Summary: Mr M complains about the Council’s actions when he was a child, including not providing him with support or housing. He complains about the actions of a support worker who supplied him with drugs and did not take him to some appointments. He also complains about the support the Council offered after he turned 18 and its response to his complaints. We uphold the complaint because of a delay in starting a child in need assessment, some poor record keeping and missed appointments by a support organisation. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr M) complains about the Council’s actions when he was a child and after. He complains the Council:
1. did not provide him with adequate support when he was getting abused at home;
2. did not provide him with housing when he was homeless and sleeping in cars;
3. placed him into care when he was 17. But it left him in the care of a dangerous man, outsourced to a private company, who:

• pressurised him into taking drugs;
• threatened to put in a bad word to the court if he told anybody;
• prevented him from attending courses and having dental work, because he was too high on drugs to drive;
4. as a care leaver he was constantly battling to access care leaver funding. He was passed through four advisors, some of whom neglected him;
5. when he complained about this, the Council refused to investigate, brushing it all under the carpet.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 or care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), 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 Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. We have used our discretion to investigate this complaint, despite the events occurring more than 12 months before Mr M complained to us. We have decided there are reasonable reasons Mr M waited until he was a young adult before complaining about these historic matters. We note he first complained in 2022, when he was 21.
8. As the Council has a duty to keep children’s social care records, records should be available.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr M;
• considered a statement from Mr M’s mother;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• made enquiries of Moving up Care, the organisation that provided Mr M with supported housing;
• issued two draft decisions and considered Mr M and the Council’s comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Child in Need

10. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

11. Child in need assessments are voluntary. Parents keep their parental responsibility. They have a right to be told and consulted about all decisions. Parents do not have to agree to have a child in need assessment.

Looked after Children

12. Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must provide accommodation to any child in need within their area who needs it, because:

• there is nobody with parental responsibility to care for them;
• they have been lost or abandoned; or
• the person who has been caring for them is prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care.

Children accommodated by councils in such circumstances are often referred to as ‘Looked after Children’.

13. Parents keep their parental responsibility. They have a right to be told and consulted about all decisions, usually as part of a looked after child review.

Care leavers

14. Councils have duties under the Children Act 1989 to prepare children for leaving care. They also have a duty to assist former looked after children if they need it. This duty continues until the young person is 21.
15. Councils should appoint each care leaver with a personal adviser and provide a pathway plan. The personal adviser will act as a focal point to ensure the care leaver is provided with the right kind of support. The pathway plan should be based on a thorough assessment of the person’s needs. Plans should include specific actions and deadlines detailing who will take what action and when.

Prevention of homelessness for young people who may be homeless

16. The government publishes guidance: “Prevention of homelessness and provision of accommodation for 16 and 17 year old young people who may be homeless and/or require accommodation” This notes:

• it will generally be in a young person’s best interests to live in the family home, or, where this is not safe or appropriate, with responsible adults in their wider family and friends’ network;
• housing services and children’s services should work pro-actively with young people and their families to identify and resolve the issues which have led to the homelessness crisis;
• the most crucial issue to first find out is whether the young person is actually homeless;
• any work a council does to prevent a young person’s homelessness should be undertaken at the same time as a child in need assessment. If there is an imminent threat of homelessness or if the young person is actually homeless, a child in need assessment must be carried out;
• where a young person is excluded from home and is, for example, staying with friends, or sleeping in a car, it is extremely likely that they will be a child in need;
• if a council houses a child or young person for 24 hours or more under its Section 20 duties (see paragraph 12), they become a looked after child, leading to a council having extra duties towards the child or young person;
• a council has up to 45 working days from the referral to complete a child in need assessment;
• some young people may decide that they do not wish to be provided with accommodation by children’s services under Section 20 of the Act. But it is important for councils to make sure the young person’s decision is properly informed, and has been reached after careful consideration of all the relevant information;
• children’s services also have powers to accommodate children under Section 17 of the Act;
• other sections of the Act provide scope for councils to place young people in ‘other arrangements’, where such a placement best meets their needs. ‘Other arrangements’ may include supported lodgings, supported housing and independent accommodation where suitable support is provided. Where a young person is placed in other arrangements the local authority must prepare a placement plan.

What happened

The support when Mr M was 15

17. In the summer of 2015, when Mr M was 15, his school contacted the Council, as Mr M alleged he had been assaulted by his stepfather. The Council’s initial assessment noted it had not been previously involved with the family. It noted Mr M had no marks or injuries. The school said it had not previously noticed Mr M having any marks or injuries but had noticed a deterioration in his behaviour. So the Council forwarded the case for a fuller assessment, due to a risk of family breakdown.
18. During that assessment Mr M advised he wanted to go into care. The Council’s view was his parents were struggling to cope. Mr M’s mother advised she did not want Mr M to go into care but was desperate for help. The Council’s officer also spoke to other family members. The Council contacted Mr M’s mother to arrange a date for a child in need meeting, scheduled for early August. There are reports around this time of incidents involving Mr M and his mother; the police were involved.
19. For reasons that are unclear, the Council has no record of having completed the August child in need meeting. There are records of further attempts to contact Mr M’s parents, although this was delayed due to a family holiday. When the social worker did speak to Mr M’s parents, they advised Mr M was a “changed boy”. His parents felt a lot happier, with no conflict. At the request of Mr M’s mother, the Council closed the case.
20. In October 2015 the school made a new referral as a result of Mr M’s attendance and concerns about his behaviour and drug use. The Council carried out a new assessment. The Council’s case notes contain records of conversations with Mr M. The social worker also spoke to other family members. The report said the Council had concerns about the home environment and family relationships. It noted goals for what needed to happen, including support, through a child in need plan.
21. At the beginning of 2016 there were further incidents of concern involving Mr M, including an overdose, when Mr M was admitted to hospital. The Council saw Mr M after he left hospital. It also saw his mother, who advised their relationship was improving. In March 2016 the Council’s Children’s Services closed its file.
22. The Council has records of further contacts about Mr M in June and September. On the second occasion the Council confirmed Mr M was staying with his adult sister. It sent Mr M and his mother letters advising them to contact Children’s Services or the Council’s housing team if Mr M became homeless.

The support when Mr M left the family home

23. In mid-December 2016 Mr M contacted the Council’s Children Service’s team. He advised he was homeless – he was staying with his sister, but had overstayed his welcome. He had been staying there after an argument with his mother.
24. The Council’s social worker visited Mr M and spoke to him about his housing options. The social worker suggested placement options and how the Council’s officer could assist. Mr M’s sister said he could remain there; reviewed daily. The Council also spoke to Mr M’s mother. The Council’s records say its aim was to improve the family’s relationships and it was still unsure if Mr M was actually homeless.
25. Mr M went to a city council with a support worker from a voluntary organisation to seek housing assistance under that council’s homelessness duties. A housing officer there contacted the Council’s social worker to advise it needed to accommodate Mr M as he was a child. The social worker spoke to Mr M’s mother who agreed to accommodate Mr M. Mr M did return to his mother and family’s house. But after an argument, Mr M left and spent the night at a friend’s.
26. The next day Council officers spoke to Mr M and asked him to come into its office to discuss housing options. Its records note difficulties in contacting Mr M after this. When the Council’s social worker did eventually speak to Mr M he advised he was on a train with a relative heading for a city out of the County. Mr M says he went with his cousin as he felt that he had no other option.
27. The Council notes that, over the holiday season, Mr M had the contact details of various officers and the duty team, which he did not use during this time.
28. In early January 2017 the Council responded to a contact from a voluntary organisation that was assisting Mr M. It noted its difficulties in contacting Mr M and asked he contact it when he was next at that organisation’s offices. It advised Mr M’s actions suggested the initial urgency had reduced and he was not at immediate risk of homelessness. It also has records from this time that Mr M had moved into a hostel. Its assessment record noted the same and that Mr M had moved into the hostel at the end of December 2016.
29. After Mr M went to the hostel, the Council intended to end its involvement, as Mr M had self-referred for assistance with his housing issue, which he had resolved himself. It visited Mr M before doing so. The hostel contacted it after an initial delay in sorting Mr M’s welfare benefits from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). The Council agreed to make payments to Mr M under Section 17 of the Children Act to cover the service charge part of Mr M’s rent and to pay Mr M some living expenses while the hostel’s support worker helped him claim welfare benefits.
30. The Council’s social worker visited Mr M. He said he was not interested in mediation with his parents. The Council records show that Mr M was “very clear” he did not want Children’s Services to accommodate him.
31. Later during Mr M’s stay the hostel’s staff were in contact with the Council’s social worker. There were concerns Mr M was not giving the hostel the rent element of its financial support. Mr M disputes this.

The support placement

32. The hostel had served Mr M with a notice to quit quite early in his placement due to an incident with another resident. It then agreed to extend the notice to quit pending Mr M taking certain actions around his behaviour and payments to the Council. But after a second incident, it decided to ask Mr M to leave the hostel. The hostel was also concerned as Mr M was not paying his rent. Mr M was evicted for rent arrears in October.
33. Mr M then agreed to the Council providing him with accommodation under Section 20 of the Children’s Act. At the beginning of November, he moved to supported living accommodation, with support provided by Moving up Care (the support provider). The Council’s records after Mr M initially moved note he had settled well and was “engaging in [the] placement”. At first, the Council contracted with the support organisation to provide Mr M with around-the-clock support. At this time, Mr M was also under the supervision of the Youth Offending Team and had a pending court case about an alleged assault.
34. A social worker assessment in December noted Mr M “…appears to have begun to settle in the accommodation”.
35. A few days later Mr M missed an orthodontist appointment. He says a support worker (Mr X) would not let him go. Mr M has a record from the dentist confirming he did not attend this appointment. The support provider has no record for this date.
36. Shortly after this, the Council reduced Mr M’s support hours. It records he was “making good progress with his support workers…”.
37. Towards the end of the month a new social worker visited Mr M. Mr M advised he had settled in well and felt he had been supported. His view was he could “…pretty much manage on his own and having lived in a flat with minimal support..”, but asked the social worker to speak to the support provider about a broken washing machine.
38. In January 2018 Mr M reports that Mr X and Mr X’s father supplied him with drugs. Mr M says he has evidence his cousin withdrew a substantial amount of money to pay for the drugs.
39. Earlier in the month there had been an incident involving a previous support worker tidying Mr M’s flat, which Mr M said embarrassed him. So the support provider changed Mr M’s main support worker to Mr X. Towards the end of January a Council social worker spoke to Mr M about this. The Council’s record says Mr M told him he liked Mr X and got on well with him.
40. The support provider has a record from January that a support worker reminded Mr M of a dental appointment, but he showed no urgency. Consequently, he missed the appointment.
41. In mid-February Mr M telephoned his social worker, worried that, as he had not been at his placement for a while, nobody would collect him for an appointment. The social worker telephoned the manager of the placement. The social worker raised a concern that the support provider had not made him aware Mr M had not been in his placement. The manager told the social worker he had asked Mr X to collect Mr M and bring him back to the placement.
42. Mr M alleges that the following day Mr X stopped Mr M attending a tenancy awareness course. Mr M says this was because Mr X was concerned about Mr M’s presentation, as they had spent the previous night together taking cocaine and drinking alcohol. The Council’s case notes record Mr M did not attend the tenancy course and that he and a support worker had telephoned to say he was unwell. The support provider has no record for this date.
43. Mr M has sent evidence he missed another dental appointment a few days later. The support provider has no record for this date.
44. The social worker visited Mr M a few days later, at the end of February. The record of that meeting says Mr M advised he had built up a good relationship with Mr X. He got on with him and could talk to him about “lad stuff”. Mr M advised he had been away from the placement as the provider kept changing his support worker. If Mr X could be his regular support worker he would be happier.
45. The following day the Council emailed the support provider raising some concerns that Mr M:
• had not had a working washing machine since he moved in;

• had a good relationship with Mr X, but he had no consistent support days and Mr X was often pulled away to work with other young people. Mr M was struggling with this;
• was often not at the placement and had recently been away for two weeks;
• was not accessing his full support package;
• failed to attend health appointments such as the orthodontist.

46. Mr M says Mr X again stopped him attending a tenancy awareness course. He says this was because Mr X was concerned about Mr M’s presentation as they had spent the previous night taking cocaine and drinking alcohol. The Council’s records say Mr M contacted the social worker to advise he had not attended his final day on a tenancy awareness course as no one had arrived to collect him. He was told to get the bus, but had no money. The manager at the placement confirmed Mr M had not been collected due to a staffing problem. The support provider has no records of this incident.
47. Mr M alleges a further incident at the end of the month of Mr X and his father supplying him with drugs.

Support as a care leaver

48. Mr M’s 18th birthday was in April 2018. In February the Council held a meeting to discuss his transition to adult life. The key discussions were around Mr M’s housing options, including housing advice, the possibility of moving to supported housing and Mr M attending a tenancy skills course.
49. The Council was involved in contacting the housing advice service at the district council in the area Mr M wanted to move to. The Council agreed to continue to fund his supported housing placement after his 18th birthday to enable him to search for a new home. It also discussed a leaving care grant so that he could buy some things for a new home.
50. At the end of April Mr M’s social worker noted her view that, since he turned 18, Mr M had taken on more responsibility. He had found a job, engaged with housing and found a home. She noted any leaving care support was likely to be led by Mr M and on his terms. She noted a likely need for continued support around budgeting and paying rent and bills. The social worker contacted Mr M to discuss these issues.
51. In May Mr M moved into his own accommodation. The Council paid him a leaving care grant. His case was closed by a social worker and a Council personal advisor started to support Mr M.
52. The Council has records after this of its officer contacting Mr M. It also has records of pathway plans. The officer discussed and supported Mr M with issues, including applying for a driving licence and his work/training options. Mr M advised he wanted to prioritise support around sorting out his house and learning to drive. A few weeks later the officer attended a meeting with Mr M at a jobcentre, due to a problem with payment of Mr M’s welfare benefits.
53. At the end of September Mr M’s personal advisor noted he needed support to access community services, to prepare him for when children’s services were no longer involved. The Council has records from November of an action plan for the support the Council would seek to provide Mr M.
54. Mr M’s personal advisor tried to contact Mr M, including visits. She did meet him in December 2018. The Council has records of its personal advisor meeting Mr M in January 2019, as he was having problems with debts. It has records of meetings and attending appointments with Mr M, over a range of issues, from February to June.
55. The Council allocated Mr M a new officer in June and she visited Mr M with the personal advisor. They discussed a plan for the support the Council would provide. Later the Council signposted Mr M to support around an eviction due to rent arrears. The Council’s officer continued to visit Mr M regularly.
56. Mr M was evicted in January 2020 and started to rent a room with support from the Council. The Council records show continued contact with Mr M, including a meeting in March about his longer-term housing options. Its officer supported Mr M to make a homelessness application to the district council. That council placed Mr M in temporary accommodation.
57. The Council’s records of support continue through the Covid-19 lockdown periods. In August his landlord (for the temporary accommodation he was in) evicted Mr M. In September he moved to a new tenancy.
58. The Council’s records of support to Mr M continued into 2021, although becoming less frequent from mid-year. The support continued into 2022; the support worker changed at the end of the summer. Support continued into 2023.
59. In November 2023 the Council has a case note that Mr M had requested it close his case. In February 2024 Mr M asked the Council to re-open his case. The Council carried out a new assessment.

Mr M’s complaint

60. In August 2022 Mr M complained to the Council about his lack of contact with the Council’s leaving care team. A team manager telephoned Mr M to discuss his concerns about the support he was receiving. Mr M was not satisfied with this response and asked to escalate his complaint. The Council’s complaint team responded setting out the support the Council had provided Mr M and advised a named officer had offered to meet Mr M to resolve any outstanding matters.
61. In January 2024 Mr M contacted the Council seeking a response to his August 2022 complaint. The Council responded to advise his complaint had been made about matters that happened over a year before. It noted its discretion to accept a late complaint. But its view was, given the time that had lapsed since the events complained about, it did not believe it was possible to conduct a fair or effective investigation. Its view was it was reasonable to have expected Mr M to have approached the Council earlier.
62. Mr M contacted the Ombudsman. We decided it was reasonable for Mr M to wait until he was a young adult before contacting the Council about the issues this complaint is about.
63. In response to my enquiries, the Council and support provider sent records they have about the issues under complaint. The Council says the support provider has improved its record keeping since the time this complaint considers.

Analysis

The support when Mr M was 15

64. Mr M first came to the Council’s attention when his school reported him telling it his stepfather had assaulted him. The Council took this allegation seriously and started an assessment, due to the risk of family breakdown. This was the correct course of action, despite Mr M’s request that the Council take him into care (as per guidance from central government – see paragraph 16). Before the Council concluded the assessment, Mr M’s home situation improved. And, on Mr M’s mother’s request, it closed its investigation. Those were proportionate steps to take and I see no evidence of fault with those decisions, so they are not ones the Ombudsman can criticise. There does appear to have been some delay in the assessment process, which was fault. This was unlikely to have caused a significant injustice as it allowed the situation, at that time, to improve.

Housing when Mr M was homeless and sleeping in cars

65. In December 2016 Mr M advised the Council he was homeless. He was at his sister’s after having fallen out with his parents. The Council has records it spoke to Mr M about his housing options and that he was still at his sister’s home temporarily. It spoke to other members of Mr M’s family.
66. The Council’s records show it was seeking to repair Mr M’s relationships with his family, which the guidance says will usually be in a young person’s best interests. It also shows at times it had difficulty contacting Mr M. But, despite this, there was some fault by the Council, for the following reasons:
• it should have promptly started a child in need assessment, after Mr M contacted it. At the least, the evidence was he was threatened with homelessness. However, working to find Mr M places to live with family members was an appropriate response for it to have taken if it had been taken in tandem with starting an assessment;
• when Mr M said he did not want accommodation under Section 20, I would have expected to see a record that the Council’s officers explained to him the implications of this (notably by explaining that by refusing he was also refusing support through a placement plan);
• I would also have expected to see a record the Council had considered whether it could use the hostel Mr M was moved to as a Section 20 placement, under the ‘other arrangements’ provisions in the Act.
67. Given what happened and the time that has passed, the injustice to Mr M from this fault is the uncertainty about whether things may have worked out differently for him at this time, but for the fault.

The care placement and the support worker

68. In investigating this part of the complaint I have considered the following evidence:
• the Council’s records;
• the support provider’s records;
• evidence Mr M sent me.
69. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services, we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council.
70. One of Mr M’s allegations centres around the supply and use of drugs by Mr X. The Council’s records note Mr M was a recreational user of drugs. But neither it or the support provider’s case notes have any record of concerns about supply, or use of drugs by Mr X. Mr M has sent me evidence that his relative withdrew a large amount of money; he says this was to purchase drugs. While I do not dispute that the money was withdrawn, this does not itself show either that it was to procure drugs, or that it was given to Mr X: Mr X denies it. So there is a conflict in evidence. And there is simply not the evidence to uphold this part of Mr M’s complaint.
71. Mr M has sent me evidence to show he missed dental appointments and the Council also raised concerns about this with the support provider. That was fault. But this does not explain why Mr M missed the appointments. There is no evidence to corroborate Mr M’s explanation of the reason he missed these appointments.
72. There is evidence that, due to the support provider's fault, Mr M missed the last day of his tenancy awareness course. That was fault, although the reasons why the course was missed are disputed.
73. I find fault in the support provider’s record keeping at the time Mr M was there. The only information it has are daily logs. And these were not consistently kept. For example there are no records of key incidents – such as some of the missed appointments.
74. I would also have expected to see detailed records around the care, support and engagement the support provider was contracted with the Council to provide Mr M. The support provider does not have these records. That is fault.

After leaving care

75. The Council’s records show its Children’s Services team continued to support Mr M after he legally became an adult. This support took the form of a grant and practical support around a range of issues. Its records show its contact with Mr M was continuing over these years. The records do show the officers supporting Mr M changed over time. But given the significant time the support covers, that was reasonable. I see no evidence of fault.

The complaint response

76. Mr M first complained in 2022. The Council’s complaints team at first sent this complaint to the relevant section for a manager to respond. That can be a legitimate way to deal with a complaint. In Mr M’s case, the manager responded by telephoning Mr M. But I would have expected to see clear signposting to the Ombudsman. To not do so was fault.
77. When Mr M complained again in 2024, the Council’s complaints team refused to investigate due to the time that has passed. That was a discretionary decision for it to make. And, despite the fact the Ombudsman made a different discretionary decision, the Council’s decision was a reasonable one for it to take. So I see no fault in that decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

78. I have found fault with a delay in the Council completing a child in need assessment, the support provider’s record keeping and that Mr M missed some appointments due to fault by the care provider. But I cannot ascertain the reasons for these missed appointments. I have also found fault with the way the Council initially handled Mr M’s complaint.
79. I can only recommend a remedy for injustice flowing from fault I have identified. My findings on injustice are limited to some uncertainty about what might have happened but for the fault. To remedy this, I recommended that, within a month of my decision, the Council:
1. apologise for the faults I have identified;
2. make Mr M a symbolic payment of:

• £300 for the distress in the uncertainty about whether things might have been different for him during the time he was threatened with homelessness;
• £200 for any distress the uncertainty the inadequate records and lack of complaint signposting might have caused him.

80. The Council has agreed to these recommendations. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

81. I uphold this complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman