Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with him when he became homeless and failed to meet his eligible care needs. The Council has apologised for the lack of communication from its Housing Team. However, it has not addressed the failure to deal properly with Mr X’s care needs, including a failure to meet them for several days. It needs to apologise, pay financial redress and improve its working practices.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to deal properly with him when he became homeless and failed to meet his care eligible 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. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
4. 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, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• discussed the complaint with Mr X;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mr X and the Council, and invited comments for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr X uses a wheelchair. He lived with his father in accommodation provided by his father’s employer, which was due to come to an end when he retired and went to live elsewhere.
7. Mr X therefore applied to the Council for housing on the basis that he was going to become homeless.
8. On 13 January 2020 Mr X filled in a health, housing and support needs form. This said:
• carers (father and friends) supported him every day;
• the Mental Health Team visited every three weeks;
• he used a self-propelling wheelchair in the home and a powered wheelchair outdoors;
• he received 3-4 hours of support a day;
• his carers would spend the night to “sort me out”;
• he needed a two-bedroom bungalow near a bus-stop with a wet-room, ramps and low kitchen worktops.
9. The Council’s Housing Department referred Mr X for a social care needs assessment, as he said he needed two bedrooms so a carer could stay over to meet his need for support with continence. The Council assessed Mr X’s social care needs on 23 January. The assessment identified eligible care and support needs over:
• maintaining a habitable home;
• being appropriately clothed;
• managing toilet needs;
• maintaining personal hygiene; and
• being able to make use of the home safely.
10. Although the assessment referred to Mr X’s claim that he needed help overnight three times a week with continence, it does not identify this as an eligible care need. Nor does it explain why that is not the case. The assessment identifies these actions to address Mr X’s eligible needs:
• update his care and support plan to reflect his current needs and outcomes;
• Mr X to continue engaging with Mental Health Services to develop strategies to manage his wellbeing; and
• the Housing Team to provide Mr X with suitable accommodation which is wheelchair accessible and promotes his independence.
11. The Council did not produce a care and support plan.
12. On 21 January Mr X asked the Council to reconsider his need for two bedrooms. He said he would be able to arrange his own care if he had two bedrooms.
13. On 14 February the Council accepted a duty to prevent Mr X from becoming homeless under Part 7, Section 195(5) of the Housing Act 1996.
14. On 18 February Mr X emailed the Council with the following list of questions, to which I have added the responses from his Housing Officer and Social Worker:
• “What happens when the 10 days are up?” – Mr X should visit the Housing Team’s office when he became homeless on 28 February, so it could arrange emergency accommodation for him.
• “Where do I go?” – after completing outstanding paperwork with Mr X, the Council would tell him where his emergency accommodation was.
• “Who sort out the care?” – the Council could source a package of care or Mr X could have direct payments to employ his own carers.
• “Will the care be set up for that date?” – the Council could not say whether a care provider would be able to support him when he became homeless, but it could start looking for one.
• “How do I set up the nurse coming around when I do not know where to?” – Mr X could inform the nurses of his new address.
• “How do I get my Meds delivery because I do not nowhere to?” – Mr X could inform the pharmacy of his new address but may need to arrange a different pharmacy.
• “What happens with my doctors because of getting there?” and “What happens about all my hospital appoints because of getting where?” – the Council provided information on accessible transport Mr X could use for hospital appointments and accessing the community. It said he may need to change GP, unless he was close enough to his current GP.
• “What happens if there is a fire at night because I can’t get out of bed what happens?” -  this could be explored if suitable accommodation was found.
• “What happens if I poo myself at night?” – this could be explored if suitable accommodation was found.
• “What happens if I poo myself in the days?” – this could be explored if suitable accommodation was found.
• “Who will do the cooking and cleaning?” – this could be explored if suitable accommodation was found.
• “Who will do the washing?” – either carers arranged by the Council or PAs employed by Mr X.
• “Who will help me get dressed?” – either carers arranged by the Council or PAs employed by Mr X.
• “Who helps me moving?” – the Council could not advise Mr X about this.
15. On 28 February the Council provided Mr X with accommodation in Hotel A until 2 March. It arranged for care workers to visit for 45 minutes in the mornings and 30 minutes in the evenings.
16. The Council did not produce a care and support plan for Mr X.
17. On 2 March Mr X visited the Council’s Housing Team which told him he would be staying at Hotel B until 8 March. When he arrived at Hotel B the lift was not working so it sent him to Hotel C (run by the same company and just up the road). Mr X sent a text to his Social Worker to let her know he would be staying in a different hotel. She texted back to say the Council’s Reablement Team would arrive at 18.30 to put him to bed and 11.00 in the mornings to get him up. Mr X said he was not happy about this as he would miss breakfast and would only be up for seven and a half hours. The Social Worker told him that was all that was available. But the Reablement Team did not arrive at 18.30, so Mr X spent the night in his wheelchair.
18. Mr X e-mailed the Council on 3 March. He said a two-bedroom bungalow was available for a wheelchair user in an area which would enable him to access free care from his friends, as well continue accessing his existing healthcare. He said the weekly cost (£105) would be much less than a one-bedroom flat where he would need paid carers (£322 a week) which also needed adapting (£15,000) or his relief accommodation (average cost £975 a week).
19. Mr X complained about the lack of support to the Social Worker. She told him the Reablement Team would visit that night (3 March). When the Reablement Team visited that evening it did not have the equipment needed (banana board and slide sheet), so Mr X had to spend another night in his wheelchair.
20. Mr X received no support at all on 4 March. The Council’s Reablement Team said it would not visit Mr X again as it was more appropriate for him to have a commissioned package of care. The Council could not source a package of care from a private care provider. For some care providers the central Bristol location was a problem (e.g. because of parking). Mr X told the Council he would not accept respite care and wanted a two-bedroom property where his own carers could visit him. He also said he wanted a copy of his care plan.
21. The Housing Team e-mailed to Mr X on 5 March. It said he had been assessed as needing a one-bedroom property and would not change this unless he provided evidence to the contrary.
22. The Housing Team also sent Mr X a letter telling him the duty to prevent him from becoming homeless had come to an end as he was now homeless. It said the Council now had a duty under Section 189B(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to take reasonable steps over the next 56 days to help secure suitable accommodation for at least six months. It said he was also expected to take reasonable steps to relieve his homelessness and it would update his Personal Housing Plan to set out the steps he and the Council were expected to take. It said it would continue to provide accommodation under Section 188(1) of the Housing Act. It told Mr X he had the right to request a review of:
• any decision relating to the duty which the Council owes you under the homelessness legislation;
• any decision relating to the steps set out in your Personal Housing Plan which the Council intends to take in order to attempt to relieve your homelessness;
• any decision by the Council to end its duty to attempt to prevent or relieve your homelessness;
• the suitability of any accommodation offered to you in order to discharge the Council’s relief duty.
23. Mr X e-mailed his Social Worker on 5 March to complain about a lack of support. He said he had told her on 6 February that he would need care from 28 February. He said he had been told there was a care and support plan but had not been given a copy. He said he wanted the Occupational Therapist’s report from an assessment on 26 February.
24. When Mr X’s Social Worker replied, she said:
• no care providers had the capacity to support him then or in the foreseeable future (i.e. it could take months);
• an extra care housing scheme had offered Mr X a self-contained flat with his own tenancy where carers would visit, but he turned this down. The scheme had another flat, but he would need to act quickly if he wanted to consider this. She would look at how his mental health support could continue to support him if he decided to live there;
• it had sourced a respite placement in a care home “in order to prevent pressure sores arising and other health issues”.
25. The Social Worker said the Council had nothing else to offer Mr X and by offering extra care housing or a respite placement, it was fulfilling its duty of care towards him. She sent Mr X a copy of his Care Act assessment (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above).
26. Mr X visited the Housing Team’s office on 9 March as he needed to move to alternative accommodation. His Social Worker was also there. The Council told Mr X he had two options, move to emergency accommodation in Somerset (Hotel D) or accept the offer of respite care. Mr X turned down the offer of respite care. He said his usual carers had been helping him at Hotel C, but he was not sure they would be able to do so in Somerset.
27. When Mr X moved to Hotel B he bought equipment so his carers could help transfer him safely, which cost £85. He also paid for taxis so they could continue to meet his needs in Somerset, which cost £392. When he asked the Council to refund these costs in June, it agreed to consider his request.
28. Mr X complained to the Council on 11 March about the failure to support him since he became homeless. He said he had:
• explained about his care needs, including his night-time need for help with continence (three times a week to help him get up, once a week to help when he soiled the bed and once week when he needed help with his catheter);
• asked about call outs because he could not have a careline to call for help at night;
• asked the Council to reconsider his need for two bedrooms so he could arrange his own care at no cost to the Council.
29. By 17 March Mr X was staying in Hotel E to the north of Bristol, but he had to leave on 20 March. He visited the Council’s Housing Office to find out what the plans were. The Council told him it would e-mail him on 20 March to let him know where he would be staying next. When Mr X said he did not have a good support network as he was out of the area for his Community Nurse Team to visit and friends were meeting his care needs, he was advised to put his concerns in an e-mail. Mr X e-mailed his Housing Officer when her get back to Hotel E saying he needed to know what the plan was for him for the next 12 weeks (when he would be shielding) as he needed access to nursing care and could not pay for food as it would be costing him £200 a week to meet his care needs.
30. When his Housing Officer replied she said:
• they were encouraging people not to attend the Housing Office because of COVID-19;
• they were trying to source suitable and more permanent emergency accommodation and would prioritise him for such accommodation;
• he had refused Adult Social Care’s offers of support, saying he had his own support network;
• he should refer himself to Adult Social Care if he felt his needs were not being met;
• he could contact his GP about the 12-week isolation;
• she accepted accommodation out of the area was not suitable or ideal and would continue to ask for accommodation “as close as possible”;
• he should continue to bid for permanent accommodation each week.
31. Mr X e-mailed his Housing Officer again the next day. He said:
• his GP told him he was one of the people who needed to shield for 12 weeks;
• the Council had failed to comply with its duties under the Care Act, leaving him with no care for three days, so he had to make his own arrangements.
32. On 19 March Mr X e-mailed the Council again saying:
• he did not know where he was going on 20 March;
• he needed to be somewhere his carers could get to him by bus;
• the Community Nursing Team needed to be able to get to him;
• he needed to stay somewhere longer than a week so he could arrange meals on wheels as he had no money for food.
33. Mr X visited the Housing Team office on 20 March when he had to leave Hotel E at midday. At 13.00 the Council told him he was moving to Hotel A, but not to get there before 15.00.
34. Mr X signed a direct payments agreement on 20 March. The Council initially agreed to backdate the payments to 11 March (making the first payment on 23 April) but later agreed to backdate the payments to 5 March. Since then he has received direct payments so he can arrange his own care. He uses them to employ personal assistants (PAs) to meet his social care needs.
35. Mr X complained to the Council about putting him at risk and not letting him know what was going on. He said:
• he had visited the Housing Team office on 17 March to find out what was going on, as he needed to leave Hotel E on 20 March, but had not been able to get past the front desk or talk to his Housing Officer;
• he needed to know what the Council was going to do to protect him for the next 12 weeks as he needed access to care, food and help from Nurses;
• it was costing him £200 to pay for care and he had no money for food.
36. On 22 March Mr X told the Council he needed to increase his support hours from 16 to 24.5 because of COVID-19:
• 06.00-07.30 – to get Mr X out of bed, washed and dressed
• 07.30-08.00 – to get breakfast
• 13.00-13.30 – to provide lunch
• 18.00-18.30 – to provide dinner
• 22.30-23.00 – to hep Mr X to bed
37. When the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint (see paragraph 34 above) on 31 March, it said:
• it was discouraging people from visiting its offices because of COVID-19;
• Mr X should stay in Hotel A until further notice and it would tell him about any changes but it hoped he would not have to move again;
• he should continue to bid for properties but it would make a direct offer of permanent accommodation but this would take time because of COVID-19.
38. As Mr X was not happy with the Council’s response he asked the Council to review it on 1 April.
39. The Council produced a care and support plan for Mr X, but did not send him a copy, which provided for PAs to visit:
• 06.00-07.30 – to help get out of bed, shower, and dress
• 07.30-08.00 – to help get breakfast
• 13.00-13.30 – to help get lunch
• 18.00-18.30 – to help get dinner
• 22.30-23.00 – to hep undress and get into bed
40. On 6 April Mr X told a Social Worker he was using his money to pay for his care and now had no money for food. He had been denied an emergency payment by the Local Crisis and Prevention Fund as he did not meet the criteria. He said a food bank was no good for him as he only had access to a kettle at Hotel A.
41. The Community Meals Manager told Mr X’s Social Worker it was having problems delivering food to Mr X at Hotel A because of anti-social behaviour. However, the Council arranged for another meals service to provide meals for Mr X.
42. On 17 April Mr X told the Council he had no clothes. On 23 April it arranged for an emergency payment (£50) so his PA could buy clothes for him.
43. In June the Council agreed to consider refunding Mr X for the cost of equipment he bought so his PAs could transfer him safely (£85) and the cost of taxis so they could get to Hotel D (£392). The Council accepts it did not do this, despite raising his expectations about the possibility of a refund. It has now agreed to pay Mr X £477.
44. In August Mr X accepted the offer of permanent accommodation in a bungalow in his preferred area of Bristol. However, the property needed adapting to make it wheelchair accessible. An Occupational Therapist’s assessment from September identified the need to widen doors, create turning spaces and make the kitchen accessible for a wheelchair user. The Council proposed completing the works by the end of January 2021.
45. The Council agreed to increase Mr X’s direct payments to cover the cost of a monthly bus pass (£72.60) for his PA while he remained in the property in the flat.
46. In September the Council told Mr X it would stop providing hotel accommodation for him. It said he needed to move to a flat in the north east of Bristol on 26 October, until it had completed work to the bungalow. Mr X had an accident on 1 November when leaving the property via the ramp. He injured his elbow and had to wear a sling for three weeks. He asked the Council to review the suitability of the flat. His Social Worker wrote to the Housing Team in support of his request, pointing out problems with access. On review, after visiting both the flat and the bungalow with an Occupational Therapist, the Council:
• accepted the flat was not suitable for Mr X’s needs; and
• withdrew the offer of the bungalow, as it would not be suitable for his long-term needs, even with the proposed adaptations.
47. When the Council also replied to Mr X’s complaint (made on 1 April) in September it said:
• it apologised for the delay;
• the Housing Team had been under great pressure and had not known until 20 March that Mr X would be moving to Hotel A;
• it understood his frustration at not receiving responses to his e-mails about where he would be staying on 20 March, and why he felt it necessary to visit the Housing Team’s office;
• it accepted the Council could have kept him updated more than it did.
48. Mr X moved to Hotel G on 6 November.
49. Mr X recently moved to permanent accommodation.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

Adult Social Care

50. The Council’s assessment does not clearly address Mr X’s claim that he needed help during the night with continence. While it is clear the Council did not accept the need for a carer to stay overnight, it is not clear how the Council expected Mr X to meet any need for help at night. Given Mr X’s claims, the assessment should have explained why the Council did not accept them. That was fault by the Council.
51. The Council also failed to produce a care and support plan when Mr X was made homeless in February 2020. That was fault by the Council. It also failed to share subsequent care and support plans with Mr X. That was also fault. This caused avoidable distress to Mr X, as he did not know what the Council had agreed to do.
52. Mr X asked a number of questions about how his care needs would be met after he became homeless. The Council should have addressed those issues within a care and support plan. That was a missed opportunity which could have eased Mrs X’s transition into homelessness by, for instance, helping the Housing Team identify accommodation where Mr X’s care needs could be met and avoided some of the problems Mr X experienced. Mr X’s care and support plans should have explained how the Council expected him to meet his need for help with night-time continence. But they all failed to address this issue. That was further fault by the Council.
53. The Council had a duty to meet Mr X’s eligible care needs after he became homeless and agreed to do that by arranging his care. But after the first week it failed to do that. That was fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X as his needs were not met. He had to spend several days sleeping in his wheelchair until he could make his own arrangements for meeting his care needs.
54. However, after Mr X complained the Council pointed out there were other ways available for meeting his needs (supported living accommodation or a placement in a care home). Mr X chose to take direct payments so he could arrange his own care and support. Although these took some time to set up, it means the Council is not accountable for the lack of support after 5 March 2020.

Housing Team

55. The Council accepts the Housing Team could have communicated better with Mr X in March 2020 and has apologised. That is enough to remedy any injustice it caused through the lack of communication.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. The Council has agreed to:
• within four weeks to write to Mr X apologising for its failings, pay him £400 for the avoidable distress it caused him, refund £477 in expenses, and update his care and support plan so it addresses his need for night-time support with continence;
• within eight weeks to produce an action plan for ensuring officers:
1. clearly address disputed issues when assessing people’s needs;
2. always produce a care and support plan and share this with the person.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have completed my investigation, as the Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused by its faults.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman