Summary: Mx D complains the Council failed to meet their housing and social care needs when they were homeless. They said, as a result they experienced distress and had a loss of care support. We found the Council’s Housing and Adult Social Care teams caused delays and faults in its processes. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice Mx D experienced.

The complaint

1. Mx D complained the Council failed to meet their housing and social care needs when they were homeless. They also said the Council wrongly contacted their family member without his consent.
2. Mx D said, as a result, they stayed in unsuitable housing and did not have the care support they needed, which caused them distress, uncertainty, and an impact on their health.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share the final decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
8. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mx D’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mx D and considered the information they provided;
• considered the information the Council’s Housing and Adult Social Care teams provided in response to my enquiries; and
• had regard to the relevant law, guidance and policy to the complaint.
10. Mx D 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

Care Act assessment and support plans

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. 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.
12. 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.
13. Everyone whose needs the local authority meets must receive a personal budget as part of the care and support plan. A personal budget sets out the cost of meeting eligible needs, the amount a person must contribute to that cost and the amount the council must contribute.
14. A personal budget can be administered as direct payments to enable people to commission their own care and support. The council pays the direct payment into a bank account. The service user is expected to pay their contribution into the same account to enable auditing.

Homelessness and housing support

15. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The relief duty

16. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is known as the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B).
17. The relief duty lasts for 56 days. If the applicant is still homeless at the end of that period, councils must go on to consider whether they owe the main housing duty.
18. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Suitability of accommodation

19. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
20. The Code of Guidance on Homelessness says councils must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually, and case records should demonstrate that they have taken the statutory requirements into account in securing the accommodation.
21. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decisions which includes:
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end; and
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
22. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5)).
23. Applicants has a right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204).

Equality Act and the Public Sector Equality Duty

24. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
25. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010, which includes disability. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
26. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
27. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

What happened

28. In 2021 Mx D lived with their family. The Council had assessed them to be eligible for care support. They had a care and support plan which set out a direct payment and some family support was in place.
29. Mx D approached the Council for housing support in late 2021 due to a breakdown in relationship with their family. They were subsequently added to the Council’s housing register. Mx D provided their family member’s contact details to the Council.
30. By February 2022 the Council had provided some advice to Mx D and ended its prevention duty.
31. In April 2022 Mx D said they contacted the Council’s Adult Social Care (ASC) team again as they had left the family home. They had been sofa surfing for a week with other family members. They also asked for care support to be arranged for as they had no personal assistant for the direct payment.
32. Two weeks later, Mx D provided further information to the Council’s Housing team. This included their confirmation from the family member they had been asked to leave and were therefore homeless.
33. Shortly after, the Council placed Mx D in a bed & breakfast and accepted a relief duty toward them. They asked the Council’s ASC team for support as no care support was in place. They explained the accommodation did not have some necessary adaptations and they needed further help as they had other challenges to use or live in the accommodation.
34. In early May 2022 Mx D spoke with the Council. It arranged for them to receive a chair as they requested. However, it was confirmed no social worker was allocated to their case. The Council offered to put 6 hours of care support in place in the interim until a reassessment could be completed. Mx D accepted this to get some support in place, but said they expected this was in addition to the direct payment.
35. Over the following weeks, Mx D, members of their family, and health professionals told the Council they were struggling in the accommodation and without care support.
36. The Council offered Mx D temporary accommodation in a self-contained flat. They refused the accommodation as no care and support was in place, which meant they could not get food and other support they needed.
37. In Summer 2022:
• Mx D started receiving 6 hours of care support arranged by the Council in early June 2022;
• The Council again offered the temporary accommodation, accepted it owed Mx D a main housing duty, and increased their priority band on its housing register. The Council agreed to provide support for Mx D to move to the accommodation;
• The Council ASC reassessed Mx D’s care and support needs when living in the self-contained flat. It found they was entitled to over 25 hours of care support. It also said the bed & breakfast was not suitable for them, but the care package was reduced while they were in the bed & breakfast as some catering was provided;
• Mx D moved to the temporary accommodation in late June 2022. However, they informed the Council the same day the accommodation was unsuitable which included reasons of smells and noise;
• The Council agreed to move Mx D back to the bed & breakfast. However, a room on the ground floor was no longer available. Mx D said they attempted suicide after their return to the bed & breakfast;
• Mx D stayed shortly in hospital. A family member offered for them to stay, but the Council’s housing team refused to fund the bed & breakfast if they were not living there. The Council’s ASC team funded the bed & breakfast for one week, after which Mx D returned to the bed & breakfast. Some care support was provided by an agency during this time;
• In July 2022 A multi-agency meeting took place to discuss concerns around Mx D suicide attempt and mental health;
• The Council’s ASC arranged for Mx D to receive 12 hours of care support in the bed & breakfast;
• Mx D told the Council they were going abroad due to a family member being seriously ill. They said they would return in August 2022. The Council’s records show the bed & breakfast was cancelled, and their care budget was to remain in place but suspended for six weeks due to the exceptional circumstances.
38. While Mx D was away, they informed the Council in advance of their return date to the UK. The Council’s ASC team asked the Housing team for confirmation where Mx D would be placed.
39. The Council’s Housing team did not realise it had Mx D’s return date, which caused a delay in arranging a placement for them. It arranged a different out of area bed & breakfast for them shortly before their return and informed its ASC team. However, the ASC team was unable to arrange a package of care for them in the bed & breakfast, although some outreach support would be available. The Council also considered the original bed & breakfast accommodation and other options, but none were available.
40. Mx D told the Council they could not stay at the proposed out of area bed & breakfast without support being in place. They told the Council they would therefore stay with a family member until a suitable placement and care was in place.
41. In Autumn 2022, the Council made two offers to Mx D:
• It offered a permanent accommodation which was a self-contained property in a quiet area. The Council arranged for an OT to visit the property with Mx D. As repairs and adaptations were needed, it would be some time before it would be available to them.
• It made a final offer of temporary accommodation, which its ASC team could arrange their package of care for. This was in a self-contained flat within the same building as the June 2022 flat which caused Mx D distress. The Council told Mx D it was on the ground floor, had its own entrance, and away from other flats.
42. Mx D was satisfied with the permanent accommodation offer but refused the Council’s temporary accommodation offer. They were not satisfied with the Council’s explanations of why it found the flat to be suitable for them. Their concerns included smoke smells and noise which could impact their health. They also questioned what plans were in place if they became unwell as a result of the accommodation. The Council did not change its view and Mx D requested a review of its final temporary accommodation offer.
43. In late 2022 Mx D signed the tenancy for the permanent accommodation and moved in.

Mx D’s complaint

44. Mx D complained the Council failed to meet their housing and social care needs when they were homeless. They said the housing and ASC teams failed to work together.
45. The key points of their housing complaint and the Council’s responses were:
• the Council wrongly contacted their family without their consent, which breached data protection laws;

The Council said it had contacted their family member after Mx D had provided the contact details. It therefore had their consent and only did so during the prevention stage.

• its handling of their homelessness and its policies disproportionately penalised and isolated people with disabilities;

The Council said Mx D’s disabilities and health needs were taken into account throughout the homelessness application and decision-making process. It had regard to its homelessness and public sector equality duties and provided the accommodation that could be offered at the time. It explained it could only place them in general housing. It was for its ASC team to provide care support and consider respite placements.

• its offers of interim accommodation were unsuitable;

The Council accepted bed & breakfast accommodation was not the most suitable option for Mx D and they needed something more suitable. It had offered an accessible temporary accommodation which it found suitable to meet their needs. It could not have known how significant and severe the impact of the issues they experienced at the accommodation would have. It had subsequently placed them back in the bed & breakfast, but no ground floor was available.

• communication by the housing team had been poor; and

The Council apologised it had delayed contacting them in April 2022 which led to a delay in making arrangement for their homelessness. It has since taken steps to recruit more staff to mitigate this, it therefore did not uphold this part of their complaint.

• barriers were in place to access longer term housing.

The Council said it had completed an affordability assessment which found privately rented accommodation would not be affordable to them. It would therefore not recommend such a move.

46. The key points of their ASC complaint and the Council’s responses were:
• it caused delays in allocating a social worker and a care package in April 2022;

The Council agreed it had caused a delay in allocating a social worker to Mx D’s case due to pressures on its team and apologised. It also accepted it had caused delays to set up the care support for four weeks when this was agreed in May 2022. It said this was because it took longer to arrange this when they were housed outside the Council’s area. It explained it had agreed for six hours of support until Mx D’s requested reassessment could be completed, which they had agreed to.

• it caused delays in re-instating Mx D’s care package following their return to the UK in August 2022; and

The Council explained its ASC team could not reinstate their care as they were housed outside the Council’s area despite its best efforts. This part of the complaint was therefore not upheld.

• it failed to consider their health needs and their decline in health was avoidable.

The Council explained they had a care package in place through a direct payment in April 2022 and it put in place temporary outreach support of 6 hours per week. It was not until May 2022 they requested a reassessment of needs due to struggling in the out of area placement. It took their health needs, housing situation, and the decline in their health into account when completing the reassessments.

47. Mx D remains unhappy with the Council’s response and asked the Ombudsman to consider their complaint. They said due to the move and personal circumstances they brought the complaint late.
48. The Council told the Ombudsman it had taken steps to improve its services following its investigation of Mx D’s complaint and our involvement. These included:
• it has put in place an escalation process in its Adult Social Care service for when residents contact the Council, which has relevant staffing and decision-making abilities to action support quicker, including for people who are homeless through partnership work between departments;
• a change in how its operations within its teams locally to be able to quicker address and support service users in crisis;
• it had worked to increase its temporary accommodation availability since 2022;
• it provided staff training to ensure staff can consider the suitability of temporary accommodation offered; and
• its services completed a review from the learning of Mx D’s complaint.

Analysis and findings

49. Mx D complaint relates to matters which occurred from late 2021 to late 2022. Their complaint is late as the issues occurred more than 12 months before it was brought to our attention. However, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider Mx D’s complaint given the reasons they provided for why it took so long to complain.

The Council’s handling of Mx D’s initial contact with housing

50. I have not found the Council at fault for how it handled Mx D’s initial contact with it in late 2021. It contacted the family member they were living with to reach its view on what duties it owed them at the time. As Mx D provided the Council with the contact detail, it was not at fault for doing so.
51. The Council added Mx D to its housing register and discharged its prevention duty in early 2022 as Mx D did not want it to contact the family member and they were not homeless at the time.

Homelessness and care support in Spring 2022

52. Mx D became homeless in March 2022 and informed the Council in April 2022. The Council accepted it was at fault for a short delay initially due to a shortage of staff in its Housing team. It then accepted it owed them a relief duty and placed Mx D in interim accommodation soon after.
53. Mx D also told the Council’s ASC team they did not have a personal assistant for their direct payment and asked the Council to arrange care support.
54. I found the Council at fault for its initial short delay, but there was no fault in the subsequent steps it took to relieve their homelessness at the time. I also note the Council actioned Mx D’s requests to make the accommodation more suitable for them.
55. However, a few weeks later the Council became aware the interim accommodation was not suitable for Mx D. This was due to partly the accommodation itself and the lack of care support in place for them.
56. I have not found fault in how the Council’s Housing team acted. This is because it contacted the Council’s ASC team regarding the care support for Mx D and offered a temporary accommodation in a self-contained flat.
57. However, I understand Mx D did not accept the accommodation as no care support was in place at the time. The Council accepted it had no allocated social worker to Mx D’s case and it caused a delay in putting in place care support of six hours per week.
58. I found the Council’s ASC team at fault. It should have commissioned the care support Mx D needed without delay and a social worker should have been allocated to their case.
59. In addition, the Council offered them six hours of care support, which started in Summer 2022. I understand this was an interim measure, but this was not their assessed need or support at the time. If the Council wanted to change the support Mx D received, it should first have reassessed their needs relevant to the accommodation, they were in at the time.
60. I am therefore satisfied Mx D did not receive the care support they needed from April 2022 until early June 2022 when the interim care support started. This also meant their interim accommodation was not suitable for their needs, which therefore caused them distress, uncertainty, and a loss of care support.

Homelessness and care support in Summer 2022

61. The Council arranged for Mx D to move to the temporary accommodation in a self-contained flat in late June 2022. This was after their six hours of care support had started. It also reassessed their care and support needs and found they would have greater package of support in the new accommodation.
62. I understand the temporary accommodation did not work out for Mx D which was primarily due to sensory issues. While I acknowledge Mx D had shared information around their health and needs, I have not found the Council’s Housing team at fault for arranging the placement. This is because I not satisfied it should have known the impact the accommodation would have on them, and it provided all the support they needed for the move.
63. Also, there was no fault by the Council’s ASC team as it had completed the necessary assessments and arranged for the support Mx D should receive in the temporary accommodation.
64. The Council then arranged for Mx D to return to the interim accommodation, but no ground floor room was available, and their care support reverted to the six hours of care support, which was insufficient to meet their assessed needs.
65. I have not found the Council at fault for placing Mx D back at the interim accommodation as this was all that was available on short notice. However, the support it put in place to meet their care and support needs were insufficient. This is because they were unable to use the facilities in the accommodation which caused them great distress.
66. When Mx D was admitted to hospital and discharged shortly after, the Council arranged support for them to return to the interim accommodation and agreed to their request to stay with a family member for a week. I have not found fault in how the Council handled this. This is because the Council’s housing team acted in line with its policy when it said it could not fund the accommodation if Mx D did not stay there. However, its ASC team decided to fund the cost of the accommodation and put in place a support package when they returned a week later.

Homelessness and care support in August 2022

67. Mx D told the Council when they would return from abroad in August 2022. They also provided a privately arrange occupational therapist report, which set out why the interim accommodation was unsuitable to them and what would be suitable for their needs.
68. The Council’s housing team did not act on this information. This was fault. Its ASC team said it could not arrange any care support for Mx D until it knew where they would be living but kept the previous arrangement in place pending the information it received from the Council’s Housing team.
69. I understand the Council offered interim accommodation in another bed & breakfast outside its area. However, its ASC team was unable to arrange the care support they needed as the provider it had arranged could not deliver this in the location. Mx D therefore decided they had no other option than staying with a family member.
70. I found the Council’s Housing team’s delay in properly planning and arranging for Mx D’s return to be fault, which caused them distress and uncertainty due to living in unsuitable accommodation, and a loss of care support. This is because, on balance, had the Council not been at fault, Mx D would have received the care and support they were entitled to in an interim or temporary accommodation.

Homelessness and care support in Autumn 2022

71. In September 2022 the Council offered Mx D a permanent accommodation. It arranged for them to view the property with an occupational therapist to confirm the adaptations and works needed to make the property suitable for them. It explained it would take some time before this would be available for them to move into. I have seen no fault in how the Council handled its main housing duty.
72. In the interim, the Council offered Mx D temporary accommodation. This was a self-contained flat in the same building as in June 2022. However, it explained this was a ground floor flat, had its own entrance and was away from other residents. It therefore found this would be suitable for them.
73. The Council’s ASC team had kept Mx D’s package of care on hold throughout, but due to the time it had taken stopped the suspended arrangement. It then considered Mx D occupational therapist report, its previous assessment of needs for Mx D, and the proposed temporary accommodation. It agreed to put a package of care in place for when they moved in.
74. I acknowledge Mx D did not agree the temporary accommodation was suitable and decided not to move in. They stayed with family members until they moved into the permanent accommodation in late 2022 and no care support could be provided during this time.
75. I cannot consider this part of Mx D’s complaint. This is because they had review rights regarding the suitability of the interim accommodation, and they exercised their right. While the Council’s duty to provide them with their assessed care and support remained, it was not possible to provide this when they were living with a relative.

Equality

76. I have found the Council at fault in how it handled Mx D’s homelessness and care support. However, I am not satisfied there is enough evidence to show the Council failed to consider its duties under the Equality Act and its Public Sector Equality duty. This is because the evidence shows both its Housing and ASC teams considered their health and disabilities throughout, including concerns about their mental health following their suicide attempt.
77. I therefore found the Council had regard to its duties under the Equality Act. However, if Mx D believes the Council’s actions or lack of actions amounts to a breach of the Act, they have the right to ask a court to consider their concerns.

Service improvements

78. Mx D’s case was clearly challenging for the Council as it was struggling to find any accommodation which would be suitable for them. This in turn had an impact on the care and support it was able to, or needed to, provide when they were living in interim and temporary accommodation, or with a family member.
79. Mx D believes the Council’s Housing and ASC teams failed to communicate properly to resolve their homelessness and care support. I found there was some communication between the teams. However, despite of the communication, each teams’ delays or service failures contributed to Mx D’s poor experiences and the injustice they experienced.
80. The Council has since reviewed and considered learning from Mx D’s complaints and put in place changes to its services and training for staff. I am satisfied its actions were appropriate to improve its services. I have therefore made some service improvement recommendations which is mainly to evidence its progress of doing so.

Back to top

Recommended action

81. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mx D, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mx D for the delays and faults caused by its Adult Social Care and Housing teams to ensure their accommodation and care support was suitable to meet their assessed needs throughout.

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 Mx D a symbolic payment of £750 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty they experienced as a result of living in interim and other accommodation which was unsuitable to their needs from May to September 2022;
3. pay Mx D a further symbolic payment of £450 to acknowledge distress, uncertainty, and impact the loss of care and support had on them between April to September 2022.

In total the Council should pay Mx D £1,200.

82. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3.  
4. share the key learning points from this investigation with its Housing and Adult Social Care teams.
5. Send us an action plan setting out the steps it will take to ensure:
1. discussions and planning between its Housing and Adult Social Care teams are ongoing, and action is taken to address concerns about the suitability of accommodation in circumstances where the placement is contingent on Council arranged care and support; and
2. plans are in place to address circumstances where an interim accommodation in or out of its area is unsuitable for applicants unless care support is put in place.
83. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

84. There was fault by the Council’s Housing and Adult Social Care teams which caused Mx D an injustice. The Council has agreed with my recommendations, it is on this basis I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman