Summary: Mr C complained about how the Council dealt with his housing and adult social care support, and his reports of anti-social behaviour since 2022. We found the Council at fault for causing delays in assessing his care and support needs in 2023, which caused him an injustice. The Council should apologise and make payment to Mr C to acknowledge the injustice this caused him. There was no fault on other parts of Mr C’s complaint, or we exercised our general discretion not to investigate these as he has accepted an out of court settlement agreement with the Council which has remedied the injustice he experienced.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr C, complains about the Council’s handling of his housing and adult social care support since September 2022. He said:
• it had wrongly placed him in unsuitable temporary accommodation since 2021, which he has remained in since September 2022 as it had failed to properly understand and access his needs and failed to offer him more suitable accommodations when these were available;
• a social worker and occupational therapist failed to follow proper process and consider medical professionals’ views. His needs were therefore not accurately understood and recorded. The reports were subsequently used by the Council to reach its decisions on the support he should receive or were entitled to;
• he was put at a disadvantage due to the Council use of its Choice Based lettings scheme and unpublished Project 120 scheme;
• its Adult Social Care team failed to support him with the Continuing Healthcare Checklist process since January 2023 in a way which met his reasonable adjustment needs, and put in place a care plan which would enable him to obtain support from a personal assistant to support him with communication and correspondence; and
• it wrongly refused to consider alerts about hate crime and anti-social behaviour as a safeguarding concern.
2. Mr C says, as a result, he has experienced distress and uncertainty, a loss of care support, a loss of opportunity or delay to move to a more suitable temporary accommodation and permanent accommodation, and had time and trouble to get the Council to address his concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation;
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated Mr C’s complaint regarding the Council’s handling of:
• his hate crime and anti-social behaviour concerns in 2022 as this was not part of his previous complaint to the Ombudsman; and
• his continuing health care assessment and care support since 2023.
9. I have not investigated Mr C’s concerns about the Council’s handling of:
• the suitability of his accommodations, how it assessed his housing needs, and its housing decisions. This includes how he was prioritised on its housing register and its Project 120 scheme, its offers and withdrawals of offers of accommodation, and how it communicated with him;

This is because the Council and Mr C reached an out of court agreement, which was set out in a Tomlin Order by a court. Mr C accepted a settlement which considered the injustice he experienced as a result of his housing situation and how it had handled his case since late 2021. I understand Mr C accepted the settlement and was moved to a permanent accommodation in Summer 2024.

• his adult social care assessments and support before January 2023; and

This is because Mr C did not want or accept the support the Council offered following its Care Act assessment and arranged his own support during this period.

• his requests for reasonable adjustment in how it dealt with his requests and communicated with him.

This is because we have considered Mr C’s concerns about the Council’s handling of reasonable adjustments in a separate investigation, and its communication and handling of his requests regarding his housing situation was part of the settlement agreement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. As part of my investigation, I have:
• taken Mr C’s complaint as understood by the Ombudsman and discussed the complaint with him;
• considered the extensive information and evidence Mr C provided, including any previous and ongoing investigations by the Ombudsman;
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• had regard to the relevant law, guidance, and policy to the complaint.
11. Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

Anti-social behaviour and hate crime

12. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is defined in law (section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) as:
• conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
• conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or
• conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
13. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour. But ASB can take many different forms; and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
14. The 2014 Act introduced six new powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These are:
• the power to issue community protection notices (CPN);
• the power to make a public spaces protection order (PSPO);
• the power to close premises for a specified period of time;
• a civil injunction (a court order, which can be made upon application by the local authority or other agencies);
• a criminal behaviour order (a court order made following a conviction); and
• the power for the police to disperse people from a specified area.
15. The Council’s anti-social behaviour policy says it will assess the reported allegation of anti-social behaviour and decide the most appropriate action to take. This includes acknowledging the reported allegation and discuss the concern with the individual who reported it.
16. The Council will then review and assess the details of the incident and assign the case to a relevant officer. It will reach its view on any possible action it may take in a realistic, open and honest manner. It will discuss next steps with the individual, including the help and support that may be available.
17. A hate crime is defined as 'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.'

Safeguarding

18. 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 mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

Care assessments and care plans

19. 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. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
20. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.
21. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.

NHS Continuing Healthcare Assessments

22. Where it appears a person may be eligible for NHS Continuing Healthcare (NHS CHC), councils must notify the relevant integrated care system (ICS). NHS CHC is a package of ongoing care arranged and funded solely by the NHS where the individual has been found to have a ‘primary health need’ as set out in the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-Funded Nursing Care. Such care is provided to people aged 18 years or over, to meet needs arising from disability, accident or illness.
23. Individuals may need care and support provided by their local council and/or services arranged by ICSs. Councils and ICSs therefore have a responsibility to ensure the assessment of eligibility for care and support and for CHC respectively take place in a timely and consistent manner. If, following an assessment, a person is not found to be eligible for NHS CHC, the NHS may still have a responsibility to contribute to that person’s health needs, either by directly commissioning services or by part-funding the package of support. Where a package of support is commissioned or funded by both a council and an ICS, this is known as a ‘joint package of care’. A joint package of care could include NHS-funded nursing care and other NHS services that are beyond the powers of a council to meet.
24. Complaints about NHS CHCs are dealt with by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Background

25. I have set out details around what events occurred in this statement. However, this is not intended to be a summary of each and every event which occurred and has been limited to only include the relevant information for the points of the complaint which I have investigated.
26. Mr C has health conditions which impacts his daily life. These are fluctuating which means on ‘good days’ he can engage and perform most tasks necessary to manage independently. However, on ‘bad days’, which can last for long periods, he cannot manage independently and has care and support needs to manage several activities in his daily life. He also has need for the use of a wheelchair throughout such periods and at other times.
27. There have been no significant changes in Mr C’s health conditions or needs since 2021, his needs for support have therefore remained unchanged.
28. The Council accepted it owed Mr C a relief duty in Summer 2021 and placed him in interim accommodation in a hostel. He was subsequently added to its housing register and was moved to a temporary accommodation in late 2021.
29. Mr C raised concerns about the Council’s handling of his housing and adult care support since 2021 to a discrimination court.
30. In early 2022 the Council accepted Mr C’s temporary accommodation (a studio flat) was unsuitable. Mr C also reported anti-social behaviour and hate crimes against him to the Council and the Police whilst in this accommodation. A safeguarding alert was also raised.
31. The Council considered Mr C’s anti-social behaviour reports and discussed these with him. It also liaised with the police which due to lack of evidence closed its case. The Council offered welfare checks but did not agree further action should take place and explained it did not consider this a housing matter.
32. In April 2022 a social worker completed an assessment of Mr C’s needs. Mr C said this was a thorough assessment which considered views of medical reports and professionals. The report found he had overnight care needs but could not say if a spare bedroom was needed, as such decision were for housing to make. Mr C declined care support from the Council at the time as he had support from his friends. The Council’s Adult Social Care sent Mr C closure letter for its involvement.
33. In Autumn 2022 Mr C reported a further anti-social behaviour and hate crime against him to the Council and the Police. The Police did not take any action but suggested the Council should move Mr C to alternative accommodation.
34. The Council considered Mr C’s report but found the incident was not a safeguarding concern as there was little or no risk to Mr C, the individuals involved were not known to him, and the two reports he had made were isolated incidents.
35. Soon after, the Council offered Mr C an alternative temporary accommodation. He subsequently informed the Adult Social Care team about the expected move so he could be assessed for the NHS Continuing Healthcare.
36. In January 2023 the Council moved Mr C to an alternative accommodation. Mr C subsequently asked the Council for support to receive an individual funding budget from the NHS. He said he was also in contact with the NHS but needed the Council to complete its assessment of his care and support needs.
37. The Council said its process was to screen referrals for adult social care support first. This would be done through a phone assessment. Mr C disputed he could not do so due to his reasonable adjustments and explained it was already aware of these and his adult social care needs, following his Care Act assessment in 2022.
38. In March 2023 the Council agreed to allocate a social worker and complete a face-to-face visit with Mr C to assess his care and support needs. It subsequently explained there was a waiting list to be allocated a social worker. It also explained to obtain funding from the NHS the process would normally be for the NHS to make a referral to the Council’s Adult Social Care team.
39. In June 2023 the Council allocated a social worker to Mr C’s case and a visit was arranged for July 2023. The meeting first took place in August 2023 due to Mr C’s carer being away and as the NHS officer allocated to his case was unavailable.
40. Mr C repeatedly chased the Council’s Adult Social Care team for progress in his Care Act Assessment from September 2023 to December 2023. The Council explained its assessment was being quality assured by a manager and its legal team was considering it.
41. In late 2023, Mr C’s solicitor served a pre-action protocol letter on the Council. It subsequently completed his Care Act Assessment in early January 2024 and shared this with him. Mr C agreed to a direct payment to enable him to meet the needs identified.
42. In late 2023 the Council offered Mr C a two-bedroom property through its Project 120 scheme. This was a new built adapted property still under construction. Mr C moved into the accommodation in Summer 2024.

Mr C’s complaint

43. Mr C’s complaint is very detailed and related to the Council’s handling of his housing application and adult social care support from 2022 onwards. I have only included the points of his complaint which I have investigated: These were:
• the Council wrongly refused to consider alerts about hate crime and anti-social behaviour in 2022 as a safeguarding concern; and
• the Council failed to support him with the Continuing Healthcare Checklist process since January 2023 in a way which met his reasonable adjustment needs, and put in place a care plan which would enable him to obtain support from a personal assistant to support him with communication and correspondence.
44. Mr C asked the Ombudsman to consider this complaint. He has provided extensive information, communication and evidence of his requests and the responses he received since 2021.
45. In response to our enquiries the Council explained its handling of Mr C’s case and said it:
• had settled Mr C’s complaint regarding how it dealt with his housing situation through an out-of-court settlement, and he had since been offered a wheelchair accessible property adapted to his needs. It therefore considered this matter resolved.
• found it had properly considered Mr C’s Care Act assessments and did not accept it failed to support Mr C with his request for support and to action the Continuing Health Care process since 2023; and
• did not accept it handled Mr C anti-social behaviour and hate crime reports poorly as its safeguarding considerations found there were little or no risks in May 2022 and Autumn 2022.

Analysis and findings

46. Mr C’s complaint relates to what happened since 2022. Based on when he complained to the Council and brought the case to the Ombudsman, I do not consider his complaint to be late. Also, considering the history of events, it was relevant to have regard to events which occurred earlier for context.

Anti-social behaviour and hate crime

47. Mr C reported anti-social behaviour and hate crimes against him to the Council and the Police in early 2022 and a safeguarding alert was raised. I have not found fault in how the Council considered this concern. This is because it considered his concerns and the Police findings. It subsequently reached its view not to progress the matter further, which was a decision it was entitled to make. It informed Mr C and correctly told him this was therefore not a housing matter.
48. Mr C again reported anti-social behaviour and hate crimes against him to the Council in Autumn 2022. The Police was again involved and made recommendations to the Council to move Mr C due to the ongoing risk of abuse or assault. Mr C and his advocate also asked the Council for emergency priority under its allocations scheme.
49. Based on the evidence available, I am not satisfied there was fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view. The Council considered the incidents Mr C had reported and found these to be isolated and by persons unknown to Mr C. It was satisfied there was little or no risk to Mr C. It reached its view this was therefore not a safeguarding concern. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
50. I was also conscious no further reports were made by Mr C regarding hate crimes or anti-social behaviour and he was moved to an alternative accommodation in early 2023.
51. As explained in paragraph 9, I have not investigated Mr C’s complaint regarding the Council’s handling of his housing situation. This includes his request for emergency priority under its housing allocations scheme due to the reported anti-social behaviour and hate crimes.

Adult Social Care and Continuing Health Care assessments

52. The Council completed a Care Act assessment for Mr C in April 2022, which set out he has eligible needs for care and support. He subsequently did not want further to support from the Council’s Adult Social Care and his case was closed.
53. Mr C approached the Council again in early 2023 for support. He said this was to enable him to receive an individual funding budget from the NHS. He said the Council caused delays in this process and failed to consider his needs to engage with the process.
54. The Council has agreed there were delays in completing Mr C’s Care Act assessment. It said this was partly due to Mr C.
55. I have considered the Council’s handling of Mr C’s request and the length of time it took to complete this process. I found the Council was not at fault for re-assessing Mr C. This is because once Mr C was closed to its Adult Social Care teams support in 2022, he required a new Care Act assessment to assess whether he continued to be eligible, or his needs had changed.
56. However, I found the Council caused delays in completing Mr C’s Care Act assessment. While I accept some delays was due to Mr C or his GP, these were relatively short delays. The main delays were caused by the Council which included:
• a delay to start the assessment process in early 2023. This was due to Mr C informing the Council he could not engage with its triage process by telephone due to his reasonable adjustment. While it was for the Council to decide what adjustments to make and it did agree to allocate a social worker to complete an assessment, its decision to do so took three months which was unreasonable;
• a delay in allocating a social worker as it had a waiting list due to the demand on its service;
• a delay in seeking the relevant information it needed to reach its view on Mr C’s eligible care and support needs from professionals with some information first being sought in late 2023; and
• a significant delay in its decision-making process following its assessment of Mr C in August 2023. While the Council is entitled to quality assure its decisions and seek legal advice, this should not have delayed the process to the extent it did.
57. Overall, I understand there are five teams involved in the process from Mr C’s request until care support is put in place. This includes Tower Hamlets Connect, an initial assessment team, its social work team and locality teams, a financial assessment team, and the brokerage team. The above delays were largely due to avoidable delay and lack of clear communication between these teams.
58. The Council found its delays did not cause Mr C an injustice as the NHS confirmed in November 2023 it had not yet carried out its assessment. I acknowledge the Council’s delays may not have caused delays in the Continuing Healthcare assessment process which the NHS is ultimately responsible for.
59. However, the Council’s delayed Care Act assessment found Mr C had eligible care and support needs and it agreed to put in place a direct payment for him. As Mr C’s needs has remained unchanged and the relevant information was available to the Council throughout, I found this arrangement should have been in place much sooner. Considering the delays the Council was not responsible for, I found the arrangement should have been in place from June 2023, which should have given the Council enough time to consider his request, consult relevant professionals, and reach its decision.
60. I also found Mr C experienced unnecessary distress due to the uncertainty and time and trouble he had to chase the Council during this process.

Back to top

Agreed action

61. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr C, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mr C for the delay in assessing and reaching its view on his care and support needs in 2023;

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

2. pay Mr C a symbolic payment of £500 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty he experienced as a result of its delayed handling of his care assessment in 2023, including the loss of opportunity to receive care support in line with his direct payment from June 2023.
2. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3. Arrange for its Adult Social Care team to review Mr C’s case to establish how it can prevent delays in the Adult Social Care assessment process such as:
1. considering reasonable adjustments in its triage process and ensuring its staff are familiar with any adjustments which has been agreed;
2. avoiding unnecessary delays to allocate social workers; and
3. avoiding unnecessary delays when it intends to quality review assessments or seek legal advice: and
4. updating policies and procedures as relevant and provide training to staff in its Adult Social Care to ensure existing and amended policies and processes are clear and followed without unnecessary delay.
3. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

64. I have completed my investigation with a finding of some fault by the Council, which caused Mr C an injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman