Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council deal with Mrs X’s request for help to repair her home. And there was also no fault in the way the Council dealt with her son Mr Y’s social care needs. The Council carried out a social care assessment, drew up a care and support plan, offered care and support and housing to Mr Y and offered Mrs X a carer’s assessment. Those actions were all in line with the Care Act 2014.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about Royal Borough of Greenwich (the Council). She said there was:
1. A Failure to assist her to deal with disrepair in her home
2. A lack of social care provision for her son Mr Y and support for her as a carer
2. Mrs X also complained about the behaviour of various staff in the learning disability team.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated complaints 1(a) and (b). My reasons for not investigating complaint 2 are at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We provide a free service, but we must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

6. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X. I also considered:
• The complaint to the Council and its response
• Documents described later in this statement.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, policy and guidance

8. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Code of Practice to the Act sets out the principles for making decisions for adults who lack mental capacity. An assessment of a person’s mental capacity is required where their capacity is in doubt (Code of Practice paragraph 4.34)
9. A council must carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the outcomes they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where appropriate their carer or any other person they might want involved. (Care Act 2014, section 9)
10. The Care Act 2014 spells out the duty to meet eligible needs (needs which meet the eligibility criteria). (Care Act 2014, section 18) and the power to meet urgent needs (section 19).
11. The Council’s private sector renewal policy sets out the financial help it offers to home-owners and private renters to repair or improve their properties. The Council gives grants and/or loans of up to £30,000 for homeowners who are on a low income to bring their property up to a reasonable standard of repair. The Council’s powers to give financial help are in the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 (‘the 2002 Order’).
12. The Council’s policy says that all owners of a property must be ‘party to an application’. This means that if there is more than one owner, they all must agree to the terms of the grant. The policy reflects Regulation 5(1) of the 2002 Order which says councils cannot provide assistance unless the owners have given their consent.
13. Councils have a general power of competence which allows them to do anything an individual can do, unless prohibited by law (Localism Act 2011, section 1(1))

What happened

14. Mr Y is an adult with autism. He lives with Mrs X in a house that she owns with her estranged husband who lives somewhere else. There has been a long-term problem with the flat roof to the kitchen, which leaks when it rains. The complaint is partly about the Council’s response to the leak. Mr Y is known to the Council’s learning disability service, but he is not currently getting council-funded care and support. Mrs X is Mr Y’s sole carer.
15. The Council’s records indicate it offered Mr Y a two-bedroom flat to rent in February/March 2019. The tenancy was to be in Mr Y’s name, but Mrs X would have been able to live there as well. The flat needed some repairs and was not ready to let until May. Mrs X and Mr Y failed to attend the first viewing. A social care officer visited Mr Y at home, asked him if he wanted to view the property, the records indicate he did not answer and he just looked at Mrs X. The viewing was rearranged viewing twice, but they did not attend. On the third occasion, Mrs X said Mr Y was becoming agitated and did not want to go to the viewing. She did attend a viewing on the third occasion, but in the end, the flat went to someone else. Mrs X told me the flat was not suitable for their needs because one of the bedrooms was tiny, the bathroom had no window or natural light and interlinked the bedrooms and the property was far from local amenities.
16. Mr Y’s GP referred him to the learning disability team in May 2019 having received a call from Mrs X suggesting a deterioration in his behaviour and an increase in verbal aggression and agitation. The GP asked for a social care assessment for Mr Y.
17. In June was 2019, Mrs X called the learning disability team, shouting and saying water was pouring into the kitchen. Mrs X is hard of hearing and she told me that she does speak loudly on the phone on account of her deafness. She told me all references to her shouting on the phone need to be considered in the context of her hearing difficulty and her anxiety.
18. Mrs X saw a social care officer and a psychiatrist in July 2019. The psychiatrist wrote to Mrs X after the appointment saying she did not need to continue to have Mr Y living with her and that if she did not want to continue in her caring role, the learning disability team would arrange appropriate care and support for Mr Y. In August, a social care officer visited Mrs X who told him to go away and said she would call the police. Mrs X told me she was frightened by the visit, which was unexpected and the officer shouted through her window and knocked very loudly so she called the police.
19. In September, Mrs X reported more leaks. The social care officer said the learning disability team would arrange emergency accommodation. It does not appear this went ahead, possibly because the weather improved.
20. In October, the social care officer tried to complete a carers’ assessment with Mrs X who refused, saying she did not want to share personal information by phone. Mrs X also told me the reason she did not want a telephone assessment was because of her hearing problems as well as concerns about confidentiality. The social care officer wrote to Mrs X saying she had refused to have a carer’s assessment and that Mr Y had eligible social care needs. The letter also said the housing panel would decide if they could go on the housing register (waiting list) because Mrs X owned the house and so would not usually be eligible. The letter made it clear that any tenancy would be Mr Y’s and not hers, because she already owned a house. Finally, the letter said the learning disability team would arrange temporary accommodation if the property was unsafe.
21. Mr Y’s GP referred him to the learning disability team again in March 2020. Following repeated calls from Mrs Y about water in the kitchen and vermin in the roof, the learning disability team placed Mrs X and Mr Y in a hotel for about six weeks.
22. The learning disability team referred Mr Y to a consultant psychiatrist in learning disability in March 2020. Mr Y saw the psychiatrist who completed an assessment of Mr Y’s mental capacity to make decisions around housing. Mrs X was reported to get distressed when the psychiatrist suggested officers contacted her estranged husband about the property. The psychiatrist’s report said:

“it was his [Mr Y’s] capacitous choice to go along with his mum’s stance, [referring to staying with Mrs X in the current home and not moving] maladaptive in my observation they may be, even when have implications for his own welfare”

23. In March a technical officer from the Council’s disability and home improvements team (DHIT) carried out an inspection of Mrs X’s house. He concluded:
• there were no serious hazards and the property was habitable.
• the main issues were the flat roof in the kitchen, which leaked when it rained, and the electrics.
• the kitchen was safe to use because of the location of the leak was not in the cooking and food preparation area. The kitchen ceiling needed protection which could be done with plastic boards.
24. Also in March, a social care officer met with Mrs X and Mr Y. The social care officer noted Mr Y tended to look to his mother to speak for him. Mrs X reported a history of abuse from her estranged husband, but felt if he was asked, he would give permission for the work to go ahead. Mr Y wanted to get the roof fixed and move back to the house. The social care officer concluded Mr Y had mental capacity in relation to the matters that led to him and Mrs X being in the hotel, and that he was not under duress. The social care officer noted Mrs X’s trauma from her husband was likely preventing her from resolving matters and suggested some therapy.
25. A social care officer carried out a social care assessment in March 2020. The outcome was that Mr Y was eligible for care and support. The assessment noted:
• Mr Y’s mother met many of his care and support needs
• Mr Y was independent accessing the community
• The Council was willing to refer Mr Y for specialist occupational therapy support to develop his independent living skills.
26. Mr Y’s care and support plan of March 2020 said Mr Y did not want support from the learning disability team. The plan also said Mr Y had refused supported living, community group activities and that Mrs X was his main carer and was happy to maintain that.
27. At the end of April, Mrs X called the Council because her roof was leaking. The records indicate she became verbally abusive on the phone. Mrs X told me she was not verbally abusive, but was hard of hearing and so did speak loudly on the phone.
28. Officer received several calls from Mrs Y about the leaking roof in August. A technical officer carried out a second inspection and issued a report. The report’s conclusions were the same as those in the March report:
• The kitchen roof was still leaking. The leak did not interfere with preparing food and the kitchen could be used
• The kitchen ceiling needed plastic sheets to protect from debris
• The kitchen ceiling light did not work, but the appliances did and there was a table lamp for light
• The leak would get worse when it rained
• Mrs X needed to engage with the Council and allow it to contact her estranged husband to get permission to do the works
29. In the middle of October, there was heavy rain and Mrs X again contacted the Council. It arranged a hotel, but Mrs X did not like the location of the hotel and so refused it and hung up on the officer who was telling her about the arrangements. Mrs X told me she did not hang up and she refused the hotel because of the pandemic, she did not feel safe and there was no way of preparing food.
30. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in October 2020 saying:
• It would refer Mr Y to a different team so he would get a different social worker
• Mrs X had been rude and aggressive on occasion
• It agreed resolving the housing problem was a priority
• She could apply for a homeowner’s repair grant, but consent of her estranged husband would be needed to get the works done.
• The Council offered a hotel again, but she had refused this.
31. Since Mrs X’s complaint to us, the Council transferred Mr Y’s case to its complex needs team. That team is due to carry out an assessment of Mr Y.

Was there fault?

Complaint a: Failure to assist Mrs X to deal with disrepair in her home

32. There was no fault by the Council. Mrs X and her estranged husband are joint homeowners and so are responsible for the upkeep of the home that they both own. The Council is not legally obliged to repair the kitchen roof although there is the possibility that Mrs X may be eligible for a discretionary grant. As Mrs X co-owns the property, her husband, the other owner must also give consent. This is a legal requirement set out in Regulation 5(1) of the 2002 Order. While I understand Mrs X concerns about this, given her experience of abuse, this does not mean the Council has to waive the rule about getting both owners consent to the grant. The Council could potentially contact Mrs X’s husband (with her consent) and she would not need to be involved with this.
33. In addition, the Council responded appropriately when Mrs X contacted officers by:
• arranging hotels for Mr X’s and Mr Y in wet weather
• offering Mr Y his own accommodation with a spare room for Mrs X.
• Inspecting the property twice, establishing and establishing it was safe to live in.
34. In completing the above actions, the Council acted in line with its general powers of competence and with the specific powers in sections 18 and 19 of the Care Act 2014 to meet Mr Y’s eligible needs and needs which appear urgent.

Complaint b: A lack of social care provision for Mr Y and support for Mrs X as a carer

35. The Council carried out a social care assessment which concluded Mr Y had eligible social care needs. It also offered to assess Mrs X’s needs as a carer and she declined. A carers’ assessment by phone was acceptable given it was in the middle of the pandemic.
36. The Council offered Mr Y accommodation in his own name, supported living and other options including help to learn independent living skills. Mr Y refused this support. The Council acted in line with sections 9, 18, 24 and 25 of the Care Act 2014 by assessing needs, determining eligible needs and issuing a care and support plan. This means there was no fault. Mr Y’s was assessed as having mental capacity to make decisions around his housing and care and so he was competent to refuse the Council’s offers of help.

Back to top

Final decision

37. There was no fault in the way the Council deal with Mrs X’s request for help to repair her home. And there was also no fault in the way the Council dealt with her son Mr Y’s social care needs. The Council carried out a social care assessment, drew up a care and support plan, offered care and support and housing to Mr Y and offered Mrs X a carer’s assessment. Those actions were all in line with the Care Act 2014.
38. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

39. I did not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about staff in the learning disability team. This is because the Council’s response to this issue was appropriate. Mr Y’s case is now being dealt with by a different team and so there would be nothing to be achieved by investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman