Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mr Y’s housing and care and support needs. We did not find fault with the actions of the Council’s housing department. The Council’s adult social care department was at fault for failing to complete a proper handover with another council area, insensitively communicating with Mr Y, failing to follow safeguarding procedures and poorly responding to complaints. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty and caused Mr Y distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise for this.

The complaint

1. Mr X, a representative, complains about the way the Council handled Mr Y’s housing and care and support needs. He says the Council:

• incorrectly allocated a social worker from the physical disabilities team;
• wrongly decided that Mr Y was not at risk and closed his case;
• insensitively communicated with Mr Y causing him suicidal episodes;
• failed to treat Mr Y’s suicidal episodes seriously;
• poorly handled safeguarding referrals about Mr Y;
• failed to provide Mr Y with supported accommodation since June 2022;
• failed to work closely with other council’s when Mr Y moved across multiple areas;
• encouraged Mr Y to go to areas far away to ask for supported accommodation;
• recently agreed to provide supported accommodation to Mr Y, despite there being no change in his circumstances; and
• poorly responded to his complaints.

2. Mr X says this has caused Mr Y to be homeless, vulnerable and depressed.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated matters going back to June 2022. This is because the Council’s decision-making process related to this complaint goes back to this time and there is evidence that Mr X spent considerable time trying to resolve issues with the Council. The end date of my investigation is November 2023, when Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered the information Mr X and the Council provided.
9. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered these comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Presenting need

10. The Council allocates a person to a specific team based on the person’s main presenting need.

Assessment

11. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support.

Eligible needs

12. The Care Act spells out the duty to meet eligible needs (needs which meet the eligibility criteria). (Care Act 2014, section 18)
13. The Care Act explains the different ways a council can meet eligible needs by giving examples of services that may be provided:

• Accommodation in a care home or other premises
• Care and support at home
• Counselling and social work
• Information advice and advocacy

(Care Act 2014, section 8)

Co-operating with partners

14. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance (CSSG) gives guidance on partnership working. It says the Care Act provides a duty for a council and partner to ask each other for cooperation in individual cases.
15. Where a council or partner decides to use this mechanism, they should notify the other in writing, making clear the relevant Care Act provision.

Safeguarding

16. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which means the person cannot protect themselves. (Care Act 2014, section 42).

Safeguarding and self-neglect

17. The CSSG gives councils guidance around self-neglect. This covers a wide range of behaviour including neglecting to care for health or surroundings. Self-neglect may not prompt a section 42 enquiry. An assessment should be made on a case-by-case basis. A decision on whether a safeguarding response is required will depend on the adult’s ability to protect themselves.

London multi-agency safeguarding policy and procedures 2019

18. The Council has signed up to this policy. This says the rule for managing safeguarding enquiries is that the council where the abuse/event occurred has the responsibility of carrying out duties under s42 Care Act 2014.

Mental Capacity Act

19. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.
20. A person aged 16 or over must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. A person should not be treated as unable to make a decision:

• because they make an unwise decision;
• based simply on: their age; their appearance; assumptions about their condition, or any aspect of their behaviour; or
• before all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.

Person centered approach

21. The CSSG says an assessment should be designed to reflect the wishes of the person being assessed, taking into account their presenting need and their circumstances.

Case closures/transfers to other councils

22. The CSSG gives guidance on case closures and transfers to other councils. It says ordinary residence is crucial in deciding which council is required to meet the care and support needs of adults.
23. For adults with care and support needs, the council in which the adult is ordinarily resident will be responsible for meeting their eligible needs.
24. Councils must have regard to this when determining the ordinary residence of adults who have capacity to make their own decisions about where they wish to live. Councils should apply the principle that ordinary residence is the place the person has voluntarily adopted for a settled purpose, whether for a short or long duration. Ordinary residence can be acquired as soon as the person moves to an area. There is no minimum period in which a person must be living in a particular place for them to be considered ordinarily resident there.
25. Where the person chooses to live in a different council area, the council that is currently arranging care and support and the council to which they are moving must work together to ensure that there is no interruption to the person’s care and support.
26. The key to ensuring that the adult’s care is continued is through both council’s working together and that the adult is at the centre of the process.
27. The person may request assistance from either the first or second council in helping them understand the implications of their move on their care and support, and the council should ensure that they have access to all relevant information and advice.

Council Complaints Policy

28. The Council complaints policy says it will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days.

Housing Assessments

29. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A)

Ombudsman principles of good administrative practice

30. In 2018 the Ombudsman published a guidance document setting out the standards we expect. We expect councils to deal with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively. Councils should also clearly explain the rationale for decisions.

Summary of key events.

31. Mr Y is autistic and considers he has a learning disability.
32. In May 2022, Mr Y moved to Barnet from another area (Council A). Council A referred Mr Y to the Council’s adult social care (ASC) to say he would need support. This referral said that Mr Y was self-funding accommodation in the area.
33. The Council sent this referral to its learning disabilities (LD) team, however this team had previously assessed Mr Y as ineligible for its services. It transferred the referral to a generic long-term locality team.
34. At the same time, a friend of Mr Y, Miss Z, contacted the Council. She said Mr Y would soon be homeless as he was unwilling to continue paying for his accommodation and expected the Council to find and fund new accommodation. She said if the Council did not do this, Mr Y said he would kill himself.
35. On 18 May, the NHS referred Mr Y to the LD team. In response, the LD team said it had already sent a joint letter with a psychologist, to Mr Y to tell him he did not meet its criteria. It explained the reasons for this decision, which included consideration of a psychologist’s report completed by the NHS in 2020.
36. I have read a copy of this report which was inconclusive in identifying if Mr Y had a learning disability. It noted Mr Y had difficulties in some areas of functioning, consistent with someone with a learning disability. But, there were also areas where Mr Y was “above the functioning of those with a learning disability”. The report concluded that Mr Y was independent daily, but needed some support to problem solve.
37. A week later, the NHS emailed the LD team with a copy of a GP form which said Mr Y had a moderate learning disability. In response to this, the LD team said a GP is unable to diagnose a learning disability as they are not specialists.
38. On 16 June, the long-term team completed a care act assessment. Mr X was also present as Mr Y’s advocate. This concluded:

• Mr Y had been walking into busy roads with a placard stating his need for supported accommodation. In response to concerns about this, Mr Y said this was a “risk I am prepared to take”;
• Mr Y had the mental capacity to make informed decisions about his wellbeing, safety and participate in the assessment;
• the outcome of the assessment was a proposed case closure, as Mr Y’s eligible needs could be met by the Council’s prevention and wellbeing team and universal services. The Council said it would refer Mr Y to the housing department, a mental health charity, an advisory service, and the Council’s prevention and wellbeing team; and
• Mr Y was ineligible for supported accommodation.

39. On 17 June, the long-term team emailed the LD team to ask it to reconsider working with Mr Y. They said Mr Y did not have a physical disability and there appeared to be a need for supported accommodation, which could only be provided by the LD team.
40. The LD team responded and copied Mr Y into the email. This email was addressed to the long-term team and spoke about Mr Y in the third person. It confirmed Mr Y did not meet the criteria for the LD team and there were services in the community that could help him with his mental health and suicidal ideation. The email noted supported living is “specifically for service users who have a learning disability” and the team would not provide this accommodation.
41. Mr X contacted ASC several times to ask it to arrange a multi-agency meeting and include previous council areas. The Council responded to Mr X to say it would hold a meeting, but this would include only internal Council staff.
42. Mr Y left his accommodation on 20 June, saying he would try to harm himself until the Council provided supported accommodation.
43. In response to this, ASC liaised with the NHS mental health team who met with Mr Y. The mental health team concluded Mr Y was not having a mental health crisis and had the capacity to make decisions about where he lived.
44. On 21 June, a charity made a safeguarding referral to ASC saying Mr Y had been trying to get run over. In response to this, ASC provided Mr Y with a hotel for the night. ASC then agreed to fund accommodation temporarily to prevent Mr Y being homeless.
45. ASC decided not to proceed with its safeguarding procedures, noting the threshold had not been met. It explained this was because Mr Y had the capacity to make decisions around his housing and had ongoing support from the prevention and wellbeing team.
46. Mr X contacted the LD team on 22 June, concerned about the Council’s email referred to in paragraph 37. Mr X said this was triggering to Mr Y who had already told the ASC team that a trigger for his suicidal episodes is being told that a service will not help him.
47. On 22 June, the housing department booked Mr Y into two nights accommodation on the agreement he would be available to carry out a housing assessment. The following day, Mr Y said he did not want to make a homelessness application, because he wanted ASC to provide supported accommodation. The housing department closed Mr Y’s case.
48. In July 2022, the Council held a meeting with one of the council’s that had previously supported Mr Y. Mr X and Mr Y both attended this meeting.
49. Mr Y remained in ASC funded accommodation throughout August 2022 while it made enquiries with several accommodation providers on behalf of Mr Y.
50. In October, the housing department offered Mr Y accommodation if he engaged with a housing assessment. Mr Y accepted this. However, shortly after this, on 22 October, Mr Y decided to return to private accommodation that he had previously stayed at, without engaging in an assessment. Mr Y remained at this private accommodation into November 2022.
51. Housing department records from October summarised Mr Y’s situation. It noted Mr Y is not willing to pay for his own accommodation and due to savings of over £70,000 is ineligible for housing benefits. It had offered interim accommodation, which Mr Y declined. He said he should not have to pay for accommodation that does not meet his needs, and he would only be prepared to pay for interim accommodation that is a maximum of £50 per week. The housing department said such interim accommodation did not exist.
52. On 3 November, the LD team considered Mr Y’s case again. Following this, it emailed Mr Y saying it appreciated his wishes to live in specific accommodation, however he was ineligible for this, and the current offers of accommodation were appropriate. The email said there was no ongoing work required and so the social worker would end their involvement, but, he would remain open to the service who would be responsible for future reviews.
53. Following this, Mr Y asked ASC to close his case as continued allocation may prevent him from getting help from another council.
54. On 21 November, Mr Y was asked to leave his private accommodation after an incident. Mr X made a safeguarding referral to ASC because Mr Y said he was going to harm himself. ASC reviewed this and decided not to progress as a safeguarding concern, as Mr Y was aware of his housing options. It recorded an analysis of proportionality and balancing risk with choice. It said it would continue to work with Mr Y to reduce the risk of becoming homeless.
55. ASC then offered Mr Y emergency accommodation on 24 November, which Mr Y declined and said he would go to another area to look for accommodation.
56. On 29 November, Mr Y was hospitalised for a mental health assessment. ASC offered Mr Y accommodation again when discharged, which he declined and instead stayed in hotels paid for by other agencies or himself.
57. On 15 December, ASC met with Mr Y. It discussed housing options available, but Mr Y said he was not willing to accept anything that did not meet his requirements and would continue to live on the streets until the Council provided suitable accommodation. ASC arranged emergency accommodation until 28 December.
58. In January 2023, Mr Y’s sister contacted the Council. She asked it to refer Mr Y to another Council (Council B) as Mr Y wanted to move there. She said Mr Y was staying with her until the end of January. ASC agreed to make a referral to Council B, which it did.
59. In February, ASC decided to close Mr Y’s case as he was seeking support from Council B and staying with his sister in another council area. The Council recorded that Mr Y had capacity to make decisions on his housing, health and safety and was choosing to make himself homeless.
60. Within days of this, Mr X contacted ASC to say Mr Y had returned to its area and was willing to be more flexible with his housing requirements. ASC agreed to provide Mr Y with a social worker to support with his eligible needs only
61. On 13 February, an ASC manager completed an analysis of Mr Y’s case. They recorded:

• Mr Y is ineligible for social housing due to his savings and so would need to privately rent accommodation, which he had done so when he had chosen to;
• case records dating back to 2018 refer to Mr Y threatening to harm himself, which usually resulted in him being taken to hospital, and temporary accommodation being given by an agency or a council;
• Mr Y received a Care Act assessment and had eligible needs around maintaining a home environment, accessing employment opportunities and maintaining personal hygiene. His eligible needs were not as such that they could only be met by 24-hour supported living, which would be disproportionate to his needs;
• Mr Y had needs that could be met in a privately rented flat, with assistive technology making support available to him 24 hours per day. The Council offered this to Mr Y, however he declined;
• the Council discussed Mr Y’s case with a clinical psychologist from the LD team, who advised to be very clear and consistent in its approach and encourage Mr Y to see that his behaviours would not change the Council’s decision;
• Mr Y was at low risk of death, serious injury and illness. This was because there was no evidence of Mr Y coming to any harm, at any point since 2018. Mr Y knows how to find places of safety, arranges his own accommodation and has the financial means to do so; and
• the Council listed actions it had taken, which included Care Act assessment, liaison with the LD team, referrals to other agencies, providing ASC funded emergency accommodation, liaising with advocates and referrals to mental health services.

62. On 22 February, Council B emailed the housing department saying it was providing Mr Y with bed and breakfast accommodation.
63. During March, ASC received contact from Mr Y, the police, Ms Z and other agencies to say that Mr Y was homeless.
64. ASC contacted several supported accommodation providers in April, however recorded these were not suitable as Mr Y had minimal needs. Mr Y arranged his own accommodation during April and May.
65. On 19 June, ASC completed another care act assessment. This concluded:

• Mr Y had funds to arrange accommodation. He appeared to be making unwise decisions by making himself homeless and he is able to approach professionals when he needs help;
• Mr Y could make decisions about his health and care needs, safety, finances and accommodation. He was able to provide a rationale for decisions which the assessor considered unwise;
• Mr Y’s eligible needs were around making use of his home safely, maintaining a habitable home, being appropriately clothed, developing and maintaining relationships, making use of facilities or services in the local community and accessing work, training, education or volunteering; and
• the case would be closed to the long-term team, as Mr Y’s eligible needs could be met by the prevention and wellbeing team or universal services. ASC would refer Mr Y to the housing department for a housing assessment.

66. The same day, ASC spoke to the housing department, who said that Mr Y should contact the department for an assessment.
67. Between 25 June and 7 July, various agencies contacted the Council about Mr Y, and said he was staying in areas outside of Barnet.
68. On 26 June, another Council, Council G, contacted ASC as Mr Y had approached it for housing. Council G said it would be completing a Care Act assessment with Mr Y.
69. Towards the end of June, a charity made a safeguarding referral about Mr Y to ASC. The Council said as Mr Y’s case was open to Council G, it passed this information onto it, closed the referral and took no further action.
70. The Council received several referrals from services during July because Mr Y said he was homeless. The Council reminded Mr Y of the support he had already been provided with, and said he could arrange and pay for accommodation to prevent homelessness. The Council also gave Mr Y details of housing and mental health services he could access.
71. On 5 July, ASC managers discussed Mr Y’s case and noted he had enough savings to privately arrange the accommodation he wanted and appeared to be making unwise decisions. Records noted he approaches professionals when he needs help and had now been de-allocated from his social worker.
72. On 10 July, Mr Y emailed ASC. He said he no longer had a social worker and needed a new one. Mr Y said he was going to end his life unless he got the right supported housing.
73. On 12 July, ASC wrote to Mr Y to say he did not have eligible needs for supported accommodation. It said it would not allocate a new social worker, and he could contact the housing department for support with housing.
74. In mid-July, Mr X made a stage one complaint raising similar issues as in the complaint to the Ombudsman.
75. Various case records between August and October suggest that Mr Y was receiving support from other councils during this time.
76. At the end of August, the police contacted the housing department. The police said it was concerned Mr Y was threatening to harm himself. The housing department responded the same day to ask Mr Y to make a housing application.
77. In September 2023, another council, Council D, referred Mr Y to the Council for accommodation. It said it could not help Mr Y itself, as it had decided he did not have a connection to its area.
78. On the same day, the housing department recorded it had been trying to contact Mr Y for over a week with no success.
79. On 20 October, ASC received an email from another council area, Council E, making enquiries about Mr Y. ASC contacted Mr Y about this. Mr Y responded the next day and asked to be referred to another council area, Council A. ASC agreed to do this.
80. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in mid-October. It said:

• it apologised for closing Mr Y’s case in July 2023. To address this, it had placed a note on Mr Y’s file so that he could contact specific managers if he has any enquiries;
• it helped Mr Y find privately rented accommodation and referred to organisations that could offer support with housing, however Mr Y declined all offers; and
• ASC provided accommodation for eight weeks between June and August 2022, with a view to supporting Mr Y to access alternative accommodation. However, Mr Y handed the keys back.

81. In October, Mr Y asked ASC again to make a referral to Council A, which the Council did.
82. At the beginning of November, Mr Y made a stage two complaint to the Council, as he disagreed with the Council’s response to his stage one complaint.
83. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint at the end of November. It said:

• it had fulfilled its statutory duties to Mr Y;
• it apologised for its delayed complaint response;
• it is nationally recognised that autism is not a learning disability. The Council said that Mr X was incorrect about autism services only sitting within the LD team, and that multiple teams within ASC support autistic adults;
• the Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint that it did not always follow safeguarding processes. It said there had been instances where it had wrongly managed safeguarding concerns under care management. The Council said in future it would ensure a safeguarding concern is fully raised and give a clear rationale for when the threshold for a safeguarding enquiry was not met;
• it did not uphold Mr X’s complaint that it had minimised Mr Y’s suicidal ideation. The Council said specialist support would be an NHS service, and it had tried to work alongside NHS partners; and
• the Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint that it encouraged Mr Y to move to another part of the country. The Council said it responded to Mr Y’s intention to move but did not propose these.

Response to my enquiries

84. ASC said it had now offered Mr Y supported accommodation. ASC explained it offered this as a solution to resolve a cyclical pattern of behaviour where Mr Y refused accommodation offers.
85. ASC confirmed Mr Y was still not eligible for this housing, as it was not one of his eligible needs. The Council’s view is that it would not have been appropriate for it to make this offer, before other ways to support Mr Y were explored.
86. ASC said it had now offered Mr Y seven different options of accommodation, all of which he declined.

Was there fault and if so, did this cause injustice?

Support from the LD team

87. Mr X complained that Mr Y should have been assigned to the LD team, rather than the physical disabilities team. I have seen no evidence that Mr Y was assigned to a physical disabilities team. ASC did decide to allocate to the long-term team, which is a generic ASC team and not specifically for people with physical disabilities.
88. There is no legal right for an adult to have their case managed by a particular team in a council’s social services department. The Council will allocate a person to a team based on the person’s main presenting need.
89. This is a person-centred approach and is in line with the CCSG as I have set out in paragraph 21. There is no fault in the action of the Council here.

Case closures

90. Between June 2022 and November 2023, the Council closed Mr Y’s case twice.
91. The first case closure was in February 2023, when ASC closed Mr Y’s case because he was seeking support from Council B and living with his sister in another area. I have considered the Council’s decision and do not find fault with this. The decision was considered and in line with the CSSG on ordinary residence.
92. I also note that just over a week later, Mr Y returned to the Council area and ASC reopened his case straight away. Therefore, even if there was fault in the decision, this would have unlikely caused Mr Y an injustice.
93. The second case closure was in June/July 2023 when Council G said it would be completing a Care Act assessment with Mr Y.
94. The CSSG says the receiving council is responsible for carrying out an assessment, and until that is done, the current council must continue to meet a person’s needs.
95. In this case, the receiving council, Council G, said it would be completing an assessment. The Council shared information with Council G and then closed its involvement with Mr Y. Despite Council G saying it would complete an assessment, it did not do this, and closed Mr Y’s case.
96. By closing Mr X’s case, the Council did not work co-operatively with Council G to ensure there was no interruption to Mr X’s care and support and did not ensure he had access to all relevant information and advice. This was fault which caused Mr Y distress.
97. The Council has already apologised for this and put in a provision where Mr Y could contact a named person to prevent this happening again. The apology and service improvement were a sufficient response from the Council, and I will not recommend a further remedy here.

Council’s communication with Mr Y

98. In an email from the LD team to the long-term team in June 2022, the LD team copied Mr Y in and spoke about him in the third person.
99. Although this communication method was the most appropriate for Mr Y, as he had on many occasions said he did not have a phone, the message within the email could have been delivered in a more sensitive way.
100. Our 2018 guidance says we expect councils to deal with people sensitively, the Council did not do this here, which is fault that caused Mr Y avoidable distress.
101. The Council recorded in February 2023 that it had discussed Mr Y’s case with a psychologist. Their advice was to be clear and consistent in its approach and encourage Mr Y to see his behaviours will not change the Council’s decision. I found no evidence of any further insensitive communication from the Council to Mr Y. The remainder of the Council’s communication with Mr Y was in line with the psychologist’s advice and so I find no further fault.

Council’s response to Mr Y’s suicidal episodes

102. The Council concluded, on several occasions and following liaison with the NHS that Mr Y had the mental capacity to make decisions about his wellbeing and safety.
103. In February 2023, the Council completed an analysis of Mr Y’s case and concluded he was at low risk of death, serious injury and illness despite his behaviours.
104. Between the periods of June 2022 and November 2023, the Council made several referrals to agencies for wellbeing support for Mr Y to assess and support with his suicidal episodes.
105. The Council also made several offers of housing to prevent Mr Y being homeless which he said was a trigger for his suicidal episodes.
106. The Council has evidenced that it took steps to assess Mr Y’s risk of harm through his suicidal behaviours and took action to minimise this. Therefore, there is no fault in the Council’s actions in relation to this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Safeguarding referrals

107. Between June 2022 and November 2023, the Council screened three safeguarding referrals about Mr Y.
108. The June and November 2022 safeguarding referrals were because of Mr Y’s self-neglect behaviours. The Council showed its proper consideration of the information available, and the threshold for a safeguarding investigation and decided not to proceed. The Council applied the safeguarding principles of proportionality, and balancing risk with choice by considering Mr Y had capacity to make decisions around his housing, wellbeing and safety.
109. There is no obligation for a council to deal with self-neglect behaviours by way of safeguarding procedures. The closure of these safeguarding referrals was in line with the CSSG and there is no fault.
110. In June/July 2023, the Council received a further safeguarding referral saying that Mr Y was homeless and suicidal. As Mr Y was allocated to Council G at the time, it passed this information to Council G to consider. This was supported by case notes which showed Mr Y was in other council areas, and not Barnet, at the time of this safeguarding referral.
111. This is in line with the London multi-agency safeguarding policy which says the council where the event occurred has the responsibility of carrying out the duties under s42 Care Act 2014, even if the person is not receiving care and support in this area. Therefore, there is no fault here.
112. However, the Council acknowledged in its stage two complaint response there were other occasions where it had not followed its safeguarding procedures, and managed referrals under care management rather than adult safeguarding enquiries. This was fault which caused Mr X and Mr Y uncertainty about whether these concerns were properly addressed.
113. In response to this fault, the Council said it had made service improvements and will ensure a safeguarding concern is fully raised and clear rationale given for when the threshold for a s42 safeguarding enquiry was not met. I welcome the Council’s recognition of this, and I will not recommend any further service improvements.

Supported accommodation

114. A council is responsible for assessing a person’s ASC needs and meeting these. The Ombudsman cannot tell a council how to do this, we can only look at whether a council followed the correct processes in doing so.
115. ASC completed two Care Act assessments (June 2022 and June 2023) which included Mr Y’s views. The June 2022 assessment included the views of Mr X.
116. The Council assessed that Mr Y did not need 24-hour supported accommodation, and so did not offer this, despite it being Mr Y’s preference. The Council offered support to Mr Y to find alternative accommodation, which he declined.
117. There is no legal right for a council to offer supported housing, by way of the Care Act 2014 or the Housing Act 1996. I understand that Mr X and Mr Y did not agree with the Council’s decision, but, this was a decision that was made without fault.
118. ASC said it has now offered to provide Mr Y with supported accommodation. Mr X however says the Council has actually offered housing with extra care, rather than supported accommodation. Mr X complained this offer was despite there being no change in Mr Y’s circumstances. The Council said it offered accommodation only as a solution to resolve Mr Y’s pattern of behaviour. The Council is clear that Mr Y is still not eligible for this housing.
119. The Council did not have a duty to offer this supported accommodation or housing with extra care, as it only has a duty to meet unmet eligible needs under s9 Care Act 2014. However, it used its discretion to offer a person-centred package of care for Mr Y. There is no fault in the Council not making this decision sooner.
120. In addition to ASC eligible needs, if a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, it’s housing department must make inquiries to satisfy itself what, if any, duty it owes them.
121. Between June 2022 and November 2023, the housing department contacted Mr Y five times (in June and October 2022 and June, August and September 2023) to either offer a housing assessment and/or interim accommodation.
122. Mr Y either declined these offers of an assessment and interim accommodation or left the interim accommodation shortly after the housing department arranged it. Mr Y did not engage in a housing assessment, during this time period.
123. The Council made all reasonable steps to make inquiries about if it owed Mr Y a housing duty, however Mr Y did not engage in this. There is also evidence the housing department liaised with ASC, who had decided that Mr Y had the capacity to make decisions about his housing. Therefore, I find no fault in the Council’s actions here.

Mr Y’s contact with other council areas

124. Between June 2022 and November 2023, Mr Y asked the Council to refer him to other councils on several occasions. I have read Mr Y’s case notes and there is no evidence the Council encouraged Mr Y to go to other areas to ask for supported accommodation. I find no fault in this element of Mr X’s complaint.

The Council’s interactions with other councils

125. Mr X complained the Council failed to work closely with Mr Y when he moved across multiple areas between June 2022 and November 2023.
126. There is no duty on a council to work closely with another council area, unless a council decides to use the formal mechanism referred to in paragraphs 14 and 15. There is no evidence that any other council area contacted the Council implementing this mechanism, nor is there evidenced the Council implemented this itself.
127. Mr X asked the Council to consider a multi-agency meeting in June 2022, to include other councils. The Council considered this information and decided to hold an internal meeting and then in July 2022, a meeting with one of Mr Y’s previous council areas.
128. The Council recorded, that it had decided to complete its own assessment, of Mr Y’s needs, at that time. It also consulted with NHS partners, Mr X, housing, and previous reports to decide that it had enough information to assess Mr Y’s eligible needs, without a meeting with other council areas or implementing the mechanism mentioned. I understand that Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision here, but, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make, and one made without fault.
129. I have already found fault with the Council’s failure to work adequately with Council G in paragraph 93, however, I find no further fault in this element of Mr X’s complaint. There is evidence the Council responded to requests for information from other councils adequately.

Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaints

130. Mr X made a stage one complaint to the Council in mid-July 2023. The Council responded around 12 weeks later. The Council’s complaint policy says it will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days. This did not happen, and this is fault which caused Mr X frustration.
131. The stage one complaint response failed to address some of Mr X’s complaint, including his concerns about the Council’s response to safeguarding and Mr Y’s eligibility for the LD team. The Council’s failure to respond to all of Mr X’s complaint points is fault which caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty.
132. The Council’s stage two response failed to provide reasons for several decisions it had made in the complaint investigation. This is not in line with our 2018 guidance which says councils should explain the rationale for its decisions. This is fault which has caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed action

133. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• apologise in writing to Mr X and Mr Y, separately, for the faults and injustice, caused by adult social care, as identified in this statement. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology.
134. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

135. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault with the actions of the housing department and fault with the actions of adult social care.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman