Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Not Upheld Reference 21-005-747 Sector Housing Category Homelessness Decided 01 March 2022

View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea scorecard

Full decision

Ms X complains about matters dating back to 2017. However, I have not investigated things that happened before April 2021.

This is because we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) There is no reason Ms X could not have complained about the earlier issues sooner and so there is no reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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) 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)

How I considered this complaint

I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.

I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.

Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

What I found

Ms X sent an email to the Council in April 2021 asking for help with her housing.

The Council sent Ms X a “self-referral form” which she completed and returned.

The Council offered Ms X a telephone assessment in early May.

Ms X replied to ask for a face-to-face meeting. The Council explained that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, its staff were working from home and could not meet in person. It offered to arrange a video call instead.

Ms X never responded to this offer. The Council send two further emails, to which Ms X did not reply.

Ms X then complained to the Council in July.

My findings

The Council made efforts to engage with Ms X to complete its assessment which she did not take up. This is her choice.

I understand her wish to have an in-person meeting. However, the Council followed the COVID-19 guidelines in place at the time by asking its officers to work from home.

The Council attempted to reach a compromise by offering Ms X a video call instead. Ms X did not respond to the Council’s emails about this. The Council is not at fault.

Final decision

I have completed my investigation. The Council is not at fault.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-004-479 Upheld
25-013-395 Other
25-022-934 Other
25-026-470 Other
25-014-675 Other
View all decisions for this organisation