London Borough of Hounslow (22 004 599)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 29 Mar 2023

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complained about the support the Council provided to protect her son from child criminal exploitation and related violence. There was fault in how the Council arranged for Miss X to move outside of its area, failed to decide whether to assess B’s special educational needs and how it handled Miss X’s complaint. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay Miss X a financial remedy. It also agreed to review its practices.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complains the Council did not properly protect her son, B, from gang related influences and violence since 2019, including that it:
    • waited until B was at significant risk before taking action;
    • failed to provide culturally appropriate services to support B;
    • took too long to arrange alternative housing outside the Council’s area;
    • failed to make sure that B, and his sister C, could access education; and
    • failed to support B to have contact with his son before his son’s death.
  2. As a result, Miss X says that B was placed at risk of serious harm, both children missed out on periods of education and the whole family were caused significant worry and distress. She wants the Council to accept it failed to properly protect B, make up for the missed education and compensate them for the distress they have suffered.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

  1. I have investigated the Council’s actions following a serious incident involving Miss X and B in December 2020.
  2. I have not investigated events before this because Miss X’s complaints about these events are late. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  3. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in July 2022 so her complaint about events before July 2021 are late. While I am satisfied there are good reasons to investigate what happened from December 2020, Miss X could have complained about events before this sooner. I am not satisfied there are good reasons to investigate what happened in 2019 and 2020 now.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the police or multi-agency bodies which the Council is only part of. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, 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

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered:
    • the information Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
    • the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided;
    • relevant law and guidance; and
    • our Guidance on Remedies.
  2. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
  3. 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

What I found

Child protection

  1. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
  2. If, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a Child Protection Conference.
  3. The Child Protection Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
  4. After the Initial Child Protection Conference, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
  5. Review Child Protection Conferences should be held within three months of the initial conference, and thereafter at maximum intervals of six months.
  6. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
  7. The Child Protection Conference plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a Child Protection Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the responsibility of the council. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the Child Protection Conference unless there was good reason not to.
  8. The statutory guidance on child safeguarding, ‘Working together to safeguard children’, says after the ICPC, the council should convene a core group meeting within 10 working days. The purpose of core group is to:
    • further develop the child protection plan;
    • facilitate the in-depth assessment to inform decisions about the child’s welfare; and
    • implement the child protection plan.
  9. The core group is made up of key family members and professionals involved with the child and/or family.

Alternative education provision

  1. Councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils who are out of school because of exclusion, illness or for other reasons, if they would not receive suitable education without such arrangements. The provision generally should be full-time unless it is not in the child’s interests. (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision.
  2. This applies to all children of compulsory school age living in the local council area, whether or not they are on the roll of a school. (Statutory guidance ‘Alternative Provision’ January 2013)
  3. We have issued guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to provide education for children who, for whatever reason, do not attend school full-time. (Out of school… out of mind? How councils can do more to give children out of school a good education, published in 2016)
  4. We made six recommendations. Councils should:
    • consider the individual circumstances of each case and be aware that a council may need to act whatever the reason for absence (except for minor issues that schools deal with on a day-to-day basis) – even when a child is on a school roll;
    • consult all the professionals involved in a child's education and welfare, taking account of the evidence in coming to decisions;
    • decide, based on all the evidence, whether to require attendance at school or provide the child with suitable alternative education;
    • keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing it if a child's capacity to learn increases;
    • adopt a strategic and planned approach to reintegrating children into mainstream education where they are able to do so; and
    • put whatever action is chosen into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.
  5. The Education Act 1996 places a duty on parents to ensure their children of compulsory school age, receive a suitable full-time education. Failure to meet this duty is an offence. Councils have the power to prosecute parents who fail to ensure their child’s regular attendance at school. If the court finds a parent guilty of an offence they can receive a fine or imprisonment of up to three months.
  6. Where a child’s attendance at school drops below a certain level, it is likely a council’s Education Welfare Officer (EWO) will become involved after a referral from the school. EWOs have various responsibilities. These are typically a mix of providing advice and support to schools, parents and children, while also leading a council’s investigation and enforcement of the law around school attendance.

Special educational needs

  1. A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
  2. Both parents and schools can ask a Council to carry out and EHC needs assessment and decide whether to make an EHC plan. Where a Council is asked to do this, it must give its decision within six weeks whether to agree to the assessment.
  3. If a Council agrees to carry out an assessment, it must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). This includes:
    • the child’s education placement;
    • medical advice and information from health care professionals involved with the child;
    • psychological advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP);
    • social care advice and information;
    • advice and information from any person requested by the parent or young person, where the council considers it reasonable; and
    • any other advice and information the council considers appropriate for a satisfactory assessment.

Housing allocations and transfers

  1. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
  2. The Council has an exceptional needs panel which considers cases which fall outside the Council’s usual allocations scheme.
  3. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

What happened

  1. The Council and Miss X had extensive contact over the period I have investigated. This section does not contain details of all events during that time. Instead, it contains the key events which are relevant to the findings of my investigation.

Background and events before December 2020

  1. Miss X has two children, a son B and a daughter C. B turned 12 in 2019, while C was 8 years old.
  2. The Council’s children’s services team became involved with Miss X’s family in mid-2019. The Council said this was because B started displaying challenging behaviour, including causing damage to Miss X’s home and displaying violence against Miss X.
  3. Throughout 2019 the Council became concerned about the relationship between Miss X and B, that B was at risk of Child Criminal Exploitation (including increasing contact with the police) and that Y had some fixed term exclusions from school. The Council placed B on a child protection plan between October 2019 and January 2020. This focused on Miss X’s parenting and counselling for B through his school.
  4. The Council ended the child protection plan in early 2020 but continued to provide support for Miss X and B through a child in need plan. The Council offered Miss X a parenting course (which the Council says Miss X declined) and one-to-one support for B from a social worker.
  5. In January 2020, B was permanently excluded from the mainstream school he was attending (School P). The Council referred B for alternative education through a specialist provider (School Q). According to the Council, the aim of the referral was to gather more information about B’s education needs. However, B’s attendance at School Q was infrequent and sporadic until September 2020, when B began attending more regularly. School Q said that B was not ready to return to mainstream education and asked to extend B’s placement for between four and six months to allow them more time to work with B.
  6. B’s involvement with criminal activity, the police and gang related violence increased during 2020. Professionals involved at the time noted that despite the support provided, including specialist support through a project aimed at addressing gang violence, B continued to seek out other young people involved with crime and violence.
  7. Around August 2020, Miss X asked the Council to help her move away from the area she lived in because she was concerned about B’s safety. Miss X’s housing officer applied to the Council’s exceptional needs housing panel in December 2020, asking for Miss X to be moved due to the risk of violence to her family.

December 2020 and child protection proceedings

  1. At the end of December 2020 police attended an incident at Miss X’s home. As a result, the police arrested Miss X and B and placed conditions on Miss X which meant she needed to stay away from B. Following the arrest, the Council decided to start a child safeguarding investigation.
  2. While it was carrying out its enquiries, the Council supported Miss X to arrange for B to stay with friends or relatives, including negotiating with relatives and providing financial support to cover some of the extra costs. Despite Miss X’s request, the Council decided not to take B into care.
  3. In late January 2021 the Council reviewed its enquiries and decided to hold a child protection conference. The conference was held in early February 2021 and recommended that both B and C should have child protection plans. The Council identified several risks to B including:
    • B had not been regularly attending education. The Council decided B should change sites at School Q, should receive one-to-one tutoring and it would support Miss X to apply for help with school transport costs;
    • B struggled with emotional regulation and his mental health. The Council decided it would refer B to mental health services and would offer both bereavement counselling and family therapy;
    • Miss X’s home was unsafe due to risks from people who had threatened harm to B. The Council said it would arrange to fireproof Miss X’s letterbox and the Council’s exceptional needs housing panel would decide where and when Miss X could be moved; and
    • B was associating with individual involved in gang violence. The Council agreed it would offer support for Miss X and B to access various intervention programmes, including several suggested by Miss X.
  4. The first plan said that that B’s social worker would:
    • chase the outcome from the housing panel by the beginning of March 2021
    • help Miss X complete a transport application for B by early March 2021;
    • offer Miss X bereavement counselling and family therapy by mid-March 2021; and
    • refer B to mental health services by late March 2021.
  5. The Council’s records show that the social worker completed the first and last actions within a few days of the agreed deadlines. The social worker also completed the transport application for B, but this was several weeks later than originally agreed. However, in the meantime the Council’s education panel had agreed temporary funding for B’s transport and noted that B had started attending the new site by mid-March 2021.
  6. There was no evidence the Council offered Miss X bereavement counselling or family therapy services, though it did ask Miss X in late March 2021 if she needed any help accessing the other support services she had identified for B. Miss X had already made contact with one of her preferred support services and there is no evidence Miss X said she needed more help with this from the Council.

Housing panel meetings

  1. While the Council was carrying out its child protection enquiries, the Council’s exceptional needs housing panel met to consider Miss X’s case in early February 2021. The panel decided it needed more information about Miss X’s case, particularly whether Miss X needed to move to somewhere else within the Council’s area or to somewhere outside the Council’s area, and which areas within the Council’s area Miss X needed to avoid.
  2. The Council says it contacted Miss X after the meeting and explained a permanent move outside the Council’s area would take longer than moving within the Council’s area. It says Miss X agreed to a move inside the Council’s area, as this would be completed more quickly.
  3. Miss X’s case was not considered at the next housing panel meeting in March 2021, due to a backlog of cases. Instead, the Council offered Miss X bed and breakfast accommodation outside the Council’s area as an emergency measure, due to a recent escalation of B’s involvement with the police. However, Miss X refused this as she feared it would cause too much disruption for B and C. Instead, Miss X said she would be willing to consider alternative temporary accommodation in a different part of the Council’s area.
  4. During March 2021 the Council also tried to arrange a reciprocal transfer with another council in Miss X’s preferred areas. However, there was some disagreement between the Council’s housing and homelessness teams about who was responsible for agreeing and arranging a transfer.
  5. The Council’s housing panel considered Miss X’s case again in mid-April 2021 where it approved Miss X’s move outside the Council’s area.

May – September 2021

  1. The Council reviewed the child protection plans in early May 2021. At that time, Miss X told the Council she no longer wanted B to attend School Q’s alternative site due to fears B was at risk from other pupils. School Q asked for more time to gather evidence of B’s needs because he had not been attending regularly.
  2. Around the same time, B was attacked and received further threats outside of school. Miss X agreed to move into temporary accommodation outside the Council’s area which the Council arranged. The Council contacted children’s services in the other area to make them aware of the risks to B and also arranged for B to be transferred from School Q to a similar provider in the other area. However, B did not attend either School Q or the similar provider and C did not attend the online learning her school arranged, mainly due to issues with internet access in the temporary accommodation.
  3. In June 2021, the Council agreed to cover the rent costs for Miss X’s usual home while she was in temporary accommodation, along with the costs of the temporary accommodation. It also agreed with the authority in the area Miss X wanted to move to that it would offer a home to a family from that area, in exchange for the other authority agreeing to house Miss X. However, the Council said it would need to find a suitable property before it could arrange the exchange.
  4. Miss X told the Council that she was not happy with the temporary accommodation it had arranged for her. The Council offered Miss X several alternatives in the same and other areas, but Miss X refused these. At the same time, the Council gave Miss X information on how to bid for properties in her preferred area, in preparation for when the exchange was agreed.
  5. In mid-June 2021, the Council was told that B’s girlfriend was pregnant with B’s child. The Council reallocated social workers so that B and C had the same social worker. It also reviewed the child protection plans and decided to continue the plans. At the review, the Council noted that B and C were both not accessing education while in the other Council’s area, so it referred them to the education welfare service in the area they were staying. The Council agreed to fund both internet access at the temporary accommodation and to provide other financial support while Miss X was staying there.
  6. Between July and August 2021, the Council tried to visit Miss X and her children several times. However, most of these visits were not successful. Miss X told the Council she had recently been in hospital but would not say where the children were living or who was looking after them. The Council also received information that B was returning to his home area on a regular basis.
  7. After an incident involving the police (but not Miss X or her children) in early September 2021, Miss X said she wished to leave the temporary accommodation the Council had arranged and asked to be placed in a hotel. The Council agreed and arranged a hotel room for Miss X and her children. It also provided additional financial support for meals and other expenses.
  8. The Council provided Miss X with a list of alternative temporary accommodation which was available at short notice. However, Miss X did not consider any of the properties suitable as they were not self-contained accommodation. Instead, she decided to move back to her usual home, against the Council’s advice.
  9. Soon after moving back home, B was chased by other young people. Miss X refused to tell the Council where she and the children were. The Council tried to arrange temporary accommodation in Miss X’s preferred area, but did not have any relationships with providers in that area to source self-contained accommodation at short notice.

October 2021 – February 2022

  1. After returning to School Q for one session, B then went missing and was reported to police as a missing person. He returned a few days later and was interviewed by a social worker but did not want to discuss why he went missing.
  2. After further threats of violence, Miss X again left her home in early October 2021 and would not tell the Council where she and the children were staying. The Council arranged a hotel room for Miss X and her children outside the Council’s area, in a hotel chosen by Miss X. The Council asked Miss X for details of her finances to decide whether she needed further financial support but Miss X refused to provide details. However, the Council did provide further financial support payments.
  3. Despite this temporary move, B was seen to return to the Council’s area several times in October and was stopped by police several times. The Council tried to arrange for B to attend alternative education in the area of the hotel, but Miss X ultimately refused this.
  4. In early November 2021 the Council identified a suitable private rented property in Miss X’s preferred area. Miss X said she would consider three-bedroom social or private accommodation on a temporary basis if:
    • she could keep the tenancy on her existing home until she secured a similar tenancy in her preferred area;
    • the Council would pay for the temporary accommodation;
    • the Council would pay for her moving costs;
    • the Council would pay her rent on her existing property until she permanently moved to her preferred area; and
    • the Council secured school places for her children in her preferred area.
  5. The Council agreed to extend the hotel accommodation until early December 2021 and to cover Miss X’s rent on her home until the end of November 2021, after which it told her she would need to pay this with her housing benefit or complete a financial assessment with the Council.
  6. Miss X moved into the agreed temporary accommodation in her preferred area in December 2021. The Council sent information to Miss X about arranging school places for her children and also referred B to the other area’s education service. Miss X applied for a primary school place for C.
  7. Shortly after the agreed move, B’s social worker found Miss X and the children back in her former home. The social worker drove the family back to the temporary accommodation in her preferred area.
  8. B’s child was born in mid-December 2021. The authority in the child’s area started child protection proceedings and agreed that contact arrangements would be coordinated by B’s and the mother’s families.
  9. Between October 2021 and February 2022, the authority for Miss X’s preferred area chased the Council about the agreed reciprocal transfer and delays in the Council offering a suitable tenancy in exchange. Because the Council had not offered a tenancy in exchange, Miss X was overlooked for two properties she would otherwise have been eligible for in her preferred area. The Council offered a property for exchange at the end of February 2022.

March – August 2022

  1. Miss X and her children again returned to her home in the Council’s area in early March 2022, before returning to her preferred area. As of March 2022, Miss X had not applied for a secondary school place for C or made any applications for school places for B. Miss X refused a direct transfer from School Q to alternative education in her preferred area. B was again seen in his home area and the Council’s notes from this time report that this was with Miss X’s permission.
  2. In April 2022, B’s child died. Miss X asked the Council not to contact her due to the bereavement. Miss X did ask, through her housing officer, for bereavement counselling for both her and B. B’s social worker sent Miss X information about bereavement services in her preferred area in early May 2022.
  3. Around this time, Miss X was offered a permanent property in her preferred area. However, she did not think the property was suitable so decided to continue bidding for other properties instead.
  4. In May 2022 Miss X applied for secondary school places for both B and C in her preferred area.
  5. Miss X accepted a permanent property in her preferred area in July 2022. The Council continued to fund the temporary accommodation until Miss X moved into her new home in early August 2022. Once Miss X had moved, the Council transferred B and C’s cases to the authority for that area.

My findings

  1. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in July 2022, so her complaint about events before July 2021 are late. However, I have decided that, because of some delays in the Council’s handling of Miss X’s complaint, there are good reasons consider events from December 2020 onwards.
  2. As explained at the start of this decision statement, the Ombudsman can only consider the actions of the Council. We cannot consider any actions or decisions of multi-agency bodies, such as child protection conferences or child exploitation teams.
  3. It is not our role to decide whether the Council should have taken child protection action, what support Miss X or her family needed or where the Council should have housed them; that was the Council’s responsibility. Our role is to assess whether the Council made its decisions properly. We cannot question a decision the Council has made, or its professional judgement, if it followed the right steps and considered relevant evidence.

Child protection and support from children’s services

  1. There was no fault with the Council’s decision to start child protection action and make a child protection plan. The evidence shows the Council:
    • held a strategy discussion within three days of being notified of the incident involving the police;
    • spoke to B and Miss X the following day, after it decided to start section 47 enquiries;
    • liaised with family members to support Miss X in providing suitable accommodation for B while she was subject to bail conditions;
    • sought B’s and Miss X’s views several times during its enquiries;
    • held an initial child protection conference within two weeks of reviewing the outcome of the enquiries in late January 2021;
    • involved Miss X in the initial child protection conference;
    • made a child protection plan for B and C, in line with the recommendations of the child protection conference; and
    • held a core group meeting, which further sought Miss X’s views within two weeks of the child protection conference meeting.
  2. The evidence shows the Council completed some of the initial actions in the child protection plan within the agreed timescales. However, the Council failed to:
    • help Miss X apply for school transport buy the date it agreed;
    • offer Miss X family therapy or bereavement counselling at that time.
  3. Both failures were fault. However, I do not think these caused an injustice to Miss X because:
    • although the school transport application was completed late, the Council had already agreed to fund school transport and B was attending School Q at the time; and
    • I think it is unlikely Miss X would have accepted the family therapy or counselling as the evidence shows she had previous and subsequently refused such services.
  4. The Council held regular group meetings and reviews of the child protection plan. Miss X was invited to these meetings, attended most of them and was encouraged to share her views. The evidence also shows the Council:
    • attempted to visit both children regularly while it maintained the plan;
    • engaged with Miss X and both children;
    • kept B’s education under review;
    • worked closely with the police and other agencies involved with B; and
    • advocated on Miss X’s behalf with the Council’s housing department to support her move out of the Council’s area.
  5. I am satisfied the Council offered Miss X and B support, both practical and financial, while she was waiting to move outside the Council’s area. The evidence shows that, at times, B engaged well with the support provided. When Miss X herself identified alternatives service she wished to explore for B, the Council offered support in accessing these, though there is no evidence Miss X accepted that support.
  6. The evidence also shows there were periods when Miss X refused to engage with the Council, to tell it where she or the children were, or to respond to the Council’s requests for information or offers of support. During these times, the Council continued to try to visit the children and the evidence shows the Council responded to Miss X during the periods she was willing to engage.
  7. Once B’s child was born, the Council closely liaised with the authority for the area where the child lived, which decided contact should be arranged between the families involved. There is no evidence Miss X asked the Council for help with arranging contact between B and his child, beyond raising concerns about the child’s wellbeing which the Council passed on to the other authority. Following the death of B’s child, the Council sent Miss X information about bereavement services in the area she was living, even though Miss X had asked it not to contact her at the time. Since Miss X and B were living outside its area, I consider this was an appropriate way for the Council to help access the support Miss X had asked for.
  8. After several attempts at arranging temporary accommodation for Miss X, the children’s services team found and paid for private rented accommodation in Miss X’s preferred area. The Council also provided extra financial support, paid off Miss X’s rent arrears and supported Miss X to move home.
  9. I am satisfied the evidence shows the Council acted promptly in taking child protection action, tried to work closely with Miss X during the child protection plan and was responsive to her concerns and contact during that time. I appreciate that Miss X believes the Council did not offer her the right support. However, as explained above, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what support the Council should have provided. Since I have found no fault with how the Council made its decisions, I cannot question the professional judgement of its social workers.

Rehousing Miss X and her family

  1. The Council explained it did not have any relationships with housing providers in Miss X’s preferred area and, therefore, could not directly arrange to rehouse her in that area quickly. I am satisfied with the Council’s explanation about this and that to rehouse Miss X in her preferred area was always going to take some time. It explained this to Miss X when she asked to move to her preferred area in December 2020.
  2. However, the evidence shows there were several avoidable delays in how the Council considered Miss X’s housing situation and in its efforts to rehouse her after it agreed to do so. These include delays of:
    • two months between when Miss X’s housing officer referred her to the exceptional needs panel and when the panel first considered Miss X’s case;
    • one month when the panel did not consider Miss X’s case at its March 2021 meeting due to a backlog of applications;
    • two months between when the Council first agreed to try to arrange a reciprocal move to Miss X’s preferred area and when it contacted the authority for that area. The evidence suggests this was mainly due to a dispute within the Council about which team was responsible for trying to arrange the transfer; and
    • at least five months during which the Council failed to offer a property for exchange due to overlooking the applicant from Miss X’s preferred area. The evidence suggests this was due to poor record keeping within the Council which was made worse when key staff left the Council’s employment.
  3. I am satisfied that these delays, particularly considering the urgency with which the Council accepted Miss X needed to move, were fault which caused Miss X injustice.
  4. Had the Council acted without these delays, I am satisfied Miss X would likely have received her first offer of a property in her preferred area in June 2021 and would have permanently moved in October 2021, around 10 months earlier than she did. However, Miss X was living in temporary accommodation in her preferred area, funded by the Council, from November 2021, so she would likely have moved to her preferred area around two months sooner than she did.
  5. If Miss X had been living in her preferred area in September 2021, she would not have needed to stay in a hotel for around two months from October 2021. She would also likely not have been exposed to the threats of violence which prompted the move into a hotel. I am satisfied the distress caused by that incident and having to stay in a hotel for one month was significant for Miss X and her children.
  6. Although Miss X was living in her preferred area from November 2021 and the Council was paying for that accommodation, it was still temporary accommodation which caried with it an uncertainty and frustration until Miss X was permanently rehoused in July 2022. Had there been no delays on the part of the Council, I am satisfied that distress would have been avoided.
  7. I am satisfied it is unlikely Miss X would have been rehoused in her preferred area earlier than October 2021. For the period between December 2020 and October 2021, the evidence shows the Council acted promptly to offer Miss X alternative, emergency accommodation when she asked for it. The Council tried to give Miss X the choices it could given the shortage of temporary accommodation in the Council’s and neighbouring areas. Miss X refused alternative accommodation on several occasions.
  8. The evidence also shows that while in temporary accommodation away from home, B still returned to the Council’s area and had interactions with the police. This continued even when Miss X was in her preferred area. Therefore, I cannot say that, if there had been any other fault in rehousing Miss X, this would have contributed to the risks to B.

Education for B and C

  1. As explained above, I cannot consider the Council’s actions before December 2020, so I have only considered how the Council supported B and C’s education after this.
  2. As of December 2020, the Council had arranged alternative education for B at School Q which was considering making an application for an EHC assessment but needed more time to work with B and gather evidence about his needs, due to his poor attendance since being excluded.
  3. Miss X asked the Council several times to look into B’s educational needs. While she did not explicitly ask for an EHC assessment for B, it is this is effectively what she wanted. However, although School Q asked for more time to work with B, there is no evidence the Council made a decision about whether to arrange an EHC needs assessment in response to Miss X’s requests. I am satisfied it was not enough for the Council to have been ‘considering’ an EHC assessment for such a long period of time or to wait for School Q to formally ask for one. Once Miss X had made her request sufficiently clear, which I am satisfied she did by early 2021, the Council should have made a decision about this. The failure to do so was fault.
  4. However, I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what the outcome would have been had the Council made decided whether to assess B’s needs. Due to his poor attendance, there was little information from School Q to support an assessment. However, there was also a recognition from the Council that he might need one.
  5. The evidence shows the Council did regularly review B’s placement a specialist education panel and tried to support his education by:
    • arranging for B to move sites at School Q to avoid negative influences from other students;
    • agreeing one-to-one tuition and transport to the alternative site (despite evidence that B used public transport outside of school); and
    • referring B to the education services in the other areas Miss X was staying in.
  6. However, the evidence shows B regularly refused to attend school and Miss X struggled to encourage his attendance while he was living in the Council’s area, even when the Council arranged transport for him. This would have frustrated the process of gathering evidence for an EHC assessment.
  7. Therefore, I cannot say whether the Council would have likely arranged an EHC assessment and, even if it did, whether B would have returned to education sooner. However, there is a remaining significant uncertainty about this.
  8. When staying temporarily in other areas, the Council tried to arrange for B to attend alternative educations providers in those areas. However, the evidence shows Miss X refused these services because she did not expect to be staying in the areas permanently. It was not practical for the Council to continue to provide education itself while B was in another area and I am satisfied the Council took appropriate action to support Miss X arranging education for B while she was out of its area.
  9. Moves to temporary accommodation also had a disruptive effect on C’s education, since she was not always able to attend school. However, C’s school did support her to access lesson’s remotely and the Council arranged to pay for internet access to support this or transport for C to continue to attend school in person. While C’s education was disrupted at times, I am satisfied this was despite the best efforts of the Council and was a consequence of the family moving to avoid threats to B rather than due to any fault on the part of the Council.
  10. From December 2021, Miss X was living in her preferred area and the Council provided her with information about how to register B and C in new schools. While Miss X did apply for a primary school place for C, she did not apply for secondary school places for either B or C. When the Council attempted to refer B directly for alternative education, Miss X refused the referral.
  11. While I appreciate the difficulty and uncertainty she was facing at the time, it was Miss X’s responsibility to apply for school places once she had moved to her preferred area. The evidence shows the Council supported her to do this, attending meetings with a potential school and monitored the situation until Miss X moved permanently.

Complaint handling

  1. The Council considered Miss X’s complaint under its corporate complaints procedure. I am satisfied the evidence shows there was fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s complaint. The Council:
    • took six weeks to respond to Miss X’s stage one complaint from July 2021, when the Council’s procedure says it should have done so within three weeks;
    • took over 11 weeks to respond to Miss X’s stage two complaint from September 2021, when it should have taken no more than four weeks; and
    • despite Miss X’s complaint being about multiple services, the Council only responded to her complaint about children services and told her she would need to complaint separately about education and housing.
  2. Miss X’s complaint was clearly about more than just the service she had received from children’s services. The Council should have provided a coordinated response to Miss X’s complaint and properly addressed all the issues she complained about. Its failure to do so was fault which caused Miss X avoidable frustration.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
    • apologise to Miss X and B for the fault I have identified and the impact this had on them;
    • pay Miss X £2,200, made up of:
        1. £700 to recognise the distress and inconvenience to Miss X and her two children due to the avoidable stay in hotel accommodation for two months in October 2021;
        2. £800 to recognise the worry and distress to Miss X and her two children due to the avoidable stay in temporary accommodation between December 2021 and July 2022;
        3. £500 to recognise the uncertainty to Miss X and B about whether B would have returned to school sooner if the Council had decided whether arrange an EHC assessment for him;
        4. £200 to recongise the frustration caused to Miss X by the Council’s poor handling of her complaint.
  2. I would also have normally recommended the Council review whether to assess B’s special educational needs. However, Miss X now lives outside the Council’s area and this is the responsibility of the council for where Miss X now lives.
  3. Within three months of my final decision the Council will:
    • review the working arrangements between its housing and homelessness teams to ensure both teams are clear about the different responsibilities and there are clear escalations routes to resolve any disagreements;
    • review its record keeping and oversight arrangements within its homelessness team. It should ensure that, particularly in unusual cases such as reciprocal transfers, that key actions are recorded, monitored and that cases can be reallocated between staff without a loss of information;
    • remind both education and children’s services staff that parents may ask for EHC assessments in different ways, sometimes without explicitly referring to an ‘EHC assessment’. It should remind staff that if the Council requires a request to be made in a specific way, it should direct parents to that process when it is clear they wish to access it; and
    • remind staff responsible for responding to complaints:
        1. that where someone complains about other Council services, the Council should provide a coordinated response to the complaint; and
        2. the importance of responding within the timescales set out in the Council’s complaints procedure or keeping complainants informed where this is not possible.
  4. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. There was fault in how the Council arranged for Miss X to move outside of its area, failed to decide whether to assess B’s special educational needs and how it handled Miss X’s complaint. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay Miss X a financial remedy. It also agreed to review its practices.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings