Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to discharge its legal duties towards him. We upheld part of Mr X’s complaint. There was no requirement for the Council to complete safeguarding enquiries and so there was no fault saying it would not progress a safeguarding investigation. However, a social care assessment should have been completed when Mr X said he was struggling with daily activities because of pain. The complaint response did not identify this and so was inadequate. Mr X suffered avoidable distress. The Council will issue an apology, make a symbolic payment and complete the social care assessment already started.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. Failed to discharge its legal duties including refusing to complete a safeguarding enquiry or social care assessment
2. Provided a complaint response that did not address all the issues he raised and failed to put decisions in writing
3. Failed to make reasonable adjustments.
2. He said this caused avoidable distress and inconvenience at a time when he was mentally unwell.

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 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)
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated complaints (a) and (b). I did not investigate complaint (c) because there is no fault. This complaint is about the Council’s housing allocations policy requiring a referral needing to come from a statutory agency in order for an applicant to meet the criteria for urgent rehousing because of a danger to the applicant’s life. This does not fall within the remit of the Equality Act. Housing allocations policies are already designed to take account of a person’s disabilities, for example, by giving preference to an applicant whose disabilities are being adversely affected by their housing.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice set out our expectations of councils providing services. We expect them to:
1. Act fairly and proportionately. This means clearly explaining the rationale for decisions and recording it.
2. Put things right. This includes operating an effective complaints procedure.
9. A council must carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. (Care Act 2014, section 9)
10. If a council has reasonable cause to suspect abuse of an adult who needs care and support, it must make whatever enquiries it thinks is necessary to decide whether any action should be taken to protect the adult. (Care Act 2014, section 42)
11. The safeguarding duties apply to an adult who:
• Has care and support needs
• Is experiencing or at risk of abuse or neglect
• As a result of those care and support needs is unable to protect themselves from the risk of or experience of abuse or neglect. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance (CSSG) paragraph 14.2)
12. Self-neglect may not prompt a safeguarding enquiry and cases should be considered individually and will depend on whether the adult can protect themselves by controlling their own behaviour. (CSSG paragraph 14.17)

What happened

13. Mr X emailed the Council’s adult social care hub at the end of November 2024 to report a safeguarding concern regarding himself. He said he had physical and mental health conditions and wanted his rehousing banding upgraded as his housing was making him feel hopeless, helpless and suicidal.
14. A social care officer responded saying Mr X’s contact did not meet the criteria for the safeguarding process. She copied the housing team into her email and said he should contact his GP and/or the crisis team. Another social care officer emailed Mr X saying he should liaise with housing options and if that team approached adult social care for a report about rehousing, social care may provide one.
15. Mr X asked for an explanation of the safeguarding criteria and why he did not meet them. An officer responded setting out a summary of the safeguarding criteria (set out in paragraph 11). The officer said there was no evidence Mr X was at risk of abuse or neglect as the situation was in relation to his housing. Mr X said he felt he was at risk of harm. The officer said she had forwarded his contacts to the mental health team as this was his primary need.
16. Mr X emailed the Council’s ASC team in December 2024. He said the situation was life-threatening, he was struggling to sleep and was impaired in being able to ensure his basic needs were met due to pain. Mr X said he could not access the CMHT. He attached a letter from his GP saying he had depression and anxiety with suicidal thoughts. The letter said Mr X had an urgent medical need for social housing.
17. The following day, Mr X complained to the Council about its failure to respond to his email or to make reasonable adjustments, failure to make safeguarding enquiries in relation to his urgent social housing needs and to explain why not and failure to act on two reports from the out of hours ASC team in relation to his urgent housing needs.
18. Meantime, Mr X and the Council’s out of hours ASC team were in contact. He was advised to call the crisis team. The out of hours team said they could not assist him with housing issues.
19. Mr X also had contact with the CMHT. He said his relationship with the team had broken down.
20. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint said:
• His email was responded to: it was passed to the CMHT and an officer from that team had left answerphone messages for him.
• He was not treated any differently, there was no discrimination and his referral was sent to the CMHT, which is part of the Council’s ASC service.
21. Since Mr X complained to us in January 2025, Mr X has had contact with adult social care and a social care assessment has been started.

Was there fault?

The Council failed to discharge its legal duties including refusing to complete safeguarding enquiries or a social care assessment

22. CSSG explains self-neglect may or may not be a safeguarding issue and each case should be considered individually. Mr X said he was feeling suicidal because of his housing situation. The Council’s adult social care team decided that Mr X’s mental health crisis could be supported by other services: namely the CMHT and crisis team and through contact with the housing team. This is in line with paragraph14.17 of CSSG and there is no fault.
23. Mr X said in an email in December that he was struggling to ensure his basic needs were met because of pain. This indicated he may have care and support needs. The Council was at fault in not starting the social care assessment process in December 2024. This was not in line with Section 9 of the Care Act 2014 which is a low threshold for a social care assessment. It caused Mr X avoidable frustration and distress.

The Council provided a complaint response that did not address all the issues he raised and failed to put decisions in writing.

24. The Council’s complaint response should have given a fuller written explanation of why the issues Mr X had raised did not meet the threshold for a safeguarding enquiry. And the response should have identified he required a social care assessment to determine whether he had eligible care and support needs. The failure to give a comprehensive complaint response was not in line with our expected standards as I have described in paragraph eight and was fault causing avoidable distress and frustration.

Back to top

Agreed Action

25. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make a symbolic payment of £250 to reflect Mr X’s avoidable distress
• Complete the social care assessment.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman