Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council dealt with assessment of his social care needs following a previous decision by the Ombudsman in December 2019. We find there was no fault by the Council in this matter, nor in associated matters relating to his housing conditions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained that a social care needs assessment completed by the Council was not properly carried out and failed to meet his needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered all information provided by Mr B relevant to his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of the information it provided in response.
5. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments received in response before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mr B suffers with chronic serious illness. If he does not routinely take his medication his immune system is severely impaired, and he is at high risk of infection. He also suffers from anxiety and depression.
7. In a decision on a previous complaint in December 2019, the Ombudsman found the Council had failed to assess Mr B’s care and support needs. A recommendation was made that the Council should complete an assessment as far as possible based on information held, consider Mr B’s capacity to engage in the assessment, and assess whether there were any safeguarding concerns.

Actions relating to social care

8. Following the Ombudsman’s decision referred to above, the Council completed an office-based assessment. That was informed by information gathered from several sources including Mr B’s medical practitioners, once Mr B had consented to that contact being made, as well as information gathered from other professionals and from Mr B himself over the telephone. The Council had not been able to complete a face-to-face assessment because Mr B had declined to meet with relevant social care staff, despite being offered numerous dates for assessment.
9. On 6 February 2020, the Council sent Mr B the draft assessment document, and the same day the social worker spoke to him and he agreed she could visit him at home the following day with an occupational therapist (OT). After that visit, the social worker sent him an email confirming the next actions, which included that the completion of a housing needs report by the OT, and liaison with the environment health officer (EHO) about the condition of the property.
10. The assessment document noted issues of significant disrepair in the property including that the shower was not working; there was no hot water; the sink and toilet were not fixed to the wall; there was water ingress from a skylight; poor ventilation; and lack of electricity in the kitchen area (previously a storeroom which Mr B had adapted without authorisation). It was noted that there was a dispute between Mr B and the landlord about repairs and rent owed, and a notice seeking possession had been served.
11. The assessment noted that Mr B had requested for support with his care and support needs particularly meal preparation and domestic tasks, and with personal care/showering. But the social worker noted they could not ascertain whether Mr B had any eligible needs at this time, due to the serious disrepair issues in the property. The support plan said necessary repairs and adaptations identified had been agreed in principle by the property’s landlord, but Mr B had not allowed access for these repairs to be completed. The conclusion of social care was that it could take no further action in respect of social care assessment or provision at this point.
12. Following this, there were several telephone contacts from Mr B and others acting on his behalf, and he complained that the Council had failed to recognise his needs and had discriminated against him. Responding to this in July 2020 the Council said that delivery of the final version of the assessment had
    “been delayed by a number of issues including access to you and your home to accurately assess your needs, your refusal to allow us to gather pertinent information to inform the assessment eligibility domains, difficulties that we have encountered in forging a constructive clinical relationship with you, conflicting narratives about your functional independence and, most recently, the obvious complexities of progressing the issues that you have raised in the midst of a pandemic and lockdown. There have also been repeated occasions where you have formally advised that you did now want any further contact from selected individuals and services including your advocate, in often challenging forms of communication, which has of course made clinical and practical conclusions more protracted”. The Council apologised for any additional stress caused by the delay.
    The Council went on to set out some services it had offered but which Mr B had declined, including a carer while repairs were outstanding; food bank vouchers, food parcels and ‘meals on wheels’ information; support to get change for the electricity meter; and a deep clean of his home. The Council reiterated that full assessment of needs was not possible primarily because of Mr B’s housing conditions, and that once major works had been completed this could be revisited.
13. Mr B’s case was then referred for allocation to a neighbourhood social worker. In November 2020, which his case was awaiting allocation, Mr B spoke to a duty social worker. The Council’s note of that call refers to a discussion primarily about his housing situation, and the consideration that resolution of housing issues might also resolve care and support needs.

Analysis

14. The Council’s action in respect of social care in this case has been hampered by several difficulties, the most significant of which are those presented by the condition of Mr B’s home. The evidence shows that it has assessed his social care needs so far as it has been able, given the complexities of the case. Its view based on that assessment is that he does not have presenting social care needs meeting the threshold for services. The social care service continues to be willing to work with him, with the allocation to a neighbourhood social worker to explore care and support needs further. Social care liaised appropriately with housing, in the clear recognition that the most significant issue is disrepair to the property in which Mr B currently lives.

Actions relating to disrepair

15. While Mr B’s complaint was not specifically about the Council’s actions in relation to his housing, because the two matters are so closely intertwined, I have also considered the Council’s role and actions in respect of the disrepair issues and housing needs.
16. Mr B has lived in his current privately rented accommodation since 2016. It is described as a ground-floor one-room building with a kitchenette and a small shower room and toilet off the one room. Mr B has knocked through to a storage room attached, and adapted this into a kitchen.
17. Private landlords are responsible for ensuring rented accommodation is maintained to a certain standard including carrying out repairs and making sure appliances are safe to use. However, councils have powers to deal with disrepair to privately rented properties. When a council has reason to believe there is serious risk to the health and safety of an occupier it must inspect the property (Housing Act 2004). Officers should determine the category of hazards identified in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005 (‘the Regulations’). Where a Category 1 hazard is identified, they must take appropriate enforcement action. This may include serving an improvement notice setting out what the landlord must do to stop the hazard. They can also choose to act regarding less serious ‘Category 2’ hazards if they think it necessary.
18. Accordingly, having received a complaint in December 2019 the EHO made an inspection visit, the notes from which record that the property was in a very poor state. The shower was not working, there was no fixed heating, windows were boarded up, the sink and toilet were coming off the wall, and electrics were described as ‘all over the place’, with multiple overloading of sockets throughout the flat. The landlord was asked to arrange for an electrician to visit urgently to ensure that the electrical system was safe and to produce an electrical safety certificate. An Electrical Installation Safety Report produced after inspection on 23 December 2019 described the condition of the installation as ‘unsatisfactory’, with some aspects category 2 ‘potentially dangerous - urgent remedial action required’ and some category 3 ‘improvement recommended’.
19. In early January 2020, the Council decided to serve a Hazard Awareness Notice (HAN). This type of notice, served under the Housing Act 2004, advises the person on whom it served that Category 1 or Category 2 hazard(s) exist on the premises. Such a notice does not specify dates for the work to be started or completed, and no offence is committed if the notice is not complied with. The Council sent Mr B an email outlining the action it was going to take against the landlord to try to get Mr B’s flat brought up to an acceptable standard, and on 13 February it issued the HAN to the landlord. In communication with Mr B following this, the Council said it was aware there were category 1 and 2 hazards in the property but as Mr B was not allowing the landlord access, it would be difficult to put a timescale on this, and therefore an Improvement Notice would not be served at this time and this would be reviewed in six months. The HAN referred to a category 1 hazard of excess cold (due to there being no fixed heating in the flat; a skylight which does not close properly, and inadequate wall and roof insulation) and category 2 hazards in respect of domestic hygiene, pests, and refuse; personal hygiene sanitation and drainage; electrical hazards (noting there was no electrical installation condition report or records for the installation); and food safety.
20. Following service of the HAN, the Council had further contact from Mr B saying the works had not been done, and from the landlord saying he was still trying to get access to the property. The Council’s records in mid-April 2020 refer to an electrical report which categorised installation as unsatisfactory, indicating dangerous or potentially dangerous conditions had been identified, requiring urgent remedial action. There are emails which show ongoing communications at this time between the Council and the landlord, and between the landlord and electrical firms, as updates were sought on the electrical works, access issues were referred to and there was also an indication that the landlord was reluctant to do works to the flat, claiming there were rent arrears of £15,000 and that eviction proceedings had been delayed. On 30 April the Council sent an email to the landlord saying that remedial work to address a category 2 matter which did not require access to Mr B’s flat had still not been completed and if this was not done immediately formal enforcement action would be taken. On 5 May the Council served a further HAN, this time in respect of the building’s common parts.
21. On 6 July 2020, the Council decided it was necessary to vary the HAN to a Prohibition Order, as serious hazards remained unresolved by landlord over six months on from the original HAN. A report prepared in connection with this noted that after the HAN there had been a lockdown due to Covid19 which had meant contractors were unable to start required works. The Order, served on 23 July 2020, prohibited the use of Mr B’s flat for occupation as living accommodation. The statement of reasons for the Order set out that the serious Category 1 hazard of excess cold had several aggravating factors including an associated Category 2 hazard of electrical safety whereby the electrical installation and continuity of heating could not be maintained safely. Negotiations were ongoing with the power supply network but there was no fixed date for the installation of the three-phase supply required. It was noted that Mr B, as the tenant, was extremely vulnerable and there were mitigating factors which appeared to be unresolvable by remedial works or possession proceedings both of which were suspended or delayed because of the present Covid19 crisis. The statement also noted that the dwelling did not have full pp for use as residential accommodation, but it due to the passage of time it was beyond scope of planning enforcement. The Council’s view was that the dwelling is of poor quality and would not have been approved by planning or building control for use as residential accommodation, and any remedial works to mitigate serious hazards were a poor compromise to a full and new application to rebuild the dwelling – which the landlord had now submitted. In correspondence with Mr B’s advocate the Council explained why it would not undertake remedial works in default given the specific circumstances of this case.
22. Mr B remained in the property. He had a right to contest the Order by way of an appeal to the Residential Property Tribunal. The Council has received no confirmation from that Mr B has lodged such an appeal.

Analysis

23. The Council’s evidence shows that it has been working with the landlord to try to get necessary improvement works made to Mr B’s property, within the legislative framework available to it. It has served HANs and escalated formal action to a Prohibition Order when it became clear that this was appropriate. The records evidence why these measures were deemed appropriate and the action taken to try to achieve compliance before the Prohibition Order was issued, as well as extensive communications throughout with both the landlord and Mr B. Taking account of the complex circumstances of the case, including the impact of Covid19 restrictions on the timeline, there have not been any significant delays.

Actions relating to housing

24. The Council’s records show that in February 2020 Mr B made a homelessness application and was asked to provide some documentation to support this, including proof of identification and bank statements and medical information. To date the homelessness advisor has not received what was requested. Mr B considers that some information has been submitted to the Council already, albeit to other departments, but the Council has explained that it cannot obtain information such as passport details from other departments such as Housing Benefits. It Council says it is keen to assist him but need his co-operation to proceed with his application.
25. The Council was in communication with Mr B’s advocate between July and September 2020 and a virtual meeting was arranged to discuss housing options. But Mr B decided he did not want this meeting to go ahead.
26. The Council’s view is that Mr B would likely be entitled to help under homelessness legislation as his circumstances mean he is very likely to be in priority need. Once a homelessness application was made and supported by the relevant evidence, the Council would aim to assist him by providing a relief duty letter and personal housing plan, with a view to ultimately assist him into a private assured shorthold tenancy, paying an incentive to procure the property. However, in December 2020 Mr B advised the Council he wished to cancel his homelessness application, and so the Council closed the application in January 2021. The homelessness prevention team cannot negotiate for Mr B to remain in his current accommodation, particularly with a Prohibition Order in place, but it can assist with finding an alternative should he wish to make and pursue a new application.
27. In May 2020 when the homelessness prevention manager spoke to Mr B about the conditions in his flat, the officer advised him he could make a housing register application alongside the homelessness application, if he had lived in the borough for five years out of seven. Mr B then applied to join the housing register, on 31 May 2020. The Council has taken account of the prohibition order and the possession order in respect of the property and has awarded relevant points to his housing application because of this. It has advised he may also be entitled to medical points which if awarded would give greater priority for rehousing under the Council’s housing allocations scheme. The housing register application remains open, and Mr B can bid for one-bed properties.

Analysis

28. The Council’s evidence in respect of housing matters shows that it was unable to progress Mr B’s homelessness application because the relevant documentation, requested on several occasions, was not received, and ultimately Mr B chose to withdraw his application, as he was entitled to do. Mr B’s housing register application has been assessed to take account of the Prohibition Order served in respect of his current accommodation, and he has been advised he can apply for increased points based on his medical conditions, should he wish to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

29. There is evidence to show that there has been considerable liaison between the departments of adult social care, environmental health, and housing, as the Council has sought to take a holistic approach to Mr B’s circumstances. It is very clear that those circumstances are very difficult and complex. However, there is no evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of these matters.
30. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman