Summary: The Council failed to properly assess the capacity of three family members to make a homelessness application when they told the Council they were suffering domestic abuse. The Council did not deal with the safeguarding referral appropriately or in good time, and did not offer the family social care needs assessments soon enough. It cannot show how it made the decision to offer a one-bedroom property and it took too long to deal with the complaint to it. The family missed out on interim accommodation, and they were caused distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments to the family, and review their housing needs. It will also review its training and procedures on mental capacity assessment, arranging interpreters, and monitoring case progress.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains on behalf of his father, Mr X, his mother, Mrs Y, and his brother, Mr K, that the Council failed to deal with their housing situation properly, offer care and support, or complete a safeguarding enquiry adequately or in good time. In particular, he says the Council:
• refused to take a homelessness application on the basis that one of the household did not have capacity without a proper mental capacity assessment of all members of the household, and without explaining which member they considered lacked capacity;
• took too long to start a safeguarding enquiry after the family had approached the Council in November 2023, and then did not investigate the safeguarding issues properly;
• met with Mr X but did not explain it was going to do a Care Act assessment, nor what this was, and then said he had refused an assessment;
• has offered Mr X and Mrs Y a one-bedroom property, but they are a household of three and want their vulnerable adult son included;
• failed to arrange an interpreter on several occasions; and
• took too long to deal with complaints made on their behalf.
2. Mr B says that as a result of the Council’s shortcomings, his mother, father, and brother, were left in a risky situation with ongoing abuse. They have been caused distress, frustration and uncertainty and cannot get their needs met. His brother had to fund a hotel room for himself, and Mr B had to fund a hotel room for his parents when they could not return to their daughter’s home.

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. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended). Mr X and Mrs Y have given Mr B consent to deal with this complaint on their behalf.
5. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended).
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr B and his family, 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

The law and guidance

Homelessness

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
11. It is not reasonable for a person to continue to live in accommodation if it is probable this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against them. (Housing Act 1996, Section 177)
12. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless as a result of domestic abuse, it should make interim accommodation available to the applicant immediately whilst it undertakes its investigations. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 21.25)
13. A council must also secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
14. The Council should try to get an account of the applicant’s experience to assess whether the behaviour they have experienced is abusive or whether they would be at risk of domestic abuse if they continued to occupy their accommodation. The authority should support the victim to outline their experience and make an assessment based on the details of the case. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)
15. With consent of the victim, the Council may wish to speak to other agencies who are informed about the domestic abuse, for instance, the police, children’s services, or health professionals. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)

Mental Capacity

16. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so.
17. A person aged 16 or over must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. A person should not be treated as unable to make a decision:

• because they make an unwise decision;
• based simply on: their age; their appearance; assumptions about their condition, or any aspect of their behaviour; or
• before all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.

18. The council must assess someone’s ability to make a decision when that person’s capacity is in doubt. How it assesses capacity may vary depending on the complexity of the decision.
19. An assessment of someone’s capacity is specific to the decision to be made at a particular time. When assessing somebody’s capacity, the assessor needs to find out the following:

• Does the person have a general understanding of what decision they need to make and why they need to make it?
• Does the person have a general understanding of the likely effects of making, or not making, this decision?
• Is the person able to understand, retain, use, and weigh up the information relevant to this decision?
• Can the person communicate their decision?

20. The person assessing an individual’s capacity will usually be the person directly concerned with the individual when the decision needs to be made. More complex decisions are likely to need more formal assessments.
21. The Code of Practice 2007 says that before deciding someone lacks capacity, it is important to take all practical and appropriate steps to enables them to make a decision for themselves. These steps depend on the person’s circumstances and particular needs. This includes providing the relevant information, communicating in an appropriate way, making the person feel at ease, and supporting the person.
22. A council cannot accept a homelessness application from a person who lacks the mental capacity to make an application. The council must decide whether the applicant has the capacity to make the application or not.
23. Someone else who lives with the person who lacks capacity could make the application on behalf of the household.

Safeguarding and Adult Social Care

24. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)
25. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. I have called this a Care Act assessment.
26. Where somebody provides or intends to provide care for another adult and it appears the carer may have any needs for support, the council must carry out a carer’s assessment. A carer’s assessment must seek to find out not only the carer’s needs for support, but also the sustainability of the caring role itself. This includes the practical and emotional support the carer provides to the adult.
27. An adult with possible care and support needs or a carer may choose to refuse an assessment. In these circumstances councils do not have to carry out an assessment. Where a council identifies that an adult lacks mental capacity and that carrying out a needs assessment would be in the adult’s best interests, it must do so.

What happened

28. Mr X and Mrs Y are married and live with their adult son, Mr K, and adult daughter, Ms W. Mr X is elderly and frail. He has very poor mobility. Mrs Y and Mr K both have significant long-term mental health conditions. They all live together in Ms W’s house. English is not the first language of Mr X and Mrs Y, and the Council’s records say that Mrs Y’s understanding of English is very limited.
29. Mr X and Mrs Y have another adult son, Mr B. He lives elsewhere and helps them and his brother. Mr B dealt with the Council and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. In November 2023, Mr B went with his mother, Mrs Y and his brother, Mr K to the Council. They and his father, Mr X, wanted help with housing because they said that Ms W was physically and verbally abusive to them. The Police had also attended a recent incident at the house.
30. The Council’s case notes show that the Council understood that Mr X is bed-bound, and Mrs Y and Mr K have some physical and mental illness, and that Mrs X has limited spoken English. The Council decided that Mrs Y did not have capacity to make a homelessness application. Its letter to Mrs Y sets out the law on this, and that it considers she does not have capacity. It does not explain why it has decided this. The Council has no record of the capacity assessment, what questions it asked, how it supported Mrs Y to understand the homelessness application, nor how it reached its decision. There is also no note as to why it did not assess Mr X or Mr K for capacity to make a homelessness application.
31. On the same day, the Council made an urgent referral to its adult social care service for support.
32. Mr B contacted the Council again in December 2023. The Council’s social care service told Mr B that the case would be allocated to a social worker for an assessment and safeguarding consideration. Mr B told the Council that he does not agree that all three of his family lack capacity to make a homelessness application, and that they all need to be rehoused together. The Council’s social care case notes say that it needs to look at safeguarding issues relating to Mrs Y. It does not mention safeguarding for Mr X or Mr K.
33. The family heard no more from the Council so in April 2024, Mr B made a formal complaint to the Council. It acknowledged the complaint but did not reply so on 17 June, Mr B asked the Council to escalate the complaint to stage two of its process.
34. A week later, the Council’s social care team contacted Mr B and said that it would assess Mr X’s care needs and the social worker was trying to find a colleague to act as an interpreter. The Council also called Ms W about the alleged abuse. She told the Council that there was no need for a Care Act assessment because all members of the family living with her were being looked after. The Council also noted that Mr K was open to the community mental health team. Its case note says that it did not need to start a safeguarding enquiry as the issues could be case-managed (presumably by Care Act assessments)
35. The Council also told Mr B that its domestic abuse service would investigate and provide its social care service with feedback. It asked Mr B for Ms W’s contact details so that it could complete the referral. Mr B confirmed that the Council already had her contact details. There is no evidence that the Council completed the referral to the domestic abuse service, nor that the service investigated or provided feedback to social care.
36. Mr B told me that around this time, the Police arrested Ms W as she had allegedly hurt Ms W and spat at her. Mr B told me the Police banned Ms W from the house for around three weeks.
37. In mid-August, Mr B contacted the Council because Mr K had gone missing following an abusive episode with Ms W. He said Ms W had also abused Mr X when he asked her what had happened. Mr B asked the Council to act as this had been going on for too long. At this time, the Council referred the case to its complex case housing panel.
38. The Council responded to the complaint on 23 August 2024. It said:
• the case had been allocated to a social worker on 24 June, who had identified that there was a housing issue.
• It said the Council had sent the family a housing application form at the end of July and in August, referred the case to its complex case housing panel.
• Mr B could now take his family’s complaint to the Ombudsman.
39. The Council’s case notes show that in November 2024, the Council telephoned Mrs Y but could not get through. It called Mr B who was upset at the Council’s lack of action and it left a note at the property, but nobody answered the door. It also called Ms W.
40. It then visited Mr X at home. Its notes say that Mr X had told the Council that he had no problems and he was well cared for by his wife and his daughter, Mrs W. The Council could not substantiate that there was a current risk to the three family members. The Council closed the safeguarding case at the beginning of December because Mr X had been able to express himself, he appeared well supported, and other professionals were involved.
41. At the beginning of February, Mr B told the Council’s social care service that the police had been called to the house following an incident and he had moved his mother and father to a hotel. He asked the service to refer them for housing urgently. Mr B’s brother, Mr K was in hospital at the time under the Mental Health Act. Mr B also complained that when the social worker had come to the house in December 2024, they had interviewed his father alongside Ms W who had been accused of abusing him. He said this was not good practice and his father had said he was scared to tell the truth.
42. The Council asked the family to come to its office for a Care Act assessment. Mrs Y and Mr B went to the Council but they could not take Mr X as he was too frail. The social care file says that it checked with the housing service. The housing service confirmed it had decided that it had no homelessness duties because the family did not have the mental capacity to make an application. Mr B asked the Council to visit them at the hotel to assess his father’s care and housing needs. Mr B again said that he could not see how they had assessed capacity and especially how they had assessed his father as having no capacity to make a homelessness application. Mr B also said that when his brother is discharged from hospital he will need to be housed with his mother and father.
43. A few days later, the Council social worker visited Mr B. Mr X and Mrs Y at the hotel to assess their care needs. The Council did not provide an interpreter. The Council’s notes say that Mr X declined a Care Act assessment because Mrs Y supports him. Mrs Y declined a carer’s assessment. The Council gave the family some options. It said they could extend the hotel stay, an engagement officer will look at housing needs, or they could have a care package and return to Ms W’s house.
44. The Council’s social care and its housing services liaised about the lack of assessment. In the meantime, Mr X and Mrs Y returned to Ms W’s house. Mr K had been discharged from psychiatric hospital. The Council considered Mr K’s housing needs and decided that it owed him a homelessness duty as he could not return to Ms W’s house.
45. The Council told Mr B it would like to offer Mr X a Care Act assessment again, and confirmed that it could book an interpreter. It said it would share the assessment with its housing service and consider how to meet their housing need. Mr B told the Council that Mr X had not declined an assessment and they want to go ahead with this.
46. At the end of February 2025, the Council offered Mr X and Mrs Y a one-bedroom property. Mr B told the Council that his parents and his brother wanted to be housed together. However, they moved to the flat in March 2025.

Back to top

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Fault

47. There was fault by the Council when it failed to properly consider the household’s capacity to make a homelessness application. The Council decided that Mrs Y did not have capacity but it cannot show how it assessed this, especially since Mrs Y has limited understanding of English and there is no note that the Council used an interpreter to help with the assessment.
48. The Council also failed to assess the other members of the household, Mr K or Mr X, to see if they had capacity to make a homelessness application.
49. The Council’s housing service failed to consider that the family were suffering from domestic abuse. This meant it did not properly consider its duty to offer interim accommodation where it had reason to believe the family was suffering domestic abuse. The Council also failed to support the alleged victims to outline the details of the abuse so that it could assess their housing need. The Council also failed to seek information from the Police about what had been happening.
50. The Council took too long to act on the urgent referral to adult social care. The referral made on 23 November 2023 raised safeguarding concerns that Mrs Y was at risk of physical abuse and the police had been involved. The Council’s records say it spoke to Mr B on 15 December and decided to allocate a social worker to complete a safeguarding enquiry. The case was not allocated to a social worker until 24 June, seven months after the referral, and it was then that the Council decided not to proceed with a safeguarding enquiry.
51. The Council failed to monitor the case sufficiently so that it could ensure a timely decision to close the safeguarding considerations. It decided that the risk of harm to Mr X, Mrs Y and Mr K could be case managed, but it failed to make sure that this was progressed in good time.
52. The Council did not consider its power to accommodate the family under the Care Act in good time.
53. In its complaint response, the Council said it spoke to Mr X in December 2024, but I cannot see any record of this in the Council’s case notes, and this lack of record keeping is further fault by the Council.
54. In June, the Council said it would refer the family to a domestic abuse outreach service who would report back to the Council to inform its assessment of how to help them. But there is no record that the Council did this or that it sought any feedback from the service.
55. The Council decided that it could manage any risks but Care Act assessments and it could have provided accommodation under the Care Act. However, it took too long to offer an assessment. According to its records, it only met with Mr X in February 2025, 15 months after Mr B had asked the Council to help them with housing.
56. Mr B complains that the Council failed to use an interpreter when assessing his parents. He says he can interpret for them, but felt given the circumstances, he wanted the Council to use a professional so that Mr B was not left open to suggestion that he misinterpreted or influenced the conversation in any way. The Council says it booked an interpreter when it spoke to Mr X in February 2025. This is not noted in the case notes. The Council also says that Mr X was able to converse in English and I assume this is what happened rather than use an interpreter.
57. The Council has not shown that it properly considered the use of the interpreter or offered this to Mr X and Mrs Y. The Council’s records say that Mrs Y’s English is limited, and even if Mr X can speak English, it is not clear how the Council satisfied itself that it could capture his concerns or conduct a person-centred assessment in English, especially as Mr B had requested an interpreter.
58. The Council has not shown how it assessed the family as having a one-bedroomed need. Mr X is described as elderly and physically frail and he and his wife have their own bedrooms. Mr B says he is largely bed-dependent. The Council may decide that they have a one-bedroom need but it cannot show that it has considered whether Mr X has a medical need for his own bedroom.
59. Mr B says that his parents want to be rehoused with their son, Mr K. In response to my enquiries, the Council has said that Mrs Y did not want her son to return to Ms W’s house due to altercations. However, the Council cannot show how it considered the circumstances of the three vulnerable adults together as a household. Mr B, acting on Mr K’s behalf has confirmed that Mr K wants to live with his parents. Also, he had confirmed this throughout his dealings with the Council.
60. The Council took too long to deal with Mr B’s complaint to it. He made the complaint on 18 April, but the Council did not respond until 23 August, 18 weeks later.

Injustice

61. The Council failed to properly assess the household’s capacity to make a homelessness application. It is likely that Mr X and Mr K had capacity as the Council found that they had capacity to engage in the Care Act assessment and to make a later homelessness application respectively. The Council’s failure meant that it did not properly consider its homelessness duties.
62. We cannot say that had the Council considered its homelessness duties properly it would have rehoused the family sooner. However on balance, it is likely that it would have considered them homeless on the basis that it was not reasonable for them to stay living at Ms W’s house. It is also likely the Council would have found them eligible for assistance given that they had lived in the area for some years, and it would have found they had a priority need given their disabilities and the allegations of domestic abuse. It is likely that the Council would have accepted a duty to provide interim accommodation from 13 November 2023 when they first asked the Council for help. Its failure to do so means that the family were left in accommodation that they found risky.
63. The Council’s failure to deal appropriately with the safeguarding referral for Mr X, Mrs Y and Mr K, or to engage Mr X and Mrs Y in Care Act assessments more carefully means that it cannot be sure that it managed the risk of harm, nor made sure their care needs were met. Mr B reported further allegations of abuse and altercations to the Council in 2024 and 2025. It also caused all three adults uncertainty and distress that the Council may not offer any help in their situation. The delay and mishandling also meant that the Council delayed its consideration of housing the family under Care Act accommodation powers.
64. The Council’s failure to deal with Mr B’s complaint properly caused him frustration and distress and put him to time and trouble in pursuing matters.

Back to top

Action

65. We have the power to make recommendations to remedy the injustice experienced by complainants and members of the public affected by fault we identify. (Local Government Act 1974 s 31(2B)). I have set out below the actions the Council should take to remedy the injustice to Mr X, Mrs Y, Mr B and Mr K.
66. The Council will within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr X and Mrs Y, to Mr K, and to Mr B for the faults I have identified. 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.
• Pay a total of £3,750 to Mr X and Mrs Y. This is a symbolic payment in recognition of the distress caused to them when the Council failed to provide interim accommodation between November 2023 and February 2025 when they presented as homeless due to domestic abuse. This represents £250 per calendar month and is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
• Pay a total of £2,250 to Mr K. This is a symbolic payment in recognition of the distress caused to him when the Council failed to provide interim accommodation between November 2023 and February 2025 when he presented as homeless due to domestic abuse. This represents £150 per calendar month and is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
• Pay to Mr X and Mrs Y a symbolic payment of £500 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty the Council caused and the risk of harm it left them in when it took too long to act on the safeguarding referral.
• Pay to Mr K a symbolic payment of £250 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty the Council caused and the risk of harm it left him in when it took too long to act on the safeguarding referral.
• Pay to Mr B a symbolic payment of £200 in recognition of the distress and frustration it caused him and the time and trouble it put him to when it took too long to deal with his complaints to it.
• Review Mr X’s and Mrs Y’s housing needs with an interpreter if required and deal with any unmet need in accordance with the homelessness law and guidance, and with its own Housing Allocations policy without delay.
• Offer a fresh Care Act assessment for Mr X and a carer’s assessment for Mrs Y, with an interpreter if required.
• Share this decision with the relevant staff in homelessness, adult social care and complaint handling.
67. Within three months of the date of this decision the Council will:
• Refresh training for homelessness service staff on mental capacity assessments, including the need to record the assessment and the reasons for its conclusions properly.
• Refresh training for homelessness service staff on its approach, powers and duties with regard to applicant’s suffering domestic abuse.
• Review its procedure for arranging interpreters within adult social care and update relevant staff on this.
• Review how it monitors and ensures progress where a safeguarding referral is closed on the basis that the risk is managed by Care Act assessments.
68. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

69. 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