Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it assessed Mr B’s care and support needs, carried out safeguarding enquiries, sought suitable accommodation for Mr B or considered his disability. However, on one occasion it failed to provide Mr B with accommodation when he had nowhere to stay and so he had to sleep in his car. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council has:
• not acted properly to safeguard him;
• failed to carry out a safeguarding review;
• failed to carry out a review of his care and support needs;
• delayed finding him suitable accommodation; and
• failed to consider his disability when it required him to present his complaint in one document.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr B’s complaints against the Council which relate to events between August 2019 and October 2020. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating Mr B’s other complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and government guidance

Safeguarding

8. A local authority must make enquiries where it has 'reasonable cause to suspect' that an adult in its area:
• has care and support needs (whether or not council services are meeting those needs),
• is experiencing or at risk of abuse or neglect and
• as a result of those needs, cannot protect himself or herself against the abuse or neglect or against the risk of it.
9. The local authority must make (or cause to be made) whatever enquiries it thinks necessary to enable it to decide whether any action should be taken and, if so, what and by whom. (Care Act 2014, section 42)
10. Each local authority must set up a Safeguarding Adults Board. The Board must arrange a Safeguarding Adult Review when it knows or suspects that an adult has experienced serious abuse or neglect and there is concern about how agencies worked together to safeguard the adult. (Care Act 2014, sections 43 and 44)

Assessment of needs

11. Where it appears to a local authority that an adult may have needs for care and support, the authority must assess:
• whether the adult does have needs for care and support, and
• if the adult does, what those needs are. (Care Act 2014, section 9)
12. Where an adult refuses a needs assessment, the local authority concerned is not required to carry out the assessment, unless:
• the adult lacks capacity to refuse the assessment and the authority is satisfied that carrying out the assessment would be in the adult’s best interests, or
• the adult is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect. (Care Act 2014, section 11)
13. Following the needs assessment, a care and support plan must be provided if the local authority is required to meet needs under the Care Act or decides to meet needs under the Act. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, paragraph 10.9)
14. Where the care planning process has determined that a person’s needs are best met in a care home, the local authority must provide for the person’s preferred choice of accommodation, subject to certain conditions. This also extends to shared lives, supported living and extra care housing settings. Determining the appropriate type of accommodation should be made with the adult as part of the care and support planning process, therefore this choice only applies between providers of the same type. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, paragraph 8.36)
15. Where it appears to a local authority that a carer may have needs for support (whether currently or in the future), the authority must assess:
• whether the carer does have needs for support (or is likely to do so in the future), and
• if the carer does, what those needs are (or are likely to be in the future). (Care Act 2014, section 10)

Homelessness

16. Social services authorities have a duty to refer service users who they think may be homeless or threatened with homelessness to a housing authority. (Homelessness Reduction Act 2017)
17. Housing authorities must give proper consideration to all applications for housing assistance, and if they have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they must make inquiries to see whether they owe them any duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 9)
18. Housing authorities must secure interim accommodation for homelessness applicants and their household if they have reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
19. Some homelessness applicants will identify care and support needs that cannot be met by the housing authority; or which require health or social care services to be provided alongside help to secure accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 11.12)

Previous complaint

20. Mr B was formally diagnosed with Autism and Borderline Personality Disorder in October 2018.
21. In 2015, Mr B was living in a housing association property with his wife and son. He started to experience problems with his neighbours which he reported to the housing association and the police.
22. Between July 2017 and 2019, the Council received ten referrals from the police due to concerns about Mr B’s welfare and mental health. The Council sent the referrals either to Mr B’s GP or the community mental health team.
23. In May 2019, Mr B complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had not taken the appropriate action when it received the police referrals and did not commence safeguarding enquiries until after it received a referral from the coroner’s office in December 2018. Mr B had moved out of his home earlier in 2018 and was staying with his mother and stepfather. He considered he would still be living with his wife if he had received the support he needed.
24. The Council commenced safeguarding enquiries in December 2018 but before a conclusion was reached, it was agreed to put the enquiries on hold. The police had charged Mr B with two offences and Mr B said that he wanted to concentrate on his court case. In June 2019, the Council advised Mr B to get back in touch if he wanted to continue with the enquiry process.
25. We found that the Council had failed to properly consider whether to make safeguarding enquiries on two occasions. Once, in November 2017 when Mr B said that he was being intimidated and harassed by his neighbours and that the police, his housing association and the mental health team were not working together to support him and his wife, and once in September 2018, when Mr B said he was being bullied by his neighbours.
26. To remedy Mr B’s injustice, the Council made a payment of £200 and apologised to Mr B. It also clearly explained what he needed to do if he wanted the Council to continue the safeguarding enquiries and carry out a needs assessment, and if he wanted the support of an independent advocate.
27. The full decision on Mr B’s previous complaint can be viewed on our website.

This complaint

28. I have investigated Mr B’s complaints about events between August 2019 and October 2020.

Safeguarding enquiry

29. Mr B contacted the Council in November 2019. He said that the police and housing association had committed criminal abuse by failing to refer the abuse and harassment he experienced from his neighbours to safeguarding. He said that he wanted the allegations investigated as part of a safeguarding enquiry.
30. The Council opened a safeguarding enquiry but Mr B initially refused to meet with a social worker to discuss his allegations. A social worker then visited Mr B in February 2020, shortly after he agreed to a face-to-face meeting.
31. The Council’s safeguarding assessment shows that Mr B considered the police and housing association had not provided him with adequate support when he was experiencing anti-social behaviour from his neighbours, which he felt led to the breakdown of his marriage. He also said that his GP, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and the Department for Work and Pensions all knew about the problems he was having with anti-social behaviour but did not make any safeguarding referrals to the Council.
32. The Council agreed to support Mr B to explore what he would need to return home safely to his wife and son. It also agreed to support Mr B to seek accountability for the actions taken by agencies when he was experiencing anti-social behaviour from his neighbours.
33. The Council contacted the police and housing association and gathered information about Mr B’s allegations. The Council decided that making enquiries of Mr B’s GP, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust or the Department for Work and Pensions was not within the remit of the safeguarding team.
34. During the safeguarding enquiry process, Mr B was arrested after trying to enter his former home. He told the social worker that his wife did not want him to return. He then agreed to consider a move into supported housing.
35. The Council closed the safeguarding enquiry in May 2020. It partly substantiated the allegations against Mr B’s former neighbours but decided that the future risk of abuse had been removed because Mr B was residing at a different address. The Council said that it had concluded partner agencies acted proportionately and it was unable to substantiate the allegations of negligence. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
36. Mr B considers the Council should have ensured the police led the safeguarding enquiries because it involved allegations of criminal offences. There is no requirement for the Council to do so.
37. Mr B also considers the Council should have ensured the police investigated his allegations of criminal offences. The police had already investigated Mr B’s allegations against his neighbours. The Council supported Mr B to make a complaint to the Professional Standards Department about the actions of the police and Mr B withdrew his allegations against the Housing Association. I do not consider the Council believed there to be any alleged criminal offences which had not been reported to the police. The Council had already made it clear to Mr B that if he considered there had been any criminal offences, he could report them to the police himself.
38. Shortly after the Council closed the safeguarding enquiry, Mr B reported criminal negligence by the Council to the police. If Mr B considered any other agencies had committed criminal offences, he could have reported these at the same time.
39. The purpose of a safeguarding enquiry is to decide whether or not a council or another organisation, or person, should do something to help and protect the adult. I am satisfied that the Council did so. I have found no evidence to show that the Council has not acted properly to safeguard Mr B.

Safeguarding Adult Review

40. Mr B considers the Safeguarding Adults Board should have carried out a review of his case.
41. Anyone can refer a case to the Safeguarding Adults Board for a review. The Council told Mr B that it had decided not to make a referral itself because it did not consider his case met the criteria for a Safeguarding Adult Review. It reached its decision after consulting a Safeguarding Adults Board Manager. This is a decision the Council was entitled to reach.
42. The Council should have explained to Mr B why it did not consider his case met the criteria for a Safeguarding Adult Review, and also told him how he could make a request directly to the Safeguarding Adults Board himself. The Board would then have needed to make a formal decision about whether it considered the criteria for a Safeguarding Adult Review was met. However, on the balance of probabilities, and on the basis of the information I have seen, I do not consider it likely that the Safeguarding Adults Board would have carried out a review if it had received a referral or a direct request from Mr B. In any event, I do not consider a review would have achieved the outcome sought by Mr B. The purpose of a Safeguarding Adult Review is to promote learning and improve practice, not to re-investigate or to apportion blame.

Needs assessment

43. Mr B declined the Council’s offers to carry out an assessment of his care and support needs in August and November 2019. He says that he would have agreed if he had known an assessment had to be carried out before the Council could commence safeguarding enquiries. Councils can commence safeguarding enquiries without the person having had an assessment of their care and support needs. In this case, the Council did open the enquiry before Mr B had a needs assessment. I have found no evidence of fault here.
44. Mr B also considers the Council should have carried out an assessment of his care and support needs, even though he refused an assessment. The Council is required to carry out an assessment, even when one is refused, if the adult is experiencing or at risk of abuse or neglect. At the time Mr B refused the assessments, the Council had not concluded whether Mr B was experiencing or at risk of abuse or neglect. I have found no evidence of fault here.
45. The Council carried out an assessment of Mr B’s care and support needs in February 2020. Mr B considers the Council should have carried out a review after six weeks. There is no requirement for a council to review an assessment after six weeks but councils should carry out light touch reviews of care and support plans after six to eight weeks.
46. A care and support plan must be provided if the Council is required to meet a person’s needs or when they decide to meet a person’s needs. Mr B’s needs assessment concluded that he had eligible needs and the social worker recommended a supported living placement. The Council produced a care and support plan when it was expected that Mr B would be moving into supported housing, but Mr B decided not to move and continued to live with his mother and stepfather. There was therefore no need to review the plan. I have found no evidence of fault here.
47. Mr B considers the Council should have offered a carer’s assessment to his wife. Carer’s assessments should be carried out where it appears to the Council that the carer may have a need for support. Mr B was not living with his wife; I have seen nothing to suggest the Council should have explored whether she may have a need for support. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Supported living

48. Mr B’s social worker made a request for supported housing for Mr B on 6 April 2020 which was agreed, but on 17 April Mr B changed his mind and said that he wanted to remain living with his mother and stepfather.
49. On 26 May, Mr B changed his mind and decided that he would like to live in supported housing. Between June and August, the Council found three supported living placements. The first one decided not to accept Mr B due to concerns about his behaviour which could place other residents at risk. Mr B declined the second one due to its location and because there were shared facilities. Mr B initially accepted the third one but since the Council responded to my enquiries on this complaint, Mr B has decided that he does not want to move into supported housing and would like to be placed in sheltered housing instead.
50. Mr B considers the Council should have provided him with details of different types of accommodation and allowed him to choose where he wanted to live. Councils should agree the type of accommodation which will best meet the person’s needs as part of the care and support planning process, and then it should provide a choice of that type of accommodation.
51. I am satisfied that when Mr B’s needs were assessed, it was agreed that supported living would best meet his needs. Mr B was able to choose between providers and the Council did not delay finding a supported living placement for Mr B. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Homelessness

52. As explained in paragraph 17 and 18, councils have duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. I have considered the Council’s actions in this case.
53. On three occasions in 2020, Mr B had nowhere to stay because his mother would not allow him to return home. He had left his mother and stepfather’s home against government lockdown guidelines and they did not want him to return immediately in case he had been exposed to Covid-19.
54. Apart from one night, social services arranged bed and breakfast accommodation for Mr B until his mother allowed him to return home. The Council failed to arrange accommodation on 26 April 2020. This was fault and resulted in Mr B sleeping in his car.
55. Mr B considers social services should have made a homelessness referral to housing in March 2020 because, despite him still being on the tenancy of the house he previously shared with his wife, he was not able to return.
56. Social services did make a referral to housing in March when he had nowhere to stay. Social services and housing agreed that it would be best for Mr B to remain in the bed and breakfast accommodation arranged by social services until his mother would allow him to return. A move could then be arranged in a structured way to an area Mr B was familiar with, and with the correct support in place. I am satisfied that this decision was made in Mr B’s best interests and I do not consider the outcome would have been any better for Mr B if housing had taken a homelessness application when it received the referral.

Reasonable adjustments

57. Under the Equality Act 2010, all public sector organisations are required to make reasonable adjustments to services with the aim of ensuring they are accessible to disabled people, including people with autism. Mr B considers the Council failed to do so when its complaints team demanded he present his complaint in one document, and when it insisted he had meetings in front of two or three people at a time.
58. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council required Mr B to present his complaint in one document. The evidence shows that it asked Mr B to let it know when he had finished reviewing the Council’s previous response to his complaint, so that it could pass all his emails on collectively. I have also seen no evidence to show that, despite Mr B saying he found it difficult to meet in front of two or three people at a time, the Council insisted he do so. Mr B’s social worker attended on her own to carry out his safeguarding and needs assessments. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Autism Act

59. Mr B considers the Council has failed to follow statutory guidance which supports implementation of the Adult Autism Strategy.
60. The statutory guidance states that any person carrying out a needs assessment under the Care Act 2014 must have the skills, knowledge and competence to carry out the assessment in question and is appropriately trained. I have not investigated whether the social worker who carried out Mr B’s care and needs assessment had the appropriate competence and training. I do not consider there are grounds to do so because I have found no evidence of fault in the way the assessment was carried out.
61. The guidance states that local authorities and others must work together to help and protect people with care and support needs, who may be at risk of abuse or neglect as a result of those needs. Mr B considers the Council failed to do so but I have found no evidence of this.
62. Mr B also considers the Council failed to support him when he came into contact with the criminal justice system. The Council has no duty to do so. However, I note that Mr B was supported by his social worker when he was arrested for assaulting a police officer in March 2020. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Agreed action

63. Within four weeks, the Council will apologise to Mr B for its failure to provide him with accommodation on 26 April 2020.
64. Within eight weeks, the Council will:
• Remind social care staff that the Council has a duty to provide accommodation for homelessness applicants if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.
• Put in place a process for dealing with homelessness referrals involving people with care and support needs. Housing should satisfy itself that interim accommodation is being provided if there is reason to believe the person may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.

Back to top

Final decision

65. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

66. I have not carried out any further investigation of the matters Mr B complained to us about previously, which relate to the Council’s actions before August 2019. This is because we will not investigate the same matter twice, and further investigation could not achieve anything more for Mr B because the Council has already taken action to remedy his injustice.
67. Mr B has made complaints about the police, his former housing association and the NHS. I have not investigated these matters because the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to do so.
68. I have also not investigated any matters which have arisen since the Council compiled its response to my enquiries in October 2020.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman