Agenda item

An Executive decision taken by the Deputy City Mayor for Housing on 9 January 2026 relating to a LGSCO Maladministration report has been the subject of a 5-member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D, City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules, of the Council’s Constitution.

The Committee is recommended to either:

a)    Note the report without further comment or recommendation. (If the report is noted the process continues and the call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

b)    Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in. (If comments are made the process continues and the comments and call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

c)    Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wish for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must actively withdraw it. If withdrawal is agreed the call-in process stops, the call-in will not be considered at a future meeting of Full Council and the originaldecision takes immediate affect without amendment).

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report informing the Commission that the Executive decision taken by the Deputy City Mayor for Housing on the 9th January 2026 relating to a LGSCO Maladministration report had been the subject of a 5-member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D, City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules, of the Council’s Constitution.

The Committee was recommended to either:

a)    Note the report without further comment or recommendation. (If the report was noted the process would continue and the call in would be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

b)    Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in. (If comments were made the process would continue and the comments and call in would be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

c)    Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wished for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must have actively withdrawn it. If withdrawal was agreed the call-in process would stop, the call-in would not be considered at a future meeting of Full Council and the original decision would take immediate affect without amendment).

The Chair clearly outlined the process that she would follow in determining how to resolve the call-in.

The Chair invited the proposer, Councillor Porter to present the call-in. The following points were given:

• The ombudsman reviewed cases individually and there was no evidence that this case could set a precedent for escalating other cases.
• In terms of cost, the £3,525 was relatively small compared with amounts spent on other cases.
• The council had a responsibility to rectify any mistakes it made.
• A homeless family with children could not afford legal representation, making the Ombudsman their only option. Under the Equality Act, the council was obliged to protect vulnerable individuals.
• Not acting on the Ombudsman’s recommendations could send a strong message and risk negative perception of The Council.
• A further ombudsman report would likely ensue with a recommendation to take the matter to Full Council.

The Chair invited the seconder Cllr Rae Bhatia to add comment. Key points made were as follows:

• Members were urged to support the call-in.
• It was imperative to maintain the reputation of the council.

The Chair invited the Deputy City Mayor for Housing, Economy and Neighbourhoods, The Director of Housing and the Head of Service for Housing to respond. A presentation was given (slides attached) and the following additional points raised:

• It was not uncommon for both central government and councils to decline ombudsman recommendations.
• The council recognised the effects that limited access to suitable housing on individuals and families.
• It was essential for the Commission to consider the complaints within the context of the national housing crisis.
• Wider socio-economic factors had influenced matters for the family.
• At the outset of the case, use of bed and breakfasts / hotels was an emerging trend for temporary accommodation, pressures and demands on the local authority were changing.    
• Comparisons were being made with the case of X, but it was noted that one involved a legal settlement to protect the council, while the other related to an ombudsman recommendation that was considered likely to impact the council’s ability to address the wider housing crisis.

The Chair asked if the proposer wished to withdraw the call-in. It was noted that the proposer wished for the call-in to proceed.

The Chair invited member discussion, key points to note were as follows:

·       Members emphasised the importance of distinguishing between accountability and liability. Lessons had been learnt, but factors had been outside of local authority control.

·       At a time of financial pressure, sustainability was a key and appropriate precedents needed to be set.

·       Members referenced metrics which highlighted the health impact for children living in temporary accommodation.

·       In response to a query about providing solutions for larger families, it was noted that 160 new family units would be created, comprising of 2 and 5 bedroom temporary accommodation units.

·       Mechanisms were now in place to prevent miscommunications from temporary housing offers to tenants.

·       The matter was expected to return via the ombudsman, and executive consideration would then be undertaken.

Cllr O’Neil moved that, following the points raised during the meeting, the call-in be withdrawn. This was seconded by Cllr March and upon being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

            That the call-in be withdrawn.