Summary: Ms B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of her mother’s care needs before and after she was evicted, partly due to hoarding behaviour. We have found no fault.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs C that the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) failed to:
• carry out an adequate assessment of Mrs C’s care needs;
• carry out any assessment of her hoarding compulsion or offer any support to deal with it;
• act on reports that Mrs C was without hot water, heating or a functioning toilet;
• offer any support with moving her belongings either before or after she was evicted;
• provide any support for Mrs C on the day of the eviction;
• provide any assistance with furnishing the sheltered accommodation;
• respond to any safeguarding referrals from Ms B or third parties such as her GP, or advocate; or
• explain to Ms B or Mrs C that the early help support was ending because the ‘CART’ team was taking over the case
2. These failures caused Mrs C and Ms B significant distress and confusion at a very difficult time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mrs C lived in a privately rented property. She had previously lost her job and been evicted from different accommodation due to problems arising from her immigration status, often referred to as the ‘Windrush Scandal’. These traumatic events had affected Mrs C’s ability to trust authorities and organisations. She had also developed hoarding behaviour due to the worry about what would happen to her and her belongings.

Adult social care intervention - 2023

7. In late 2022 a safeguarding concern was raised about Mrs C. The Adult Social Care team (ASC) attempted to visit Mrs C at home. They spoke to Mrs C in the communal landing and noted there were suitcases in the entrance to her flat. Mrs C did not wish to talk about the issue. She said she did not have any physical or mental health needs and declined any support from ASC. The Council concluded that no further action was necessary: it deemed Mrs C had capacity to make decisions to refuse support and advice had been given to Ms B and Mrs C about seeking physical and mental health support.
8. In mid-February 2023 the Council had a conversation with Ms B who raised concerns about Mrs C’s hoarding. The Council suggested an approach from the early help team to build rapport and trust with Mrs C and a carer’s assessment for Ms B.

Housing situation

9. By August 2023 Mrs C’s landlord had obtained a possession order for the property on the grounds of hoarding and irregular rent payments. Mrs C with the help of Ms B approached the Council for housing assistance. At the same time ASC did a health and wellbeing assessment of Mrs C. It noted that Mrs C had lost all trust in statutory services due to her experiences with the Home Office. The assessment concluded that by 1 December 2023 a health and wellbeing worker would work with Mrs C to build trust and draw up a consistent plan to tackle the hoarding issue and secure sheltered accommodation. It noted that Mrs C needed to act on her plan to send her belongings abroad or put them into storage.
10. By December 2023 engagement with the early help team had stalled and Ms B made a safeguarding referral to the Council due to her concerns about Mrs C’s precarious position: the landlord had obtained an eviction warrant for 29 February 2024. Mrs C had refused an offer of sheltered accommodation as it was too small.

Care Act assessment

11. The Housing Team (HT) made a referral to ASC to see if it could offer support with Mrs C’s circumstances. As a result of the referrals the Council decided to refer Mrs C to the Community Activity and Recovery Team (CART) for a full Care Act assessment. The case notes said:
• Mrs C was keen to address sending her items abroad; Ms B had got some quotes and was seeking funding to help with this.
• Mrs C wanted help to deal with her belongings and the repairs in her home.
• It was unclear if Mrs C had a mental health condition but would benefit from seeking help from her GP.
• An assessment would consider her capacity around her housing situation and her ability to manage it.
12. On 20 December 2023 the Council sent Ms B details of removal and storage options.
13. Mrs C was allocated to a social worker on 2 January 2024 for a care act assessment.
14. The assessment took place on 16 January 2024 at a venue, not Mrs C’s home as she did not wish anyone to visit. The Council asked Mrs C about her belongings and which items she intended to send abroad. Mrs C could not answer and got upset at the questioning. The Council asked if a social worker could come and visit to see the items and help her store them, as it was a hoarding issue. Mrs C declined and said she did not want anyone seeing her flat. She said she could not afford to send the items abroad. Ms B said she would ask HT if it could provide assistance with the cost of moving the goods abroad. The assessment concluded that Mrs C did not have any eligible care needs and that she had the capacity to make decisions. But as a preventative measure the Council had offered support with packing her belongings before the eviction.
15. On 30 January 2024 a meeting took place with Mrs C, Ms B, ASC and the HT, who had now made a new offer of one bedroom sheltered accommodation which was bigger than the previous studio flat. Mrs C said she did not trust the property offered and wanted a two-bedroom property. The Council explained the difference between general needs and sheltered housing and the likely wait times. It also said it would need medical evidence to justify the need for a second bedroom. Mrs C said she would not go to the GP. The Council encouraged Mrs C to view the property and explained the consequences of refusing a suitable offer of accommodation (the Council would end its housing duty towards her, and she would have to find her own accommodation).
16. In respect of her belongings the following issues were discussed:
• Affordability.
• Mrs C said she did not want to store her belongings but to send them abroad.
• ASC had offered to help her pack her belongings for storage.
• If Mrs C provided details of her income and expenditure the Council could help with the cost of storage. Mrs C repeated that she did not want to store her belongings but wanted to send the abroad. She said she would do it herself.
17. In terms of capacity the ASC notes said:

“I did not have any reason to doubt her mental capacity to make decisions about her housing or storage; however, it is my observation that due to previous challenges, it impacts her willingness to take in new information about her housing options. She is mistrustful of housing services and does not believe that they will help her.”

18. On 2 February 2024 ASC said Mrs C did not have any eligible care needs based on the information obtained at the meeting on 16 January 2024. She was assessed as being independent with managing the activities of daily living. It noted that Mrs C had not let anyone visit her property to assess the hoarding situation, so ASC was unclear about the level or impact of the hoarding. As a preventative measure it had offered Mrs C short-term support from a care worker with organising her belongings for storage, but she would have to allow them access to the property. ASC also considered that Mrs C may benefit from support to manage her mental wellbeing and should contact her GP in this regard.
19. In February 2024 Ms B sent multiple emails to the Council asking for help with Mrs C’s belongings. The Council said it had made multiple attempts to visit and help Mrs C, but she had declined any help.
20. On 12 February 2024 the Council responded at stage one of its complaints procedure to a formal complaint from Ms B about the help offered to Mrs C since August 2023. It did not agree that the Council should have done a safeguarding referral in August 2023 as Mrs C was receiving support from HT and ASC. It apologised for an early help social worker not attending a meeting with HT in September 2023. It explained that In December 2023 Mrs C’s case was passed to CART for a full care act assessment hence the early help case was closed. It agreed its communications on this process could have been clearer and said it would improve its procedures for the future. Ms B was unhappy with the response and escalated her complaint to stage two.
21. On 28 February 2024 ASC tried to visit Mrs C to discuss the impending eviction. Mrs C would not let them into the flat. She said she was aware of the eviction and did not want any help with her belongings. ASC also offered to visit the new flat with her and discuss any problems, but Mrs C declined. ASC recorded the following in the case notes:

“Following our discussion, I did not have doubts regarding her capacity to make decisions about her accommodation. [Mrs C} retained the information and responded to my questions intelligibly.

However, I was unsure about her willingness to accept the concerns that were communicated to her, therefore, impacting upon her ability to weigh up the risks of her being evicted from the property.”

22. Mrs C was evicted on 29 February 2024 and she moved in with Ms B. The Council received a video of the inside of the property which showed a high level of hoarding. The Council did not consider a safeguarding referral was necessary as Mrs C was no longer living in the property and so the risks to her were removed.
23. On 7 March 2024 ASC spoke to Ms B by telephone, offering support to Mrs C to sort out the unwanted items from her old flat and dispose of them. Ms B said Mrs C was unlikely to accept help as she did not want to meet any member of staff and did not want to go back to her old flat. ASC wrote to Mrs C offering a meeting to discuss all these issues, but she did not respond. ASC also contacted Mrs C’s GP to request a mental health review. Mrs C had already attended an appointment a few days earlier.
24. ASC reviewed the case in mid-March and concluded there was no role for it beyond early help support if accepted. It agreed to arrange a virtual meeting with Ms B and Mrs C to explain ASC’s position, look at arranging an advocate for Mrs C and step down the case to early help with Mrs C’s consent. The meeting was then cancelled on the day due to a senior officer not being available. The case records indicate the Council then wrote to Mrs C asking her to rearrange the meeting. ASC closed the case on 28 March 2024.
25. On 4 April 2024 the Council sent Ms B a further response to her complaint. It said Mrs C has capacity, she fully participated in and contributed to the assessment, which concluded she had no eligible care needs. The Council offered as a preventative measure, support to organise her belongings for storage, but Mrs C refused all offers of help. At the meeting with HT and ASC at the end of January 2024 Mrs C was given full housing advice, including the consequences of refusing the offer of sheltered accommodation. She said she did not want to put her belongings in storage and wanted a two bedroom property.
26. The Council also responded to an MP enquiry on 5 April 2024 repeating its view on the situation. It said that with Mrs C’s consent it could liaise with Mrs C’s ex-landlord to arrange a timetable for Mrs C to collect her belongings. It provided a link for local welfare assistance for furniture for the new sheltered accommodation.
27. On 9 April 2024 ASC again referred Mrs C to her GP for a mental health review.
28. Mrs C had a health event which caused a deterioration in her physical health. The Council agreed to refer her back to ASC for another assessment. This was completed several months later and recommended a care package of support. Mrs C was also allocated a mental health social worker to carry out a mental health assessment and an advocate was appointed.
29. Ms B complained to us in early June 2024.

Analysis

30. I have considered each aspect of Mrs C’s complaint under the relevant headings below:

Failed to carry out an adequate assessment of Mrs C’s care needs

31. The Council carried out a health and wellbeing assessment in September 2023 recommending help and support with Mrs C’s housing situation including her hoarding behaviour. It then carried out a Care Act assessment in January 2024 which concluded she did not have any eligible care and support needs, but as Mrs C had not let anyone into her property the hoarding situation could not be assessed, and Mrs C had not wished to discuss it. It carried out another assessment in the summer of 2024 after Ms B complained to us and after Mrs C’s health had deteriorated.
32. I accept this was a difficult situation as Mrs C was presenting as having capacity to make decisions, but she was deciding not to accept any help with her situation which was getting increasingly difficult. The Council initially advised Mrs C to seek help form her GP, but she did not wish to do so. Latterly in March and April 2024 the Council contacted the GP directly on two occasions to make a mental health referral.
33. I have not found fault with the actions of the Council.

Failed to carry out any assessment of her hoarding compulsion or offer any support to deal with it or offer any support with moving her belongings either before or after she was evicted

34. The Council visited Mrs C in 2023 following a safeguarding referral and tried to discuss the hoarding. Mrs C declined to let the Council in and said she did not need any support.
35. Over the rest of 2023 the Early Help Team tried to arrange support with repairs and hoarding but Mrs C did not engage.
36. In early 2024 as part of the care act assessment the Council again offered support to assess and deal with the hoarding, but Mrs C declined to let anyone into her property to enable a full assessment to take place. During the meetings on 16 and 30 January 2024 the Council offered support to Mrs C to deal with her belongings and to arrange storage, but she declined.
37. The Council visited Mrs C on 28 February 2024 the day before the eviction to offer help, but she refused.
38. After the eviction the Council offered to liaise with the landlord regarding collection of her belongings, but Mrs C did not engage.
39. I have not found fault with the Council’s actions

Failed to act on reports that Mrs C was without hot water, heating or a functioning toilet

40. There is some evidence that the Council tried to arrange help for Mrs C in 2023 but it was not successful. As detailed above the Council made several attempts in 2024 to visit Mrs C in order to assess and deal with the condition of her flat but she would not let anyone in. I have not found fault here.

Failed to provide any support for Mrs C on the day of the eviction

41. The Council says it was not routine for ASC to play a role in evictions and there is no evidence specific intervention was offered at that point. HT had offered an alternative property which it considered was suitable. ASC had visited the day before to try and offer support but Mrs C declined. I have not found fault here.

Failed to provide any assistance with furnishing the sheltered accommodation

42. The Council provided advice about and links to organisations who could provide furniture. It was not its role to provide furniture in these circumstances.

Failed to respond to any safeguarding referrals from Ms B or third parties such as her GP, or advocate

43. The Council visited Mrs C in January 2023 following a safeguarding referral. In August 2023 it considered HT was providing advice and assistance with her housing situation including liaison with ASC over the hoarding issue. In December 2023 it referred her back to ASC for a care act assessment which led to meetings and offers of support. ASC has also contacted Mrs C’s GP on several occasions to refer Mrs C for a mental health assessment. I have not found fault with its actions.

Failed to explain to Ms B or Mrs C that the early help support was ending because the ‘CART’ team was taking over the case

44. The Council responded to this point in its complaint response in February 2024 and apologised for not being clearer. However, it did not invoke a loss of service as a different team was taking over.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Ms B or Mrs C.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman