Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to make suitable provision when his grandson G, who has learning difficulties, moved to a different Council area. On the evidence seen so far, the Council was at fault when it failed to classify G as a looked after child. As a result, G may have missed out on some of the support owed to him. The Council should determine what support G is owed. It should also review its files to identify if any other young people were similarly affected. The Council also failed to transition G to adult social care in a timely and planned manner. However, this did not cause G an injustice. The Council should review its processes to prevent similar faults in future. There was no fault in the Council’s actions in relation to G’s move out of the area.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council sent his grandson G, who has learning difficulties, over 100 miles to where Mr X lives without making arrangements for appropriate accommodation when he arrived and without warning him.
2. Mr X says that because it was not possible for his grandson to live with him, he has been made homeless. Mr X says his grandson is vulnerable and these events have caused him unnecessary distress.

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 question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
7. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mr X and considered his view of his complaint.
9. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included G’s case notes and his adult social care combined assessment.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I took those comments into consideration before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989

11. s17(1) of the Children Act 1989 imposes a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.
12. A child is ‘in need’ if:
• he is unlikely to achieve or maintain… a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority; or
• his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him of such services.
13. Section 20 of the Act states councils should provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who seem to them to require accommodation because:
• there is no one with parental responsibility for them;
• the child is lost or abandoned; or
• the person who has been caring for the child is prevented, for whatever reason, from providing suitable accommodation or care.
14. Section 20 also requires councils to provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who has reached the age of sixteen and whose welfare the authority considers is likely to be seriously prejudiced if they do not provide him with accommodation.
15. If the council provides a child with accommodation under s20 of Children Act 1989, that child becomes a ‘looked after child’ when the council has accommodated them for a continuous period of longer than 24 hours.
16. Where a young person approaches a housing department at the Council, and it appears they have nowhere safe to stay the night, children’s services must secure suitable emergency accommodation for them. This will mean the young person will become looked after under s20 of the Act whilst their needs, including their need for continuing accommodation and support, are assessed.
17. The housing department must also make an immediate referral to social services for assessment. This assessment must be completed within 10 days. The assessment must decide if the child is ‘in need’ and continues to require accommodation under any part of s20.
18. Where the specific duty is owed under s20 of the Act, a 16 or 17 year old should be accommodated under that provision rather than looking to the general duty owed to children in need and their families under s17 of the Act. Case law states councils cannot “side-step the further obligations which result from [s20] by recording or arguing that they were in fact acting under s17 or some other legislation” (R (M) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham [2009] UKHL 14; [2008] 4 All ER 271 at s47).

Children leaving care

19. The Act places certain duties on councils towards children who are or were being looked after, after they reached the age of 16. The duties owed include the following:
• if the child has been looked after for 13 weeks or more since their 14th birthday, and are still being looked after, they are classed as an ‘eligible’ child;
• if the child has been looked after for 13 weeks or more since their 14th birthday, and a period of time since their 16th birthday, they are classed as a relevant child;
• if a child is aged between 18 and 21, or 18 and 25 if in full-time education, and the were previously an eligible or relevant child, they are classed as a ‘former relevant child’;
• a child is a ‘qualifying care leaver’ if they do not fulfil the criteria to be an eligible or relevant child but:
1. are aged between 18 and 21, or 18 and 25 if in full-time education;
2. have spent less than 13 weeks in care since their 14th birthday; and
3. were looked after by children’s services on or after their 16th birthday for 1 day or more but is no longer looked after.
20. The Council owes varying duties of care depending on which category they fall into.

What happened

21. When these events began, G was 17 years old and lived with his mother and siblings. All of the children, including G, were subject to child protection plans. G also had an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. He takes medication for a health condition and had learning difficulties.
22. On 7 May 2019, G presented at the Council’s Housing Service and said he was homeless. The Council confirmed he had spent the weekend at Hostel B. G refused to return home but would not give details about why, other than to say it was “chaos” at home.
23. Housing Services spoke to his mother who said G could not return home as there was no room for him.
24. Housing Services recorded G was “likely homeless” but its accommodation for 16/17 year olds was full and so it asked the Council’s Children’s Services to house him temporarily until a joint assessment could be carried out.
25. Children’s Services offered G a bed at Hostel C and G stayed there for the next 7 nights. Children’s Services also gave G vouchers and money for food and bought him some clothes.
26. Children’s and Housing Services carried out a joint assessment on 15 May 2019. Notes from that meeting state “We have still not been able to speak with his mother … [G] didn’t have a clue whether he would prefer to be a looked after child or go down the housing route. We have concerns about his vulnerabilities … I have discussed with [Hostel C] who has agreed [G] can be moved to the next available bed… he is probably too close to his 18th birthday to be considered for positive transitions… but he isn’t ready for independent living in [12] weeks (on his 18th)… we will need to look at other supported living”.
27. G’s tenancy with Hostel C finished on 11 June 2019. G’s mother texted the Council to say that there was a place for G at home with her. Housing Services therefore decided G was not homeless, in part because of what G’s mother had said and also because the evidence it had demonstrated G had appeared to spend some nights back at home during the period of his tenancy at Hostel C. G returned home.
28. G visited Housing Services on the morning of 24 June and told the duty officer he had been sleeping rough and he wanted a rail pass to go to live with his older brother and his grandfather, Mr X, who lived in another Council area (Council R). The duty officer told G they would have to contact his relatives first because G would not be able to move into supported accommodation in Council R’s area without some advance planning.
29. Officers involved in G’s case advised the duty officer that G had presented as homeless before but he had a place at his mother’s. The duty officer asked G for proof he was homeless and to return at lunchtime. The case notes record G was happy to do this.
30. The officers involved in G’s case further updated the duty officer to say that whilst G had been under a tenancy with Hostel C, he had actually spent some nights at his mother’s home. Therefore, G was not homeless.
31. Between the 24 and 26 June, the Council remained in contact with G who told officers he was staying with friends and also sometimes at a friend’s hotel. G said he would not return to his mother’s because her partner hit him. G repeated he was going to go to live with Mr X.
32. Officers contacted G’s mother who stated G was making things up and he could live with her. She said, however, that she was concerned G might run away or threaten her.
33. Council notes record G was back at his mother’s on 2 July 2019 and he said things had improved.
34. On 17 July, G presented at the Council with a bruised neck. He said his mother’s partner had attacked him. The Police were called and after considering the evidence and circumstances of the case, they warned G about making false accusations as he had done similar things in the past. It was thought G’s risky lifestyle may have been the cause of the bruising.
35. The Council spoke to G’s mother who said none of the incidents had taken place at home. She confirmed G could live with her. However, G refused to go home because he said he was in danger. The Council offered him a semi-independent placement (Home J) which G accepted.
36. The Council spoke to G’s friend who owned the hotel. He said G had spent the evening in the hotel but had not spent the night there. The friend also told the Council that he had seen G in the area around the hotel on many nights. G’s behaviours and actions outlined by the hotel owner raised significant concerns with the Council officers about his vulnerability and his concept and understanding of risk.
37. The Council continued to assess G’s mother and her relationship with her children. It also remained in contact with G and supported him with money. Towards the end of July, Children’s Services realised G would be 18 years old shortly and a referral to Adult Social Care (ASC) was needed.
38. On 6 August G’s social worker contacted the ASC Learning Disabilities Team (LDT) to ask if G qualified for an adult social care social worker and support.
39. Two days later, G turned 18 years old.
40. On 13 August, an LDT officer contacted the social worker and said they were unsure if G would qualify and they needed more information. The LDT officer said the assessment normally took around 6 – 8 weeks to complete.
41. Adult Social Care agreed to pay for a further week at G’s placement whilst the assessment took place. At the end of August, following the assessment, an LDT officer confirmed G qualified for their support.
42. On 28 August, G asked an LDT officer for money to travel to West Yorkshire because he wanted to move there permanently. The officer said they would look into this and get back to G. The officer contacted the manager of Home J who confirmed G often said he wanted to move to West Yorkshire.
43. On 30 August, the officer discussed the move to West Yorkshire with G. G said he now wanted to move to different town within the Council area because he had friends there. The officer suggested G settle into his current accommodation and attend his college placement when it began next month and they could consider a move at a later date.
44. Later the same day, G said he wanted to move to his grandfather’s, Mr X, who lives in Council area R.
45. Throughout September, G continued to express dissatisfaction with living in the Blackpool area and wanting to move away.
46. On 23 September, the manager of Home J told the Council they were giving G one month’s notice to leave because of his disruptive behaviour.
47. On 3 October, G telephoned the LDT to say he could move to his brother’s, who lived near their grandfather’s house. The officer asked for the brother’s contact details but G did not provide them. G later phoned to say he had checked the bus timetable and costs and he wanted the Council to give him the money for his ticket. The officer advised G to think about this more as he was at college. G said he wanted to move and the officer again said he needed to speak to G’s brother first.
48. On 7 October G phoned and told the LDT he had a train ticket and was moving to his grandfather’s in 2 days. The officer contacted the manager at Home J who said G had not got a ticket but had said his aunt was driving over to collect him. The officer asked the manager to contact them if G did leave.
49. The officer also discussed G’s medication with the manager who said if G did leave she would provide him with enough for 3 days due to his risk historically of taking, or threatening to take, overdoses. The officer said they disagreed with this as G had capacity to manage his medication, but would accept the manager’s judgement as she was in charge of the home.
50. On 8 October, Home J’s manager informed the Council that G had left to go to the train station. G had told the manager that his brother had paid for his ticket.
51. An LDT officer contacted Council R on 9 October. Council R was unaware G had moved there. The LDT officer updated Council R on G’s case.
52. Also on 9 October, G phoned Home J’s manager to say he had arrived safely and was with his grandfather.
53. G contacted Blackpool LDT for help whilst he was living with his grandfather. The team explained his case had now been passed to Council R and advised him to phone them.
54. On 22 October 2019, Mr X complained to the Council. He was unhappy that G had arrived in the Council R area without any supported accommodation arranged by Blackpool for him. Mr X said he was disabled and could only let G live with him for a short time.
55. The Council responded on 21 November. It said that G was supported by the Council as a child in need and not a looked after child and therefore, the Council had no responsibility to accommodate him.
56. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
57. As part of my enquiries the Council said that when G first presented as homeless “accommodation under s20 of the Children Act 1989 was clearly discussed with [G], however [G] did not wish to take up this offer of support and legal status when it was explained to him”.

Council’s definition of G as a child in need

58. G had a child protection plan. He was a child in need. He presented to the Council in May 2019 stating he was homeless. G’s mother refused to allow G back home at that time. The housing officer confirmed it was likely G was homeless.
59. The Council assessed G on 15 May. The notes of the assessment record “We have still not been able to speak with his mother … [G] didn’t have a clue whether he would prefer to be a looked after child or go down the housing route”.
60. When G turned 18 years old, the Council still considered him highly vulnerable and incapable of going into independent living. This indicates he was not ready for independent living when he presented earlier, in May 2019.
61. The Council stated in its response to my enquiries that it discussed with G whether he wanted to be accommodated under s20 of the Act, and G declined. I can see no evidence of that discussion or G’s views on the matter, other than the notes from the 15 May assessment which indicate G was unable to grasp the implications of whether he was housed under either s20 or other legislation. On the balance of probabilities I do not consider G would have been able to understand the full implications at that time of making such as decision, even if the notes recorded he had been asked.
62. The current evidence shows the Council provided accommodation and support to G under s20 of the Act when he presented as homeless in May 2019. This means G became a looked after child. The Council’s failure to recognise him as such is fault.
63. The accommodation the Council provided for G was appropriate and he initially seemed happy there. The Council also supported him with money and vouchers. Therefore, G did not experience an injustice when the Council failed to acknowledge it had accommodated him under s20 of the Act.
64. However, as a result of being a looked after child, when G turned 18 years old, he became a qualifying care leaver. As a result, he was, and is, owed certain duties under the Act. There is also the possibility that G was a former relevant child if he was a looked after child for 13 weeks before his 14th birthday.
65. During my investigation, the Council reviewed G’s case files and established he was a qualifying care leaver.

G’s transition to adult services

66. Children’s Services had been aware of G and his family since they moved into the Council area in 2018. G had a child protection plan and an EHC Plan. He was recognised as vulnerable and a risk taker without an awareness of the implications of some of his actions. He had learning difficulties and a health condition.
67. The Council should have ensured it carried out an ASC assessment in a timely manner. Its failure to engage with ASC until 2 days before G’s birthday was fault. If ASC had assessed G as not meeting the threshold for services, the Council’s failure to provide a planned transition would have left G at significant risk. All this is fault.
68. However, ASC agreed to meet the costs of G’s accommodation whilst it assessed him and G did meet the threshold for services. Shortly afterwards he moved out of the area. During this period, there is no evidence G was aware his accommodation was in potential jeopardy and so he had no cause for concern. Therefore, G did not experience any injustice from the fault I have identified.

G’s move to Council R

69. The evidence shows G mentioned on several occasions that he was planning to move away from the area. The Council addressed this issue each time by liaising with the manager of Home J. The Council also provided G with sound advice and tried to persuade him against moving away. When G said he was leaving in 2 days, the Council spoke to the manager of Home J who stated that G did not have a ticket. There was no evidence to presume G would actually go ahead with his plans on this occasion. And in any case, G was 18 years old and the Council had no powers to prevent him from moving if that was his wish. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
70. When G did move, the Council promptly communicated with Council R to inform it of G’s move to the area and offered to send Council R G’s case files. Any actions taken by Council R to accept that offer or not, is neither the responsibility nor the fault of Blackpool Borough Council.
71. G arrived with only enough medication for a few days. The Council and the manager of Home J discussed this before he left and the manager took the decision, based on G’s past history, to only allow him to take 3 day’s medication. The Council was reluctant but after weighing up the circumstances, including the risk G may take an overdose, it accepted the manager’s decision. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Agreed actions

72. Within two months of the date of the final decision the Council has agreed to ensure G and Mr X are informed of the duties G is owed as a qualifying care leaver.
73. Within six months of the date of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. review its procedures to ensure that processes are in place for young people with Education, Health and Care Plans reaching adulthood to ensure they have a planned transition to adult social services where deemed necessary. The relevant staff should be reminded of the processes in place;
2. ensure it records important decisions on the child’s case files when discussing whether a child wishes to be accommodated under s20 of the Children Act 1989. The Council should be able to demonstrate the child has been able to make an informed decision, including the consequences of not being accommodated under s20;
3. ensure staff are aware of their statutory duties under the Children Act 1989 in relation to when children should be accommodated under s20 of the Act, as opposed to under s17 of the Act or housing legislation; and
4. review its files from August 2017 and August 2020 to identify if any other young people were similarly affected and provide appropriate redress for any injustice caused.
74. The Council has agreed to provide evidence that it has met these recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

75. There was fault in the Council’s actions leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman