Introduction

Councils’ consideration of people’s rights do not end with service and policy design. Day-to-day decisions on how services are provided could engage individual’s rights at any time. Councils should be alert to when this might happen. 

Where a decision involves interfering with a qualified right – such as a right to a family life – councils should be able to demonstrate due regard for this in their decision-making process.
In this section, we have included stories that show how failing to consider people’s rights can lead to injustice in a variety of service areas. We have also identified examples where we did not find fault – to help councils recognise ‘what good looks like’ when reflecting on their own service delivery.

Abdul’s story: Undue regard for right to a family life 

(Case ref: 20 012 225)

Abdul lived in a one bedroom-flat with his wife and five children. He approached the council for help when their landlord asked them to leave. 

The council decided Abdul’s family was not threatened with homelessness because the notice asking them to leave was invalid. It said their accommodation was reasonable to continue to occupy. 
After receiving another eviction notice soon after, Abdul went back to the council and it accepted a duty to help prevent him and his family becoming homeless. Its record said the family was not severely overcrowded. 

The council made a number of attempts to locate a four-bedroom rental property for Abdul’s family, but they remained in their existing flat for more than a year. When Abdul complained to the council, it eventually provided interim accommodation and accepted a main housing duty.

What we found

The council accepted it had failed to identify the family’s flat was unreasonable to continue to occupy, due to overcrowding, when Abdul first approached it. It repeated this failure a second time. As a result, the council failed to provide suitable accommodation for more than a year.
We found the council failed to consider whether the family’s housing conditions enabled them to enjoy a family life and home, under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Poor processes, faulty decision making, and inadequate record keeping contributed to this undue regard.

Putting it right

The council agreed to apologise to Abdul and pay him £6,000 for the impact of living in overcrowded conditions for so long.
It also agreed to demonstrate how it would ensure housing staff consider relevant rights of applicants under the Human rights Act 1998, as part of its duties under housing legislation.
We also asked for future updates, to reassure us that improvements already planned to the council’s housing management systems would fulfil the aim of avoiding similar issues from reoccurring.

George's story: Qualified rights in care settings 

(Case ref: 20 011 478)

George complained about a council-funded care home suspending visits to his mother, Molly, after an outbreak of COVID-19. She is a long-term resident, in her 90s and has dementia. 

The period covered was October 2020 to February 2021, when government guidance was clear that care homes should decide on visiting arrangements, having regard to the guidance and advice from Public Health England and local public health teams. 

The guidance said visits needed to stop if there was an outbreak, unless they were for residents who were at the end of their life. 

George believed he should be allowed to visit his mother continually because her dementia is a life-limiting illness.

What we found 

We found the care home did not consider Molly to be at the end of her life initially. This view was supported by her GP. When the GP’s view changed in February 2021, the care home allowed visits. 
We had no grounds to criticise that decision because it was in line with guidance. We also found the case notes and risk assessments showed the council and the care home had regard to the impact of stopping visits on Molly. 
We were satisfied the care home had considered the family’s right to a family life, and that it had provided justified reasons for interfering with this right. We did not uphold the complaint.

Paula and Henry’s story: Interfering with childcare arrangements 

(Case ref: 21 000 997)

Henry and his wife, Paula, were separated and had three children. The council carried out a child protection investigation following concerns raised by the police about Paula. The council decided Paula’s contact with her children should be supervised. Henry then decided she could not have direct contact. He began legal action. 

Paula subsequently collected her children from school and told Henry she had exercised her parental responsibility to take them. The council told Henry that because both parents had parental responsibility, it could not prevent Paula from doing this. 

A council social worker then visited the children and found no immediate safeguarding concerns. However, the council had not resolved the earlier concerns it had about her contact with the children.

Henry told the social worker he intended to collect the children the next day. The social worker warned him not do this and said there would be child protection proceedings against him if he did. The social worker recommended shared residency between him and Paula, but Henry did not want this.

What we found 

We found the council inappropriately interfered in family affairs, without justification. The council had no evidence Henry posed a risk of harm to his children, so it had no grounds to threaten him with child protection action. 

We said the council was acting over and above its legal powers by trying to impose shared custody arrangements on Henry. In the absence of any safeguarding issues, it is for the courts to decide contact and residency decisions where parents cannot agree – not councils. 
We considered the council’s interference with private arrangements was a failure to have regard to the right to a family and private life. 

Putting it right

The council agreed to apologise to Henry and pay him £1,000 to recognise the distress it caused him. 

Shayan’s story: The right to education 

(Case ref: 21 003 573)

Shayan complained the council had refused to provide his child, Zara, with suitable transport between school and the overnight respite care she sometimes attended, which helped reduce the risk of a family breakdown. 

Zara suffered an increase in epileptic seizures. Shayan said the council refused to give emergency rescue medicine when she was travelling on school transport and this was against human rights law. He said Zara’s health was at risk if she did not have her rescue medicine when needed and that as a result he could not work because he had to take her to and from school. 

The council told us it could not recruit a personal assistant who was willing to administer the medicine and existing staff were not willing to be trained to do it.

What we found 

The council said the law did not require it to provide a trained personal assistant and it only needed to make ‘reasonable arrangements’ to transport Zara. However, statutory guidance says councils have a duty to make necessary arrangements to facilitate attendance at school for eligible children. It failed to do so in this case. 
We also found the council did not consider Zara’s right to education when it failed to provide suitable transport. 

Putting it right

The council agreed to apologise to Shayan and pay a token amount for taking Zara to school when the council should have provided suitable transport. It would review Zara’s transport arrangements.
The council also agreed to review other disabled children’s cases to ensure their travel arrangements are in line with statutory guidance, and to use this case in its next round of staff training. After our investigation ended, Zara started receiving support from a trained personal assistant to help her get to school safely. 

Jane’s story: Failure to provide person-centred care

(Case ref: 19 014 556)

Jane had medical conditions which meant she required help going to the toilet at night. She complained the council failed to properly assess her needs, which meant her care and support plan was inadequate.

The council told her she did not require overnight support, and her needs could be met by using incontinence products. 

What we found 

We found the council’s assessment of Jane’s needs was based on out-of-date information that did not reflect her current circumstances. The council had failed to act on concerns raised by Jane and her partner about the suitability of incontinence products, and the need for additional social care support at night. As a result of the faults, Jane had been left saturated in urine and faeces overnight, until her carers arrived in the morning.

We found the council’s lack of a proper care assessment showed it had not taken account of Jane’s rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which meant her dignity and autonomy had been neglected. 

Putting it right

The council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment for the distress Jane suffered and cover the costs of soiled mattresses and bedding. The council also agreed to arrange training for staff to improve the way it carried out assessments of people’s social care needs. Following our decision, the council commissioned an independent review of its adult social care processes and complaints procedures to avoid similar mistakes from happening again.