• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Agreed actions

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council was at fault for how it dealt with Miss B’s case when she presented as homeless aged 16. It failed to include children’s social care in its homelessness decision and failed to tell them about domestic abuse concerns. Its subsequent safeguarding action then featured a delayed and, at one point, inadequate consideration of the risk to Miss B. It also failed to properly deal with Miss B’s mother’s complaints. It has agreed to take a series of actions to improve its service and recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I refer to as Miss B and Ms C, make a complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s social care and housing departments in early 2020.
2. Miss B, at the time of the events described in the complaint, was 16 years old. Ms C – Miss B’s mother – says the Council’s failings affected both of them.
3. In early 2020, the Council (and others) were supporting Miss B under an ‘early help’ plan. A youth homelessness worker (Officer X) coordinated the plan.
4. Ms C complains that:
   1. Officer X failed to gain the views of all relevant professionals, including
      Miss B’s social worker, before completing his early help assessment. The assessment was inaccurate, and the Council did not provide it to Ms C until four months after completion.
   2. The Council wrongly decided Miss B was homeless. It then placed her in a homeless hostel without Ms C’s consent. It failed to follow correct procedure.
   3. When Miss B was staying in the hostel, the Council failed to protect her from her abusive boyfriend and did not listen to information Ms C provided about her well-being. It failed to include Ms C in its decision-making. It then evicted Miss B and she ended up living on the street – all without Ms C being told.
   4. The Council took far too long to respond to Ms C’s complaints, and, when it did respond, it failed to provide her with any detail.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way a council 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)
7. 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)
8. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered:

• Information provided by Ms C and the Council.
• The 2018 children’s social care statutory guidance document, ‘Working together to safeguard children’.
• Relevant sections of the Housing Act 1996.
• The youth homelessness statutory guidance document, ‘Prevention of homelessness and provision of accommodation for 16 and 17 year old young people who may be homeless and/or require accommodation’.
• The Council’s own protocol for dealing with homelessness applications from 16 and 17 year old applicants.
• The Council’s child protection procedures.
• The Council’s corporate complaints procedure.
• The Ombudsman’s guidance on effective complaint handling.
• The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

10. Ms C 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

Complaint A: The Council’s early help assessment

What happened?

11. At the end of January 2020, Miss B told the Council that she was living at Ms C’s house with her boyfriend, but Ms C did not want the boyfriend there. She said that, if her boyfriend had to leave, she would leave as well.
12. Officer X noted that Miss B was not homeless, but that mediation was needed between her and Ms C. He agreed to coordinate an early help plan.
13. In early February Miss B reported that Ms C had ‘thrown her out’. She also said Ms C was going on holiday without her.
14. The Council reacted by conducting an early help assessment. It invited Miss B, her boyfriend, and Ms C to a meeting. It also invited several professionals.
15. Ms C and some professionals raised concerns about the control that Miss B’s boyfriend appeared to have over her. Officer X noted:

Although there are some concerns … there is no legitimate evidence of this … [and it] would be unwise for us to take any action in relation to concerns we cannot evidence.

16. The assessment referred to recent events, as described by Miss B. This included that Ms C was leaving her behind when she went on holiday, and that Ms C ‘barricaded’ her in her room. Ms C’s version of events differed; however, the assessment did not acknowledge this.
17. The Council did not send the meeting record to Ms C until June 2020.

My findings

18. Ms C’s main complaints about the Council’s early help assessment are that:

• The Council failed to include Miss B’s social worker.
• It said Miss B was ‘at risk of homelessness’, which was wrong.
• It said Ms C was going on holiday without Miss B, which was wrong.
• It said Ms C ‘barricaded’ Miss B in her room and grabbed her, which was wrong. She just stood in Miss B’s way.
• There was no analysis of the risk of coercion and abuse to Miss B.

19. Early help is support a family receives when a problem first emerges. It is only suitable when statutory intervention from children’s social care is not needed. Because of this, I would not have expected the Council to involve a social worker in its early help assessment. Miss B had no social worker at the time.
20. The assessment noted concerns about the risk to Miss B but said there was not enough evidence for the Council to act on them. I accept that there was little evidence of domestic abuse in the Council’s files at that time. This was not fault by the Council.
21. Miss B gave the Council information which led it to question whether it was reasonable for her to stay with Ms C. Even if she was not actually homeless, it was not unreasonable for the Council to believe this was a potential risk. It was not at fault for saying this in its early help assessment.
22. ‘Working together to safeguard children’ says that, for an early help assessment to be effective, it should involve the child’s family. Ms C was invited to the early help meeting and contributed her views to the assessment. But some of the content of the assessment – particularly the reports that Ms C had ‘barricaded’ Miss B in her room and that she was going on holiday without Miss B – were drawn entirely from Miss B’s version of events.
23. Ms C had a different version, and her views on these matters were not properly acknowledged in the assessment. This was fault by the Council, which left itself vulnerable to the accusation that its assessment was one-sided.
24. The Council then failed to send the meeting record to Ms C for four months, for which it was also at fault.

Complaint B: The Council’s homelessness decision

What should have happened?

25. The Housing Act says it is not reasonable for someone to occupy accommodation if this will lead to violence against them or someone else who lives there.
26. If someone is 16 or 17 years old and may have a priority need, the housing authority should secure interim accommodation for them. But the youth homelessness statutory guidance says the housing authority cannot decide whether a young person has a priority need until children’s social care have completed an assessment. It is therefore essential that referrals to children’s social care are made ‘in a timely manner’.
27. If a young person appears homeless and children’s social care have not completed an assessment, they should start one ‘immediately’. The housing authority should work with children’s social care so the homelessness and social care assessments, and the resulting plans and actions, are co-ordinated.
28. If the housing authority has safeguarding concerns about a child, it must make a referral to children’s social care. ‘Working together to safeguard children’ says this should happen immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
29. The Council has a protocol – agreed jointly between its housing and children's social care departments – which sets out what housing officers should do when a 16 or 17 year old presents as homeless. I have viewed the version of the protocol which was in place in January and February 2020.
30. If a housing officer had safeguarding concerns, they would call children’s social care immediately. Social care would decide whether to hold a strategy meeting, or whether to look at other options.
31. If the housing officer did not have safeguarding concerns, but the young person had nowhere to stay that night, the officer would call children’s social care immediately. Social care would hold a case consultation meeting with the young person and housing, and would explore the available options.

What happened?

32. After the early help meeting, Officer X told Ms C that the Council did not consider Miss B homeless. He said he could add her to her boyfriend’s application, but only if she was at risk of harm at home, or if Ms C refused to provide accommodation to her.
33. Officer X was already aware of concerns about domestic abuse, as summarised in the early help assessment. Miss B then spoke to Officer X herself about her boyfriend ‘trying to control her’. She said that, in one incident, “he just blew up”. Officer X did not pass these concerns to children’s social care.
34. In late February, Miss B left home with her boyfriend and spent the weekend rough sleeping. Officer X decided she was now homeless as there was at risk of harm if she returned home. He added her to her boyfriend’s application and placed them in temporary accommodation (a homeless hostel) the same day.
35. Officer X did not speak to children’s social care before making the homelessness decision. He did, however, send them a referral afterwards. They started a ‘child in need’ assessment the following day.
36. A social worker visited Miss B and offered to place her into voluntary local authority care, which she refused. Children’s social care decided there were no concerns which justified their continued involvement. They closed Miss B’s case. Ms C accepted this.

My findings

37. When a 16 or 17-year-old presents as homeless, the statutory guidance says housing and children’s social care departments must work together. In practice, the Council’s protocol (at the time) said this meant housing officers would call children’s social care before making a homelessness decision. The protocol placed a significant emphasis on the involvement of children’s social care.
38. In Miss B’s case, Officer X decided she was homeless and arranged a placement without discussing this with children’s social care first. Although he then sent them a referral, the decision had already been made. This was fault by the Council.
39. Children’s social care could have been involved sooner if, in mid-February 2020, they had been made aware of domestic abuse concerns raised by Miss B, Ms C and others. ‘Working together to safeguard children’ says this should have happened ‘immediately’. It did not. This was fault by the Council.

Complaint C: The Council’s protection of Miss B (or its failure to do so)

What should have happened?

40. ‘Working together to safeguard children’ says that, when a council receives a referral, it has one working day to decide what to do. If a child may be suffering significant harm, the council must hold a strategy discussion.
41. The Council’s child protection procedures say that, if the outcome of a strategy discussion is that the child appears to be suffering significant harm, the Council must hold a child protection conference within 15 working days. The conference should then consider the risk of harm to the child and decide whether to start a child protection plan.
42. The youth homelessness statutory guidance says that, if a 16 or 17 year old is homeless but the housing authority will not provide accommodation, children’s social care should offer to place them in local authority care (under section 20 of the Children Act 1989). If the young person refuses, children’s social care should offer them other accommodation with a ‘child in need’ plan in place (under section 17 of the Act).

What happened?

43. At the end of April 2020, Miss B presented at hospital with bruises on her arms and neck. The hospital told the Council. Miss B went home to Ms C, but returned to the hostel the following day.
44. The Council held a strategy discussion and decided Miss B may be suffering significant harm. It made further enquiries, but decided that, in the face of contradictory evidence about whether Miss B was suffering domestic abuse – and with Miss B refusing support – it could take no further action.
45. In early June, there was another domestic incident between Miss B and her boyfriend, which led to their hostel evicting them. Although Officer X placed them in a different hostel – with a warning about their behaviour – children’s social care decided to hold a further strategy meeting.
46. Officer X attended the strategy meeting. He said the Council could not cancel its housing duty to Miss B, even though children’s social care did not agree she was homeless. He said she had the right to make poor choices and cancelling the tenancy would be a breach of her human rights.
47. The Council decided, again, that Miss B may be suffering significant harm. After further enquiries, it decided to arrange a child protection conference. It also assigned a support worker to help Miss B gain insight into her situation.
48. In late June, children’s social care told the child protection conference that they believed Miss B’s housing arrangement was putting her at risk. Despite this, the conference decided she was not suffering significant harm, so a child protection plan was not necessary. It said the Council’s support worker should have more time to work with Miss B.
49. The Council reviewed this conference afterwards, and decided it “was insufficiently robust, it was not quorate in a meaningful way and was not informed by information in relation to the alleged perpetrator of violence”. The Council decided children’s social care did not “meaningfully participate in the meeting”.
50. Three days after the conference and following further domestic incidents between Miss B and her boyfriend, the hostel evicted them. The Council decided they were intentionally homeless (because of their behaviour) and ended its housing duty towards them. Miss B refused to go home to Ms C. She and her boyfriend decided to sleep in a tent.
51. When Officer X told children’s social care about the eviction, he said there had been an incident in which Miss B had been heard to scream “get off me … what have I done wrong?”. He said this suggested she was at risk of domestic violence.
52. Children’s social care kept in touch with Miss B over the following days. They told her she would receive support from the Council’s housing department if she left her boyfriend. They considered whether to offer her accommodation, but decided not to, as this would not have encouraged her to return home to Ms C. They did not consider her homeless.
53. After ten days of Miss B sleeping in a tent, children’s social care decided to hold a strategy discussion. There is no record of the discussion on Miss B’s file, but a case note says, “Whilst [Miss B] has been sighted again by police today she remains street homeless and at risk of significant harm”.
54. Two days later, the Police decided to take Miss B into Police protection – a 72-hour emergency power designed to protect children who are at immediate risk of harm. They placed her with her grandmother. She then returned home to Ms C.
55. The Council held another child protection conference shortly after, and, this time, the conference agreed that Miss B was suffering significant harm. The Council started a child protection plan. Miss B agreed to mediation with Ms C.
56. A week after the conference, Miss B broke up with her boyfriend. Although children’s social care remained involved for some time afterwards, from this point on there was a significantly reduced risk to Miss B. The Council ended the child protection plan and then closed her case.

My findings

57. The Council decided that, as it was already providing accommodation to Miss B under her boyfriend’s application, it could not simply end its duty to her and evict her. Its view was that she could reasonably be expected to live with her boyfriend and, as he was homeless, its duty extended to them both.
58. I can understand why Ms C was unhappy with this decision. However, I do not have the power to decide where someone should or should not be ‘reasonably expected’ to live. Because of this, I have found no fault with the Council.
59. Between April (when Miss B turned up at hospital) and mid-June 2020 the Council acted in line with its child protection procedures, and national guidance, when it received information about the risk to Miss B. It held two separate strategy discussions and decided to arrange a child protection conference.
60. However, the child protection conference in late June, in the Council’s own view, did not properly consider the risk to Miss B. Although children’s social care believed she was suffering significant harm, they did not ‘meaningfully participate’ in the meeting. This was fault by the Council.
61. When Miss B was then evicted from her hostel in early July and began sleeping in a tent, children’s social care told Ms C straight away. I do not agree with her complaint that the Council failed to tell her about this.
62. Children’s social care decided not to offer Miss B accommodation using their Children Act powers. This was because they did not consider her homeless, and they wanted to assist her to return home to Ms C. This was not fault by the Council.
63. On the day of Miss B’s eviction, Officer X told children’s social care about an alleged violent incident between her and her boyfriend. The Council did not hold a strategy discussion for 10 days. Although it offered Miss B some support in the meantime, this meant there was a 10-day period with no formal multi-agency consideration of the risks she faced.
64. The Council’s strategy discussion led it to conclude that Miss B appeared to be suffering significant harm. The Council’s reason for deciding this – that she was ‘street homeless’ – had been as true ten days before as it was on the day of the strategy discussion. The risk of domestic abuse had not changed over that period either.
65. In the absence of any evidence which explains why Miss B was not suffering significant harm on the day of her eviction – as she apparently was 10 days later – I have found fault with the Council for waiting so long to hold a strategy discussion.

Complaint D: The Council’s complaint handling

What should have happened?

66. The Council says, in its corporate complaints procedure, it will respond to most complaints in 20 working days, or, if the complaint is particularly complex, in 30 working days. It will tell the complainant if it needs an extension.
67. If the complaint is raised on behalf of another person, the Council will not consider the complaint unless it is satisfied the person making the complaint has authority to do so. This may include a signed consent form.
68. The Ombudsman’s guide on effective complaint handling says councils should ask, on receiving a complaint:

• Does the service user want to pursue a complaint?
• Does the complainant have a representative and are they able to give consent?
• Does the representative have consent to act on the complainant’s behalf?

What happened?

69. In May and June 2020, Ms C made three complaints to the Council: about the early help assessment, the homelessness decision and Miss B’s eviction.
70. Ms C heard nothing about her complaints – bar acknowledgments from the Council – until August, when she asked for updates. The Council told her it would respond to her complaint about its homelessness decision by mid-September.
71. The Council completed its investigation into the homelessness complaint – which it dealt with under its personnel procedures – in October. It responded to Ms C in November.
72. When the Council responded, it said it could not give Ms C any details about its investigation. But it said:

… it was not appropriate to consider that your daughter was homeless nor should we have offered alternative accommodation in a homeless facility which was not suitable accommodation.

73. In December, Ms C asked the Council for a response to her complaint about
    Miss B’s eviction. The Council’s complaints department asked its housing department for comments on the complaint more than once, without success.
74. By April 2021, Ms C had received no responses to her complaints about Ms B’s eviction or about the early help assessment. Again, she asked for a response from the Council about the eviction. This time the Council logged it as a new complaint. Ms C then took the opportunity to expand the new complaint to include everything she had complained about over the previous year.
75. The Council told Ms C several times there would be a delay to its response to her complaint. The main cause of the delay was its complaints department’s difficulties gaining comments from its housing department (again).
76. When the Council responded in late July, it provided little detail. It said it could not comment on the investigation it conducted under its personnel procedure (it referred to its November 2020 response). It also said it could not comment fully on other matters because Miss B had not given her consent for Ms C to complain. It did not try to establish consent with Miss B.

My findings

77. After Ms C complained about Miss B’s early help assessment in June 2020, the Council failed to respond. Ms C ended up adding this matter to a new complaint in April 2021. This was fault by the Council.
78. The Council should have responded to Ms C’s complaint about its homelessness decision by late July. It did not contact her about the complaint until September, at which point it gave her a new deadline, which it then missed by two months without any further explanation.
79. I accept that the Council was conducting a detailed investigation and I will not criticise it for doing so. I also recognise that, as it was doing this under its personnel procedures, it could not provide Ms C with the updates or the response detail which I would normally expect. This did not amount to fault by the Council.
80. Ms C made her complaint about Miss B’s eviction in July 2020. The Council did nothing with the complaint until she asked for an update in December. After unsuccessfully trying to get comments from its housing department, the Council then failed to respond to the complaint. Ms C ended up adding this matter to her new complaint in April 2021. This was fault by the Council.
81. Ms C set out her new complaint in full in late April 2021. The Council delayed responding and then, when it did respond, provided little detail. One of its reasons for this was a lack of consent from Miss B. But, despite there being four months between complaint and response, the Council did not try to establish whether
    Ms C had Miss B’s consent before deciding she did not. This was fault by the Council.

Injustice

Miss B

82. Although the Council was at fault for how it dealt with Miss B at several points, not everything it did wrong definitely caused her an injustice. This is because she herself refused to go home to Ms C. She insisted on living in a tent rather than taking the other choices available to her. Because of this, a lack of fault in
    Miss B’s case may not necessarily have led to a different result.
83. However, when Miss B disclosed concerns about her boyfriend’s controlling behaviour in mid-February 2020, this was not referred to children’s social care. Because of this, the Council missed an opportunity to intervene earlier when
    Miss B may have been more receptive to support.
84. There was a further missed opportunity in late June 2020, when the Council held a child protection conference but did not properly consider the risk to Miss B.
85. And, finally, there was a third missed opportunity in early July 2020, when the Council did not hold a strategy discussion quickly enough after hearing concerns that Miss B’s boyfriend may have been violent towards her. At that point the couple had also just started living in a tent.
86. When the Council did hold a strategy discussion – and decided Miss B appeared to be suffering significant harm – the Police took emergency measures to protect her shortly afterwards.
87. Earlier intervention from the Council may have made a difference in the above circumstances – or may not have done. Either way, the Council should provide Miss B with a personal remedy to recognise its failings in her case.

Ms C

88. Ms C was likely to have experienced avoidable distress from the Council’s failure to properly include her views in its early help assessment, and from its failure to respond to her complaints properly, on time or at all.
89. As Miss B’s mother, Ms C was also likely to have experienced avoidable distress from the Council’s failings in the way it dealt with Miss B. She also went to a significant amount of time and trouble over a long period to try and get the Council to explain its decision-making and admit its failings.
90. The Council should provide Ms C with a personal remedy to reflect her injustice.

Back to top

Agreed actions

91. The Council has agreed that, within four weeks of this decision statement, it will:

• Write to Miss B and Ms C and apologise for the failings identified in this investigation.
• Summarise and share the findings of this investigation with its housing, children’s social care and complaints managers.
• Ask its housing managers to:
  • share the findings of this investigation with their staff; and
  • when doing so, highlight the need for officers to refer to children’s social care immediately when they become aware of safeguarding risks to a child.
• Ask its children’s social care managers to:
  • share the findings of this investigation with their staff; and
  • when doing so, highlight the Council’s duty to hold strategy discussions without delay when it appears a child may be suffering significant harm.
• Ask its complaints managers to:
  • share the findings of this investigation with their staff;
  • share the Ombudsman’s guidance on effective complaint handling with their staff; and
  • when doing so, highlight the Ombudsman’s guidance on establishing consent when a complaint is received.

92. Within six weeks the Council will:

• Make a payment of £500 to Miss B to recognise the opportunities it missed to intervene earlier in her case.

• Make a payment of £800 to Ms C to recognise her avoidable distress, in total, from its failings, as well as her time and trouble.

93. Within three months the Council will:

• Ensure all its officers who make decisions on youth homelessness are properly trained on its current joint youth homelessness protocol.

Back to top

Final decision

94. The Council was at fault for how it dealt with Miss B’s case when she presented as homeless aged 16. There was also fault in its subsequent safeguarding action, and in how it dealt with Ms C’s complaints. The agreed actions remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page