2020, the Council referred the report to its Cabinet. After discussion in January 2021, the Cabinet agreed the Council’s Chief Executive could make an offer to Mr and Mrs B of up to £150,000 in financial support for an extension to the family home. The Council said £30,000 of this would be as a grant and the remaining £120,000 as a loan secured on the house to be repaid over fifteen years. The Council said it considered these sums reasonable based on its own estimate of the cost of extending the home. It said the Council would also offer this money towards the purchase of a bigger home if Mr and Mrs B preferred.
Mrs B responded the same month saying the offer was unaffordable and impractical. She wanted to know why the Council would only fund around 75% of the building costs needed and that in fifteen years both her and Mr B would be over state retirement age. She asked how they could afford the repayments on the loan as well as their existing mortgage. Mrs B asked the Council to consider funding the extension as a grant.
Following representations from this office also, the Council agreed to reconsider its offer. The Council had existing quotes for the extension works but in March 2021 it asked if Mrs B could provide updated quotes. It said it would carry out a financial assessment of the affordability of any loan offer, to be undertaken by one of its specialist finance officers.
Mrs B was unable to provide updated quotes nor answer all enquiries from the finance officer until August 2021. This was because between March and August the family experienced significant illness and bereavement. The quotes for the building work now exceeded £300,000. In her correspondence to the Council Mrs B indicated reluctance to continue co-operation with the financial assessment, noting she had previously undertaken a similar exercise when completing forms for financial allowances to support the care of Mrs C’s children. Mrs B said the family’s financial circumstances had not changed subsequently. But in September 2021 Mrs B did provide more information on the family outgoings.
This led the Council to make more enquiries in November 2021. Mrs B replied in early December. Her case was then referred to the Director of Children’s Services for their consideration.
The Director received two spreadsheets. The first contained a breakdown of Mr and Mrs B’s income and outgoings and was itself split into two versions. One of which excluded income and expenses Mr and Mrs B had for a second property they own which they rent out. I note the spreadsheet including the second property costs showed the household had around £50 a month spare after meeting housing costs, bills, food shopping, transport costs and so on. However, the assessment noted it did not include some items of ‘discretionary’ spending such as that spent on non-food household items, personal care like hairdressing, holidays and so on. Using the same formula that version of the spreadsheet which excluded the second property costs indicated the household would have around £760 a month before meeting ‘discretionary’ spending. The second property is therefore rented at a loss by Mr and Mrs B.
The Council has said that its assessment of the family income raised certain questions. For example, it noted some discrepancy in earnings compared with earlier income details used to calculate allowances. It also queried where money was found for a family holiday. Mrs B has commented that she was not given opportunity to comment on the spreadsheets and she has queried some of the amounts quoted for household expenses saying many are too low.
I note neither income and expense sheet set out clearly what expenses Mr and Mrs B had on their family home and the current property they rent. For example, a figure is quoted for council tax which corresponds to the amount charged on the family home. But there is no mention of the far higher council tax bill associated with the rental property. Similarly, it is not clear if the expenses mentioned for utilities are based only on the cost in the rental property or are based on the cost of maintaining services at the family home or some combination of the two.
The Council also says that in considering this financial information it compared the household’s outgoings with “that expected for a reasonable level expected for a family of that size (using online average statistics and comparisons)”. This was “to establish the affordability of any loan repayment”. On balance, the Council considered it unlikely that Mr and Mrs B had enough spare income to repay any loan offered towards an extension.
The Council told us it therefore considered its options to be funding the extension in full; continuing to fund the private sector rental property for the long-term; purchase accommodation and rent this to Mr and Mrs B or provide a ‘cash alternative’ to Mr and Mrs B. The second spreadsheet given to its Director for Children’s Services looked at these options with costings. I also note the long term rental option included consideration of support until the youngest of Mrs C’s children reached 16, 18 or 21 years of age. The spreadsheet also had notes next to each option.
In February 2022 the Council said that it could not provide a grant for the value of works needed to extend the family home. It said that it accepted it would be unviable for Mr and Mrs B to repay a loan. It offered to continue to support Mrs B with renting accommodation until the youngest of Mrs C’s children turned 18. This would be conditional on: Mr and Mrs B contributing £450 a month towards the rent from October 2022. The Council said it considered this realistic given they could rent out their home; that Mr and Mrs B to contract directly with the landlord from October 2022.
There was further correspondence with Mrs B subsequently, but this remains the Council’s position.
The current complaint Mrs B says the Council’s proposal is unaffordable. She says her and Mr B must keep up mortgage and other expenses on the family home. They also have a second rental property and must maintain the mortgage on that. Mrs B says they do not have £450 available each month.
Mrs B also says they must spend money carrying out repairs and maintenance to make their family home ready for rental. Mrs B estimates these expenses at around £9,500.
Mrs B is also unhappy it took so long for the Council to make this proposal and notes that since October 2020 she has paid for the upkeep of the family home and missed out on potential rental income. In March 2022, Mrs B provided figures suggesting the cost of maintaining the family home had been around £12,500. I note this included £500 a month towards utilities as well as council tax, water rates and insurance.
Mrs B also has concern about the security offered by the arrangement. There is uncertainty about whether Mr and Mrs B can continue renting their current home for another seven years. In addition, Mrs B wants there to be a ‘stay put’ plan for Mrs C’s children, beyond their eighteenth birthday.
In response the Council has said that it considers its proposals affordable. It notes that as well as their family home, Mr and Mrs B have their second property. It believes they could potentially raise income and/or reduce outgoings if they were to sell this and so would have a means to bring their family home up to rental standard.
The Council says it accepts it has a duty to support the looked after children beyond their eighteenth birthday. But says by the time the youngest reaches 18 this duty will have ended for some. The Council said that if the cost of the rental property increased then it would consider any request for more funding at that time. In summary, it says that it accepts there are risks with long-term rental. But taking account of “the age of the children, the current property and building/ construction market and the implications for the family (including the stress and strain) as well as the implications for the Council (including asset ownership and public value for money) related to each option” it considers this the most appropriate option.
Relevant Law Section 17 of the Children’s Act 1989 says it is the general duty of local authorities who provide children’s services to “safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need”. It says services provided by the authority can include providing accommodation or giving assistance in kind. That assistance “may be unconditional or subject to conditions as to the repayment of the assistance or of its value” (although the Council cannot seek repayment in cases where the recipient is in receipt of certain welfare benefits). Before providing assistance the Council should “have regard to the means of the child concerned and each of his parents”.
The Children’s Act defines a ‘child in need’ as one who “is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority”.
The Children and Families Act 2014 requires councils to facilitate, monitor and support ‘staying put’ arrangements for fostered young people until they reach the age of 21. This is so long as the foster carers and young person want it, and the local authority considers such an arrangement consistent with the welfare of the young person. All councils must have a policy in place therefore to ensure transition from care to independence and adulthood is based on a young person’s needs and not on age alone. In certain circumstances local authorities can continue to support a former looked after child beyond their 21st birthday.
Relevant Council policy The Council publishes a ‘Family and Friends Guide for Carers’ for foster carers who act as ‘family and friends’ foster carers (sometimes referred to as kinship foster carers or connected foster carers). The guide recognises that where children move in with foster carers there may be “insufficient living and sleeping space”. The guide says the Council has “a duty to take steps that secure, as far as reasonably practicable, sufficient accommodation within the authority’s area that meets the needs of children that are looked after, and whose circumstances are such it would be consistent with their welfare for them to be provided with accommodation in the local authority’s area”. It refers to the Council’s power under Section 17 of the Children’s Act to provide financial support towards accommodation costs. The Council says it will do this where it considers this “the most appropriate way to safeguard and promote a child’s welfare”.
The guide says the Council will consider funding property adaptations in the following circumstances: where a sibling group can be placed together; to support a permanence solution for children so they are no longer in care; and to support children’s specific needs.
The Council also publishes a ‘family and friends care policy’. This refers to sources of financial support for family and friends foster carers. It does not refer specifically to support for accommodation (except for a passage on those children living in social rented housing). But it says all payments must be “to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child” and that “a view should be taken on whether the carers need financial support based on their reasonable requirements in taking care of the child”.
Following our earlier investigation, the Council revised a further policy; that which sets out how and when it will make discretionary payments and capital loans to foster carers and adopters. It introduced its current policy in February 2021. I note that among other things this says: the Council can make discretionary payments to support ‘capital projects’ such as home extensions. These can be as a loan, a grant or combination of the two; the over-riding aim of the policy is to ensure the Council complies with its statutory duty to ensure that looked after and adopted children with additional needs are appropriately met; each decision is taken on a case-by-case basis, considering the child or young person’s assessed need, care plan and family circumstances that may be impacting on that need; ‘large’ financial loan or grant requests over £20,000 will go to the relevant Director for approval. Smaller requests will be decided by the Council’s Permanence Panel, a Senior Manager or Assistant Director dependent on the amount; the Council will only make a loan offer having considered the carer’s financial circumstances and benefit status. The decision will also take extenuating circumstances of the child/ren and carers into account such as the age of the child that may impact on the ability of the carers to repay the loan before the child turns 18; social workers should consider the particular needs of the child or young person such as disability or behaviour and those of other children or young people in the household. The policy says age and sex on their own are not a sufficient reason for a child or young person to require their own bedroom.
any consideration of providing a grant must be subject to the Council considering its own local policies including working in partnership with housing services; and those clauses in the Children’s Act which explain where a person should not be liable to repay financial assistance when receiving certain benefits.
Findings
In our investigation of Mr and Mrs B’s previous complaint we first considered Council policy towards supporting looked after children and their carers with accommodation needs. We found Council policies showed an understanding of its duty to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of children in need, which could include providing financial help towards meeting their accommodation needs.
We noted the Council had discretion about how to provide financial help. We considered it reasonable the Council had a general presumption against giving grants for home extensions because it could take account of its financial resources in deciding how to meet its duty. So, in many cases it could make such support repayable. But it had to take account of the impact of repayment on the child and their parent or carer.
However, we found fault as the Council did not have a clear decision-making framework to help officers respond to requests to meet housing needs which engaged Section 17 of the Children’s Act. We found it unclear who had the responsibility to take decisions. We also considered officers needed more support to run through a sequential decision-making process that considered the following relevant questions: does the child in need have accommodation needs?
if so, how can those needs be met?
does the Council need to support any accommodation needs financially and if so, how should it do so?
if it has a policy of offering loans what does this say about their purpose, repayment terms and so on?
I consider the Council’s policy has now improved. It has adopted a clear decision-making structure. However, the Council could still give clearer advice to officers on: when it will consider grants or loans; the terms of any loan offered.
That said, I do not consider the absence of clearer policy on these points, prevents us reaching findings on this complaint. Because the Council has considered each of the questions posed above, to the extent each is relevant to this case.
First, the Council accepts that all of Mrs C’s children have housing needs. As they are now part of Mr and Mrs B’s family, these needs can only be met by providing the family with more living accommodation than the family home provides.
Second, the Council has considered their needs can be met by providing accommodation with a minimum of five bedrooms. I find no fault in how the Council has reached this judgment. It has based its view on the review it commissioned further to our previous investigation. I understand why Mrs B and the children would prefer a minimum of six bedrooms (ideally each child would want their own room). But the role of the Council is to ensure the children’s needs are met. I consider the report produced by the reviewer gave reasons for why five bedrooms would achieve this, alongside ensuring the family has adequate living space for meals, recreation and so on.
There is no single answer in terms of what type of accommodation will meet this need. Clearly an extension to the family home could do so. But so could rented accommodation, including the house currently rented to the family (which provides a sixth bedroom). So could a suitable property purchased by the Council.
I stress the role of the Council is to meet the children’s needs. So, it is not bound to choose one of these options over another. If its chosen option will meet the children’s needs and we find it has weighed up all options, then we will not find fault.
I find it disappointing that when the Council first received the reviewer’s report this fell short in weighing up options. It did not address matters the Council had agreed to consider, including: the cost of funding an extension on Mr and Mrs B’s home to meet needs; the Council’s willingness to consider a grant to fund or part-fund the housing extension; the Council’s willingness to consider a loan to fund or part-fund the housing extension, taking account of the affordability of any proposals it put forward; the Council’s willingness to fund a larger extension than that it considered suitable to meet needs if Mr and Mrs B were willing to contribute additional funds to the cost; the viability of supporting a long-term rental option for Mr and Mrs B as an alternative to a home extension.
whether the Council could purchase a home of suitable size for rental by the family at an affordable rent.
I accept the reviewer may not have had the terms of reference or authority on behalf of the Council to explore these matters. But the Council knew our expectation here was that it consider the detail of the third and fourth questions posed in paragraph 54 about how financial support should be provided. So, it should not have made its offer to Mr and Mrs B in January 2021 without exploring these matters first. By not doing so the Council repeated its earlier mistake of offering a loan to Mr and Mrs B without assessing the affordability of its repayment terms.
The Council was at fault therefore for carrying out an incomplete review and making a premature offer of support to Mr and Mrs B in January 2021. This caused injustice as Mrs B and the family were caused further uncertainty and put to more time and trouble in clarifying the Council’s position.
I note this process of clarification then went on for another 13 months. The Council was responsible for some further delay here both in finding someone to carry out the financial assessment and considering the information gathered. So, there was some further fault. However, it is also evident that for around six months Mr and Mrs B were unable to co-operate with the financial assessment necessary for the Council to review its January 2021 proposal. I also accept that it was then necessary for the Council to clarify certain information with Mr and Mrs B. I will return below to my consideration about the extent of the Council’s fault here and its impact.
But before I do, I must consider if there is any further fault in the offer of support made in February 2022. I consider before making this offer the Council corrected the fundamental error in its approach from January 2021. Because it undertook a thorough assessment of Mr and Mrs B’s ability to repay any loan it might offer. While I note Mrs B’s disagreement with some of the amounts used by the Council in the financial assessment, there is no longer any dispute that a loan cannot be used to fund an extension. It would require repayment terms unaffordable to Mr and Mrs B. So, any solution to the children’s housing need that involves a loan is not viable.
The Council could still consider funding extension works by way of a grant, but I am satisfied that it has now weighed up this option and rejected it, preferring instead the better value for money offered by long-term support for the family to rent larger accommodation. Likewise, I am satisfied it has considered the potential to purchase the family a property and rent it to them and chosen to reject that.
I explained above that I cannot fault a decision based on disagreement alone. I understand why Mrs B would prefer the Council to fund an extension on the family home. But I consider the Council entitled to reject the suggestion, finding no evidence it has taken anything irrelevant into account in making this decision, nor ignoring any relevant consideration.
I make this finding noting the Council is clearly aware there are ‘risks’ to the long-term rental option. There can be no guarantee the family will be able to stay in the same house for the next seven years (when the youngest of Mrs C’s children turns 18). So, a change of accommodation may be necessary at some point. And I anticipate the cost of the accommodation might change over time. But there is no suggestion the Council is not committed to helping with alternative rental accommodation if at any point Mr and Mrs B must move.
Turning to the detail of the offer, Mrs B raises two principal concerns. One is with the proposed cut-off date for the arrangement – when Mrs C’s youngest child turns 18. I think the Council raises a fair point that by this time the household composition will be different. All the other children in the household will be in their twenties. It is reasonable to assume they may not all still be living at the family home. It is possible the Council may still have some responsibilities towards two of Mrs C’s other children, but they will both be over 21 and this cannot be assumed. I do not consider the Council’s proposal incompatible therefore with any ‘stay put’ plan for Mrs C’s children. Although I suggest the Council also build into its plans a commitment to review the exact circumstances at least six months before the youngest child turns 18. Because it should not fetter discretion and rule out that support may need to be extended beyond that date.
Mrs B’s second concern relates to the suggestion she and Mr B contribute £450 a month towards the property they rent.
The Council bases this suggestion on the presumption Mr and Mrs B can rent out their family home. Now the Council has made clear its intention to support the family over the long-term in a larger rental property I find no fault in this presumption. If Mr and Mrs B rent their property to gain a rental income, then this will form part of their 'means' which the Council can take account of when offering financial support.
Turning to the amount of the contribution, I note current market rental values for three bed properties in the area of Mr and Mrs B’s family home are between £800 and £1000 a month. They will have some costs associated with rental for agent fees, insurance, ongoing maintenance, vacant periods between tenants and so on. But the figure suggested by the Council would appear low enough to take account of these considerations, representing only around half the anticipated rent. This suggests the proposed contribution will be affordable.
I am also further satisfied the contribution will be affordable as on her own account Mrs B says she currently spends more than £450 a month in maintaining the family home. Once it is rented then the burden of utility costs, council tax and water rates will generally fall on the tenant and not Mr and Mrs B.
However, I recognise the point made by Mrs B that she has had to maintain expenses on the family home longer than she expected. Part of this is due to the fault identified above. On conclusion of our previous investigation, the Council had agreed to put forward a reasoned proposal to support the family with their accommodation needs by the beginning of December 2020. Yet it did not make such an offer until February 2022 – some 14 months later. As I explained above, I do not consider the Council responsible for six months of that delay. And had the Council undertaken a financial assessment sooner and found that meant it added another two months to put forward its proposal, I would not have criticised that. I consider there has been an unnecessary delay of six months therefore. This has caused frustration and distress to Mr and Mrs B as well as causing them to have higher costs in maintaining the empty family home than they would have anticipated. This is their injustice.
I also note again what I noted in the facts above – that some of the detail of the expenses Mr and Mrs B have for costs such as council tax and utilities are confusing. It would help for such costs on the family home, the home they rent and the second property they own to all be clearly delineated. I reiterate that I find no fault in the proposed figure of £450 and do not recommend the Council review it at this time. But I consider the Council should be open to a review in due course if Mr and Mrs B provide such information as to suggest the amount is unaffordable.
One further factor I have taken account of also, is that I consider the Council has taken a fair and pragmatic position towards the second property owned by Mr and Mrs B. I understand the Council’s concern that Mr and Mrs B are choosing to maintain a second property at a loss. The Council’s figures suggest Mr and Mrs B could save over £8000 a year if they did not have that property. The Council will not want to be in the position where its subsidy of the living space the household needs is also subsidising this choice. I consider it an act of goodwill by the Council that it has not instead chosen to assume Mr and Mrs B could contribute something towards the rent by treating the property as part of their ‘means’.
A further act of goodwill was for the Council to suggest a six-month lead in time that would allow Mr and Mrs B to begin renting the family home before making a financial contribution towards the rental of their current home. This was to allow them to offset some of their costs. I think this fair, although note that until the conclusion of this investigation Mr and Mrs B may reasonably have held off putting plans for renting their own property into action; in the hope we may recommend the preferred option of support with a home extension.
I therefore consider a deferment of the £450 contribution appropriate, to allow more time for the property to be made ready for rental. In accepting these findings, the Council has agreed to a proposal to extend the lead-in time for these payments. I note that in doing so it has gone beyond a recommendation I made, which reflects well upon it.
I do not consider the Council under any obligation to meet costs needed to make the property ready. While I understand these works will be a worry to Mr and Mrs B, the condition of the family home is something that is neutral to the matter of them becoming carers for Mrs C’s children. So, these works are not the Council’s responsibility to fund.
In summary therefore I find some fault in the Council not putting forward a properly reached proposal for long-term support to Mr and Mrs B and their household before February 2022.
Agreed action
The Council accepts these findings. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs B it has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision it will: provide a further apology accepting the findings of this investigation; pay Mr and Mrs B £2400 as a contribution to the costs they incurred on their family home for the six months delay; agree to defer payment of the £450 contribution until April 2023 to enable Mr and Mrs B to get their family home ready for rental; commit that it will consider extending any support beyond the 18th birthday of the youngest of Mrs C’s children no later than six months before her 18th birthday; a decision will be dependent on circumstances at that time and the commitment is made on the understanding further support cannot be assumed.
Final decision
For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr and Mrs B and their family. The Council has agreed action that I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I have now completed my investigation satisfied with its response.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman