Summary: Mr C complains about the Council’s safeguarding enquiry. We have not found fault with the way the Council carried out the safeguarding enquiry or the measures it put in place to support Mr C. There was some miscommunication at the beginning of the enquiry, but Mr C has not suffered any real injustice because of this.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains about the Council’s safeguarding enquiry. He says the Council has failed to protect him from abuse.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have discussed the complaint with Mr C and I have considered the information that he and the Council have sent and the relevant law, guidance and policies.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

Safeguarding

5. Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 says the local authority should start a safeguarding enquiry if an adult in its area:
• has needs for care and support;
• is experiencing, or at risk of, abuse or neglect and
• as a result of those care and support needs is unable to protect themselves from either the risk of, or the experience of abuse or neglect.
6. If the section 42 threshold is met, then the Council must make enquiries or cause others to do so. An enquiry should establish whether any action needs to be taken to prevent or stop abuse or neglect and if so, by whom.

Help for vulnerable adults

7. Lambeth Council has a supported housing pathway called the Vulnerable Adults Pathway.
8. People referred must be:
• aged 22 and over
• homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness
• have a local connection to Lambeth
• eligible to receive benefits (have recourse to public funds)
• require support to maintain a tenancy
• want to engage with support to address their needs.
9. People referred for accommodation via this pathway will have support needs in areas such as physical health, mental health, offending and substance abuse.
10. The pathway provides short to medium-term supported accommodation options, not long-term or permanent accommodation. It brings together several hostels and supported housing projects to accommodate individual homeless people who have been assessed as having support needs.
11. The policy says: ‘Due to the high demands on a limited housing supply in Lambeth, any future housing options will be sought in the private rented sector and not social housing.’

What happened

12. Mr C lives in supported housing accommodation which was provided under the Vulnerable Adults Pathway. His housing provider supports vulnerable adults at risk of homelessness.
13. The police made a safeguarding referral regarding Mr C to the Council on 14 January 2022.
14. The referral said Mr C had reported being the victim of a sexual crime on 9 January 2022. Mr C was a vulnerable adult as he had an underlying medical condition, several mental health diagnoses and he misused substances. He was isolated and had no support network. Mr C said he was unhappy in his accommodation as other residents ‘teased him’ and were ‘nasty’ to him.
15. The social worker spoke to Mr C on 18 January 2022. Mr C said he and staff at the accommodation were working with the police to provide them with the clothing he was wearing on the night of the crime and CCTV footage of the area. Mr C said he wanted support from sexual crime victim support services and support around his substance misuse. He wanted to move out of his accommodation because he felt that residents banged on his door and made fun of him because of his sexuality. He felt singled out and frightened at the accommodation.
16. The social worker spoke to Mr C’s care coordinator at the Council’s homeless outreach team for people with mental illness (agency 1). The care coordinator said she had made a referral for Mr C to a charity which helps people in addressing substance misuse (charity 1). The care coordinator said her team monitored Mr C’s compliance with medication and had made two medical reviews.
17. The Council decided on 21 January 2022 that the matter met the threshold for a safeguarding enquiry.
18. The enquiry plan said the social worker would refer Mr C to:
• A charity which supports people who have been the victim of a sexual crime (charity 2).
• A charity which supports LGBT+ victims of crime (charity 3).
• The Council’s substance misuse team.
19. The interim protection plan said there were ‘plans to place Mr C in a suitable accommodation where he is free from being intimidated.’ It said Mr C had been referred to several charities for support and was monitored by agency 1.
20. Mr C emailed the social worker on 24 January 2022 to chase progress. He said that he was ‘frightened and intimidated’ at his accommodation and he had not heard anything further from the police.
21. The social worker emailed Mr C on 26 January 2022 and said Mr C had been allocated a key worker at charity 1. She said the plan was for the drugs key worker and Mr C’s mental health worker to complete a referral to the Council’s substance misuse team ‘to help you move from your current accommodation.’
22. The social worker emailed Mr C on 7 February 2022 and said she had made the referrals to the charities 2 and 3. Charity 2 had said that charity 3 would be better placed to support Mr C.
23. The social worker spoke to a member of the substance misuse team on 14 February 2022. They explained that the team did not have access to accommodation and the hostel would follow a process with clients to support them to move on to more independent living.
24. Mr C emailed the Council on 19 February 2022 and said the police had not visited him to progress the investigation. He said he had complained to the police. He had attended an appointment with charity 1 but they had informed him that it was the housing provider which had responsibility for moving him to different accommodation.
25. The social worker emailed Mr C on 23 February 2022. She said the police had made several visits to Mr C’s accommodation to collect the CCTV evidence and the forensic evidence but Mr C had not been present. She pointed out that Mr C was now receiving support from charity 1, charity 3 and agency 1.
26. In terms of moving to different accommodation, the social worker said it ‘had been brought to light’ that Mr C was placed through the homeless pathway, therefore the process for a move would be done via the housing provider using the pathway.
27. She explained she had spoken to the housing provider and they said Mr C had been advised to work with the substance misuse team to address his substance misuse and that he had to ensure that he was up to date with his arrears, while management attempted to arrange a move. (Mr C’s charge for his accommodation was £51.02 a week, but he had incurred arrears of £1,736.)
28. The Council closed the safeguarding enquiry on 7 March 2022. The identified risks were:
• Drug use.
• Isolation.
• Previous trauma/abuse.
• Possible bullying.
29. The conclusion of the enquiry was that Mr C was safeguarded from further abuse as much as possible as he had been linked in with all the appropriate agencies to support him.
30. There was further correspondence with the housing provider to find out what Mr C had to do to move to different accommodation. Mr C said he had been told he had to provide evidence of the harassment at his current accommodation and pay off his arrears.
31. The housing provider confirmed on 8 March 2022 that it had asked Mr C to provide video evidence of the bullying or harassment. It said Mr C had provided three videos. One video showed a person banging on Mr C’s door, but this person banged on everybody’s door and there was no evidence that this person was targeting Mr C. The person was due to move because of his behaviour. The other two videos showed people going in and out of their rooms. The staff at the accommodation had also not reported witnessing any bullying of Mr C.
32. Therefore, the housing provider worker did not think that Mr C was subjected to bullying or harassment at his accommodation, but it acknowledged that there could be disturbances at night from some of the other residents. The support worker said that they were due to meet with Mr C to discuss a repayment plan for the arrears.

Update – June 2022

33. The housing provider gave a further update in June 2022. The housing provider agreed that, if Mr C paid £230 towards the arrears of £1,732, it would write off the rest of the arrears and Mr C could be considered on the pathway for different housing. Mr C had not paid off the £230 yet.

Mr C’s complaint – March 2022

34. Mr C complained to the Council in March 2022. I have summarised the complaints correspondence. Mr C said:
• The police made a safeguarding referral to the Council after he was the victim of a sexual crime. He felt he was attacked because of his mental health issues but also because of his accommodation. He said he was bullied at the accommodation which then led to him being outside more often and more at risk of being a victim of crime.
• The social worker told him they needed to get him into different accommodation such as his own studio flat. The issue of his accommodation was passed to the substance misuse team and then to the housing provider. The housing provider had told Mr C he had to provide evidence of bullying at his current accommodation and had to start paying off his arrears. Mr C said he had done what the housing provider asked him to do this but there had been no progress.
• He felt that nothing had progressed since the safeguarding referral was made. He said he was still bullied and victimised in his current accommodation. He felt that the safeguarding enquiry should not have been closed.

Council’s response

35. The Council responded to Mr C’s complaint and said:
• The aim of a safeguarding enquiry was to find out whether the person was at risk of abuse or neglect and to determine what steps had to be taken to reduce the risk.
• Mr C had discussed his desired outcomes with the social worker. Mr C wanted support to move from the current accommodation, support regarding the sexual crime, the substance misuse and engaging with the police.
• The social worker had referred Mr C to the relevant agencies and charities which could provide him with support and the Council encouraged him to engage with the support.
• Mr C’s current housing provider was ‘commissioned to work with people from a complex range of challenges including that have co-morbid mental health problems.’
• The social worker had delegated the support in terms of the move to his housing provider as they were best placed to address this issue.
• The housing provider had offered Mr C a move, despite his arrears, on the condition that he paid off a very small part of his arrears, but Mr C had not taken up this offer.
• In terms of the complaint that the substance misuse team had not helped Mr C in a move, the Council apologised for the misunderstanding. The Council said the social worker had not committed herself to obtaining Mr C alternative accommodation, but had offered to look into the process. The Council apologised if there had been a misunderstanding. The social worker found out that the process for a move lay with the housing provider and they had offered assistance.

Further information

36. Mr C moved to different accommodation in January 2023. This is shared accommodation and Mr C said he would still prefer self-contained accommodation.

Analysis

37. I have investigated whether there is any fault in the way the Council carried out a safeguarding enquiry.
38. The Council received the referral and agreed that it met the section 42 threshold for an enquiry.
39. It was a slightly unusual enquiry in that the Council made little enquiries into whether Mr C was suffering abuse or neglect, but focussed from the outset on the protection plan. The ‘enquiry’ in essence consisted of a list of referrals that the social worker would make to ensure that Mr C received the support that he needed.
40. That was unusual but not necessarily fault. There was not necessarily a need for further investigation as the Council knew what Mr C’s vulnerabilities were. They related to his mental health issues, medical condition, his substance misuse and his lack of support network. The Council put in place the appropriate support to address these vulnerabilities.
41. Mr C also said he was bullied and targeted at the accommodation where he lived. The social worker accepted this without further investigation and agreed that he would benefit from a move.
42. I do think there was some miscommunication in relation to the move at the initial stage of the enquiry. It appears the social worker initially thought that a referral to the substance misuse team may have been helpful in securing a move for Mr C. However, that was not the case. The social worker then found out that the substance misuse team could not assist Mr C in a move, as Mr C had been housed under the Vulnerable Adults Pathway and it was therefore the role of the housing provider to assist him in a move.
43. So I do think there was some miscommunication and raised expectations at the beginning and I note the Council has apologised for this. However, Mr C did not suffer any substantial injustice because of this. Mr C was referred back to the housing provider for consideration of a move. The provider agreed to put Mr C on the pathway for a move if he agreed to make a small payment towards his arrears. I also note that Mr C has now moved to different accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation and I have not found fault, although there was some miscommunication at the beginning of the safeguarding enquiry.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman