Summary: There was no fault on the part of the Council, which did not have a housing duty to Mr X (who was ordinarily resident elsewhere). It fulfilled its duty under the Care Act.

The complaint

1. Solicitors complain on behalf of Mr X (the complainant) that the Council’s failure to secure him help with accessing his former property led to a loss of valuable possessions.

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 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)
3. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X’s solicitors and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X‘s solicitors and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

6. 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.
7. Sometimes councils have to decide between themselves which organisation has to meet someone’s eligible care needs under the Care Act 2014. They do this by deciding where the person is ‘ordinarily resident’. There is no definition of ordinary residence in the Care Act, therefore, the term should be given its ordinary and natural meaning.
8. There may be some cases where a council considers it proper for the person’s care and support needs to be met by providing accommodation in another council area. Section 39 to 41 of the Care Act and the regulations set out what should happen in these cases. They specify which council is responsible for the person’s care and support when they are placed in another council’s area. The principle is the person placed ‘out of area’ is considered to continue to be ordinarily resident in the first or ‘placing’ authority area and so does not get an ordinary residence in the ‘host’ or second authority. The council which arranges the accommodation, therefore, keeps responsibility for meeting the person’s needs.
9. Section 211 of the Housing Act 1996 says that where an authority has a duty to a homeless person, or a person threatened with homelessness, then they should take reasonable steps to protect that person’s’ property.

What happened

10. Mr X, a vulnerable man in his 50s, was moved by Council A into the Council’s area into emergency accommodation in 2020 to keep him safe from gang threats.
11. His solicitors contacted the Council about Mr X’s care needs and in 2023 and 2024 the Council’s records show it attempted to contact Mr X to undertake a care needs assessment but without response from him. In respect of any other duty to Mr X, however, the Council wrote to the solicitor in January 2024 saying that (as previously stated) Mr X’s housing needs remained the responsibility of Council A.
12. The solicitor says that Mr X’s accommodation was falling into disrepair. In April 2024 Council A ended Mr X’s tenancy but Mr X refused to leave the property as he had nowhere else to go.
13. On 28 June 2024 the solicitor wrote to the Council explaining that the property had now been secured and the lettings agent had said he would notify the police if Mr X attempted to enter it. He asked for support and emergency accommodation for Mr X. He sent an assessment report showing that Mr X lacked capacity in respect of residence and care, and also lacked capacity to conduct proceedings.
14. On 1 July the Council offered Mr X emergency accommodation which was rejected as being in an area which was unsafe for Mr X. The Council asked Mr X to say which areas were safe for him. The Council’s solicitor confirmed the capacity assessment was being shared with the relevant department.
15. On 10 July 2024 the solicitor wrote to Council A explaining that the letting agent managing Mr X’s accommodation had changed the locks on the property, that Mr X’s belongings were still there and the agent expected Mr X to contact a removals firm to move the items. The letting agent had given Mr X until 18 July to retrieve his belongings after which they reserved the right to dispose of them. He asked Council A if it could provide urgent support to help Mr X move his belongings. He sent the same email to the Council’s adult social care department and wrote to it again on 12 July.
16. Council A replied that its adult social care department had no involvement with Mr X. The Council says it cannot trace a reply to Mr X’s solicitor.
17. Mr X told his solicitors that the items left at the property had included “a green Rolex watch, an expensive sofa, clothes, a golf club set, a table, chairs, trainers, brakes (used to build a wall), and a wardrobe and other furniture that he had left at the property”.
18. The solicitor complained to the Council in November 2024. He said the Council should have taken steps to retrieve Mr X’s property or helped him to make arrangements before the removal took place. He said Mr X wanted either his possessions returned or compensation for their loss.
19. The Council responded in December. It said Mr X had never been ordinarily resident in the area and therefore it did not owe that duty to him. It said the complaint he was making was more of a civil claim than a complaint. Finally it raised the question of Mr X substantiating the claim for lost possessions and also mentioned the potential involvement of the letting agent.
20. The solicitor complained to us in June 2025. He said the Council should compensate Mr X financially for the loss of belongings it could have prevented.
21. The solicitor says Mr X did not have any insurance for his possessions. He says any photographs or receipts for the items were disposed of with the rest of his property.
22. The Council says Mr X had remained ordinarily resident in Council A’s area although he had been temporarily placed in its area by that council. It said it had attempted to contact X about his social care needs in 2023 and 2024 but not met with any response from him. It says however that the duty of protection of property under the Housing Act remained that of Council A.

Analysis

23. The Council did not have a duty under the Housing Act to Mr X who remained ordinarily resident as explained to his solicitor. I note that when requesting assistance for Mr X in July 2024 the solicitor copied his request to both councils. There is no evidence of fault on the part of the Council.
24. The Council fulfilled its duty under the Care Act by seeking to assess Mr X in 2023 and early 2024 and then pursuing that when he required emergency accommodation and was proven to have lacked capacity in July 2024.
25. In addition Mr X cannot substantiate the existence of the items he says were lost.

Back to top

Decision

26. I have completed this investigation as there was no fault on the part of the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman