Summary: Ms Q complains about the Council’s handling of her care needs assessment and care plan. She also complains about the Council’s decision that it did not owe her the main homelessness duty and that she is not receiving appropriate help from children’s social services. Ms Q says this has caused her an injustice because she has not received the support she is entitled to. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s handling of the care needs assessment and care plan. There is no fault with the Council’s homelessness decision or support provided by children’s social services. We have found fault with the Council’s delay in completing its review of its homelessness decision, but this did not cause any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms Q complains about the Council’s handling of her care needs assessment and the care plan. Specifically, she complains that:

• the Council had not followed the correct process when it completed her care needs assessment;
• the care plans were not appropriate for her needs, and;
• the Council did not find her suitable accommodation when her landlord refused to allow the adaptations required.

Ms Q also complains the Council had incorrectly assessed her as not being owed the main homelessness duty in 2016, that she is not receiving appropriate help from children’s social services, and that the Council has not supported her appropriately as she is currently threatened with homelessness.

2. Ms Q is represented by her solicitor.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. Ms Q complains about the Council’s decision that it did not owe her the main homelessness duty in 2016. This is outside the time limit of 12 months and is therefore a late complaint. However, I have exercised my discretion to consider the matter. This is because it was necessary to consider if the Council’s decision in 2016 had been made properly as it would have an impact on the injustice caused to Ms Q.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke with Ms Q’s representative and considered the information he provided.
9. I made enquiries and considered the information provided by the Council.
10. I sent a draft decision to Ms Q and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 6.6) 
13. A council will apply four tests to decide what, if any, duty it owes to a homeless applicant. Councils will make inquiries to find out if the applicant is:

• eligible for assistance;
• homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• in priority need (e.g. is vulnerable, has dependent children etc.);
• not intentionally homeless.

14. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
16. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended but only if the applicant agrees in writing. If the applicant wishes to challenge the review decision, or if a council takes more than eight weeks to complete the review, they may appeal on a point of law to the County Court (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)
17. The Homeless Reduction Act 2017 came into force on 3 April 2018. This act amends the Housing Act 1996, Part 7.
18. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking from assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018, he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4))

Adult social care

19. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 means local authorities have to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to all people regardless of their finances or whether the local authority thinks an individual 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. The Council must carry out the assessment over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Local authorities should tell the individual when their assessment will take place and keep the person informed throughout the assessment.
21. The Care Act 2014 gives local authorities a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan. The care and support plan should consider what 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 local authority must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan may 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.

What happened

Background

22. Ms Q was in a car accident in November 2015. Ms Q suffered several injuries from the accident which has caused physical disabilities.
23. Ms Q has two dependent children.

Homelessness and housing

24. Ms Q approached the Council as homeless in November 2015 and completed her homeless application in February 2016. The Council provided Ms Q with interim accommodation while it carried out its enquiries to find out if it owed Ms Q the main homelessness duty.
25. In April 2016, the Council completed its enquiries and decided Ms Q was intentionally homeless. The Council did not owe Ms Q the main homelessness duty and did not have to provide her with suitable accommodation.
26. The Council explained it considered Ms Q to be intentionally homeless because she had voluntarily left her privately rented accommodation in Scotland. The Council determined the accommodation had remained available for Ms Q to occupy as she had no notices served on her to leave and no evidence to suggest the accommodation was uninhabitable.
27. The Council also said Ms Q had no valid reasons for leaving the address. Ms Q said she left Scotland because of an alleged incident that happened to her daughter, and because she had suffered racial discrimination.
28. The Council got information from the police and children’s social services into the alleged incident. The Council also enquired about the allegations of racial discrimination. The Council decided there was no factual evidence to support Ms Q’s reasons for leaving Scotland. The Council said it was satisfied Ms Q’s homelessness was directly related to her act of voluntarily leaving the accommodation in Scotland without first securing alternative accommodation.
29. The Council gave Ms Q information about her right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision. Ms Q asked the Council for a review in May 2016 and she was represented by a solicitor.
30. The Council completed the review in December 2016. The review upheld the Council’s original decision that Ms Q was intentionally homeless. The Council told Ms Q of her right to appeal to county court if she disagreed with the decision. The Council also gave her information on the time limits to lodge an appeal.
31. Ms Q told the Council she intended to appeal its decision. The Council did not provide any evidence which suggested Ms Q did appeal the decision. The Council helped secure Ms Q private rented accommodation and Ms Q left her interim accommodation in February 2017.
32. Ms Q asked the Council for help, so the Council made a referral for an occupational therapist to visit Ms Q’s accommodation. The occupational therapist visited in April 2017 and recommended some adaptations. Mr Q’s landlord refused to allow the adaptations.
33. The Council explained it had no authority to enforce the landlord to allow the adaptions. The Council advised Ms Q to speak with her landlord about allowing the adaptations or to find a property which had facilities better suited to her.
34. In March 2018, Ms Q approached the Council and told it she was threatened with homelessness because her landlord had served her with a notice to leave the property. The Council explained while the Homeless Reduction Act 2017 was not yet in force, it nevertheless took the approach to prevent Ms Q from becoming homeless.
35. In April 2018, the Council told Ms Q she was not eligible to join the housing register because she did not meet the residency criteria. The Council also told her it would help her with finding alternative private rented accommodation and referred her to the direct lettings team in May 2018. The Council said Ms Q’s engagement with the team was limited.
36. Ms Q’s landlord told the Council in June 2018 she was seeking a possession order but that it would take at least three months.
37. At present, Ms Q remains in her private rented accommodation as her landlord has not acted on the possession order.

Care needs assessment and care plans

38. The Council first assessed Ms Q’s care and social needs in January 2016. The Council gave her a six-week reablement package with the aim of helping her regain as much mobility as possible. After the reablement package ended, the Council gave Ms Q a personal budget of just over £108 per week. The Council set this out in Ms Q’s care and support plan. The Council should review care and support plans every year, as a minimum.
39. The occupational therapist visited in April 2017 and recommended some adaptations. Mr Q’s landlord refused to allow the adaptations.
40. The Council reassessed Ms Q’s care and social needs in May 2017. The Council identified Ms Q needed further support to meet her needs and increased her personal budget to £265 a week. This Council set this out in Ms Q’s care and support plan.
41. This reassessment recognised Ms Q’s landlord had refused to allow the adaptations recommended by the occupational therapist by allocating support hours for a carer to help Ms Q with her personal care.
42. The Council completed Ms Q’s most recent care needs assessment in June 2018. The assessment identified Ms Q needed further support to meet her needs and the Council increased Ms Q’s personal budget to just over £300 a week. Again, the Council set this out in her care and support plan.
43. The Council said it sent Ms Q a copy of all her care and support plans. It also said it completed all needs reviews/reassessments with Ms Q. It said Ms Q’s needs and how the Council would meet them was agreed within this process. The Council explained it was not necessary for Ms Q to sign her care and support plans for them to be considered finalised.
44. Ms Q said her most recent care plan, completed in June 2018, was not appropriate for her needs. She provided the Council with suggested corrections to her plan. The Council has acknowledged these suggestions and said it made some of the amendments requested. The Council also explained the amendments suggested by Ms Q did not have any impact on her care and support needs and therefore did not affect her personal budget.

Children’s social services

45. The Council completed a child and family assessment in April 2016. Following the assessment, children’s social services recommended a child in need plan. The Council said Ms Q declined the support, so it closed the case. Child in need plans are voluntary.
46. The Council said it had also offered Ms Q support through early help, young carers, and a family group conference. The Council said Ms Q refused all these.
47. The Council completed another child and family assessment in September 2017 following a referral by adult social care. The assessment highlighted there were no safeguarding concerns.
48. The assessment also highlighted the Council advised Ms Q to consider moving her children to a nearer school as that would mean transport would no longer be an issue. Ms Q declined this option and stated she felt this would be traumatic for her children. The Council noted the school’s view the children had settled in easily and felt they would be able to do the same with a new school.
49. The Council explained it had not explored whether other schools nearer to the family home were available for Ms Q’s children because Ms Q had declined further support from children’s social services. The Council also confirmed it had offered to look at what support systems were available to support Ms Q to get her children to school but that Ms Q declined this. The Council said the children received free bus travel and discounted rail travel.
50. The Council said it did not consider Ms Q’s children to be children in need because they were attending school with support from Ms Q’s friends and had a 100% attendance record. The Council closed the case as Ms Q declined further support.
51. Children’s social services have had no further involvement with Ms Q and her children since September 2017.

Analysis

Intentionally homeless

52. After Ms Q approached the Council as homeless, the Council made enquiries to find out whether it owed Ms Q the main homelessness duty. After these enquiries, the Council decided Ms Q was intentionally homeless.
53. The evidence shows the Council decided Ms Q had left her accommodation in Scotland voluntarily and that it was satisfied the accommodation would have been available for her to occupy had she not left. The Council also set out why it did not accept Ms Q’s reasons for leaving Scotland. Therefore, the Council did not owe Ms Q the main homelessness duty and did not have to provide her with suitable accommodation. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
54. I cannot comment on whether the Council’s decision was right or wrong just because Ms Q disagrees with the decision. I must consider whether there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
55. The evidence shows the Council made enquiries with relevant third parties after Ms Q told the Council of her reasons for leaving Scotland. The Council had to be satisfied Ms Q was not intentionally homeless and therefore this action was appropriate in the circumstances.
56. I am satisfied the Council considered appropriate and relevant factors when it made its decision. Therefore, at this stage, there is no fault in the way the Council made its decision so I cannot comment or overturn the decision itself.
57. Ms Q asked the Council to complete a review of its decision in May 2016. This is evidence Ms Q was aware of her review rights. The Council said Ms Q had legal representation for this.
58. The Council completed its review in December 2016 and upheld the Council’s original decision. The Council should have completed its review within eight weeks. Therefore, the evidence suggests there was a delay in the Council completing the review. This appears to be fault. I must now consider if the identified fault caused Ms Q any injustice.
59. I find the identified fault did not cause Ms Q any significant injustice. This is because the review upheld the Council’s original decision, so Ms Q did not lose out on any rights during the period of delay.
60. Council has set out the evidence it considered and its rationale for why it did not accept Ms Q’s reasons for leaving Scotland. Again, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make. I cannot comment on the decision itself as there is no evidence the Council did not make its decision properly.
61. Therefore, the Council was not at fault when it decided Ms Q was intentionally homeless.
62. The evidence suggests Ms Q told the Council she would appeal against the decision at county court. She also told the Council she would wait until her solicitor was available before lodging the appeal. It is not clear if Ms Q did eventually appeal the decision. However, I am satisfied the evidence shows Ms Q was aware of her appeal rights and that she was legally represented.

Adaptations and alternative accommodation

63. The evidence shows Ms Q was visited by an occupational therapist who recommended some adaptations. There is no dispute that Ms Q’s landlord had refused to allow the adaptations.
64. Ms Q’s property is privately rented. This means the Council has no authority over the private landlord and Ms Q’s landlord was entitled to refuse to allow the adaptions. The evidence shows the Council had given Ms Q advice to look for another property that had facilities better suited for her needs.
65. As the Council did not owe Ms Q the main homelessness duty, the Council had no responsibility to find Ms Q suitable alternative accommodation. Therefore, the Council was not at fault for not finding Ms Q suitable alternative accommodation.
66. Further, the evidence suggests the Council recognised that Ms Q could not get the adaptations recommended as it allocated support hours to meet Ms Q’s needs for personal care. This is discussed further below.

Current threat of homelessness

67. Ms Q approached the Council in March 2018 and told it she was threatened with homelessness as her landlord had given her a notice to leave the property. The Council has explained it took the approach to prevent Ms Q from becoming homeless.
68. The evidence suggests the Council told Ms Q they would help her with finding alternative private rented accommodation and referred her to the direct lettings team in May 2018. From the evidence, it appears Ms Q’s engagement with the team was limited.
69. Currently, Ms Q’s landlord has a possession order which means Ms Q is threatened with homelessness. The Council therefore has a responsibility to assess her need for housing in line with its duties introduced by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. In its response to my enquiries, the Council has shown its awareness of its new duties.
70. However, as the events are still ongoing, I cannot comment any further on the Council’s actions or future actions. Once the matter has ended, and if Ms Q is dissatisfied with the Council’s actions, then she could make another complaint.

Care needs assessment/reassessments and care and support plans

71. The evidence shows the Council completed a review of Ms Q’s care and support plans every year. The Council also completed an annual reassessment of Ms Q’s care needs. This was appropriate in the circumstances as councils are advised to complete reviews/reassessments yearly, as a minimum.
72. The evidence also suggests the Council involved Ms Q in the assessment/reassessment process. It can be seen from the documents the Council recorded Ms Q’s views on her needs. Further, the reassessment documents reflected Ms Q’s changing needs and the extra support that she needed. This supports the fact Ms Q could put forward her views each year during the reassessment process.
73. The Council has also explained there is no requirement for a care and support plan to be signed before it can be considered finalised. The Council explained this is because agreement is reached during the visit and the written copy of the care and support plan acts as a record. The Council is only required to produce a care and support plan to set out how it will meet the identified needs of Ms Q. Therefore, I am satisfied it fulfilled this responsibility.
74. Ms Q has also showed she was involved in the process as she sent the Council many amendments to her most recent care and support plan. This meant Ms Q was aware of her right to seek changes.
75. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault in the process the Council followed when it completed Ms Q’s care and support needs assessments/reassessments.
76. As there is no evidence of fault in the process, I am satisfied the Council was entitled to decide how many care and support hours to give Ms Q. Therefore, I cannot comment any further on the appropriateness of Ms Q’s care and support plan.

Children’s social services

77. The Council first completed a child and family assessment in April 2016. That assessment recommended a child in need plan. The Council said Ms Q declined this so children’s social services closed the case. Ms Q was entitled to decline the child in need plan as they are voluntary.
78. Further, the Council said it also offered Ms Q other support through early help, young carers, and a family group conference. The evidence suggests Ms Q refused all these options.
79. The Council completed its most recent child and family assessment in September 2017. This was because adult social care had referred the family as Ms Q had said her children were missing school.
80. The assessment highlighted no safeguarding concerns and noted the children had a 100% attendance record. This suggests Ms Q was managing to take her children to school. The Council has also provided advice to Ms Q to move her children to a school that is within walking distance from her accommodation.
81. While it is noted Ms Q feels this would be traumatic for her children, the Council was entitled to consider this as a reasonable option available to Ms Q. The Council did not consider Ms Q’s children to be in need and there is no evidence to suggest this decision has not been made properly.
82. Further, I am satisfied the Council had no responsibility to explore other school transportation options with Ms Q. This is because she declined the Council’s offer to explore the different support systems available to help her get her children to school. It was reasonable for the Council to decline to consider funding for a taxi and escort service without first exploring all other options.
83. The evidence suggests the Council has offered appropriate levels of support to Ms Q with regards to helping her get her children to school. Therefore, there is no fault in the actions the Council has taken.

Back to top

Final decision

84. I find no fault in the Council’s handling of her care needs assessments and care plans. I also intend to find no fault in the Council’s decision that it did not owe Ms Q the main homelessness duty and no fault in the level of support provided by children’s social services. I have found fault with the Council for the delay in completing the review of its homeless decision, but this did not cause Ms Q any significant injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman