Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide adequate support to Mr Y, a former relevant child, and failed to provide her with financial support when he stayed with her. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has failed to provide adequate support to Mr Y, a former relevant child, and failed to make sufficient efforts to find him accommodation. Mrs X says this has left him vulnerable without adequate support. In addition, it pressurised Mrs X, his former foster carer, into providing accommodation for Mr Y during February and March 2019 but did not provide her with any financial support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 Y has given Mrs X consent to act on his behalf for those parts of the complaint relating to him.
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information supplied by Mrs X and have spoken with her on the telephone. I have considered the information supplied by the Council in response to my enquiries.
6. I gave Mrs X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council has duties under the Children Act 1989 (‘The Act’) and Care Leavers (England) Regulations 2010 to support care leavers. The aim is to make sure care leavers are provided with comprehensive personal support so that they achieve their potential as they make their transition to adulthood.
8. The Act defines a former relevant child as a young person who is aged 18 to 25 and were in care for at least 13 weeks since their 14th birthday, stayed in care until they were 18 or left care on or after their 16th birthday.
9. The Act places a number of statutory obligations on the council that last looked after a former relevant child. These include:
• taking reasonable steps to keep in touch with the former relevant child;
• regularly reviewing a pathway plan;
• appointing a personal adviser for the young person; and
• if their welfare requires it, providing financial assistance by contributing to the former relevant child’s expenses in living near the place where he is employed or seeking employment or financial assistance to enable them to pursue education or training.
10. A pathway plan sets out the support given by the council once a young person has left care. It should cover areas such as accommodation, life skills, education and training, employment, and financial support. It is based on an assessment of the young person’s needs and should be prepared before they leave care and then checked regularly.
11. The guidance to the Act sets out that when young people leave their care placement the council must ensure their new home is suitable for their needs and linked to their wider plans and aspirations. Moving directly from a care placement to living independently is often too big a step for young people. It is therefore good practice for councils to commission a range of semi-independent and independent living options with appropriate support. Under the Act the local authority can ask a range of other authorities, including a housing authority to assist them in exercising their functions in relation to looked after children.
12. The guidance sets out that ‘in exceptional cases, where accommodation arrangements break down and a planned move to alternative accommodation cannot be achieved sufficiently quickly, provision should be made for access to safe, secure and appropriate emergency accommodation, with access to more settled accommodation as soon as possible’.
13. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a person must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established that 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.

What happened

14. Mr Y is a young person who was previously fostered by Mr and Mrs X. The placement broke down in 2018 and Mr Y moved short-term to supported accommodation, property A, arranged by the Council. Mr Y was also permanently excluded from school in 2018.
15. Mr Y left property A and moved to property B. Mr Y stayed there around three months. He returned to stay with Mrs X, after he said he had items stolen by other young people at property B and said he did not feel safe there. The Council agreed that Mr Y could return to property A. The Council arranged for an appointee to manage Mr Y’s money.
16. The records show Mr Y settled well at property A and started developing skills to increase his independence.
17. In April 2018 the Council’s Learning Disability Services assessed Mr Y as having learning difficulties but not a learning disability.
18. Mr Y has a social worker who is his personal adviser, as a former relevant child. Mr Y’s social worker sought to arrange further education for Mr Y, but he did not want to pursue education or training.
19. Mr Y’s behaviour deteriorated and on several occasions he stayed out overnight, not returning to property A. Mr Y used his money to visit friends by train and was not using it for food. In August 2018 the social worker and Council financial appointee agreed Mr Y should be given his money daily rather than weekly to ensure he had money for food rather than spending it all on train travel.
20. Mr Y’s pathway plan from October 2018 set out that Mr Y was not in education, employment or training. It noted it was difficult to motivate him to do anything, even with incentives. The social worker considered Mr Y needed his own accommodation with the right support to get a sense of belonging and his own identity. The social worker noted they visited Mr Y monthly rather than the two monthly visits required as a former relevant child and would continue to do so to support Mr Y.
21. In late 2018 the Council decided Mr Y should move to alternative accommodation, property C as he was not using the support provided at property A and had developed a number of skills related to self-care skills and travelling independently. Property C agreed to accept Mr Y on a temporary tenancy subject to him proving he could behave responsibly.
22. Mr Y’s social worker arranged to visit Mr Y at property C on two occasions in early 2019. On one visit he was in bed and would not see them and on the second he was not in. Property C raised concerns about Mr Y’s poor behaviour and said he was not engaging with staff. It gave Mr Y notice to leave.
23. Following an altercation at property C, Mr Y left and spent the night in a local restaurant. The next morning Mr Y visited the Council. It offered him accommodation out of town but Mr Y refused to go there as he did not know anyone in that area and said he was scared to go there. Mr Y said he wanted to stay with Mrs X and rang her. The notes record the social worker also spoke to Mrs X and told her Mr Y did not want to go to the accommodation it had offered out of town and they were concerned about the weather and his vulnerability. Mrs X said she would take him for the weekend as she could not see him on the streets in that weather.
24. A social worker updated Mrs X after the weekend. There were no supported lodgings available in its area. Accommodation at a ‘night stop’ was a possibility if Mrs X did not want to accommodate Mr Y beyond that night. Alternatively, the out of town accommodation was still available. The notes record Mrs X did not want him to go to the out of town accommodation. Mrs X wanted Mr Y retested as she considered he had a learning disability rather than difficulty. The social worker suggested Mrs X put the request in writing. The social worker explained the Council was looking for alternative accommodation but there were limited placements.
25. The social worker spoke to Mr Y about using the money he received for accommodation and living expenses to pay Mrs X towards his board. Mr Y agreed to pay her £80. The social worker also arranged for Mr Y’s financial appointee to give Mrs X some money towards clothes Mr Y needed.
26. The social worker made a referral to a supported accommodation provider to try to find a place for Mr Y. However, it had no suitable places available. The social worker also made a referral to a neighbouring council as Mr Y expressed a wish to live there. The neighbouring council rang Mr Y who said he was unsure why it was calling him. Mr Y did not engage with the neighbouring council’s homeless procedures, so it closed his file.
27. After staying with her for 18 days, Mr Y texted Mrs X to say he was visiting friends and would be back in two days. Mrs X told the Council she did not want Mr Y to return to stay with her.
28. The social worker contacted Mr Y and advised him to attend the homeless department at the neighbouring council where Mr Y wanted to live. Mr Y stayed in emergency accommodation at the neighbouring council for two nights. The neighbouring council then sent Mr Y back to Hartlepool Borough Council as Mr Y was not engaging with it and it questioned his capacity to do so.
29. Mr Y attended the Council to collect his weekly allowance from the Council but did not turn up to a meeting arranged at its homeless department. He was located staying with friends outside the council area. Police carried out a welfare check and Mr Y told them he would return to the Council after the weekend.
30. Mr Y visited the Council to collect his financial allowance and attended the homeless department. The Council offered Mr Y temporary accommodation outside the Council’s area but he refused, saying he would not feel safe there. He provided no evidence to support his claim he was not safe there. The Council offered Mr Y hotel accommodation for the night. However, Mr Y did not take up the offer as he wanted to visit friends that night.
31. Mr Y’s social worker asked property A if it could house Mr Y again, but it refused.
32. Mr Y returned to the Council two days later where it arranged for him to stay in a hotel for the weekend. It advised him to see his financial appointee to get some money for food over the weekend. The social worker also contacted Mr Y’s financial appointee to suggest he was given his money in three instalments so that he did not spend it all in one go. The appointee also suggested giving him some money as food vouchers. After the weekend, Mr Y visited the Council and was given a food voucher and some money. He was told to visit the Council’s homeless department. Mr Y did not turn up for the homeless interview.
33. An advocate contacted the Council the next day on Mr Y’s behalf to advise Mr Y had slept rough the night before without money for food. The social worker explained Mr Y had been in a hotel for the weekend, was given money and a food voucher but had not turned up for his interview with the Council’s homeless department. The social worker rang Mr Y and told him to go to the homeless department.
34. Mr Y visited the Council’s homeless department. It arranged overnight hotel accommodation for Mr Y and an appointment with housing for the next morning. Mr Y did not turn up to that appointment. The social worker tried calling Mr Y but he did not answer.
35. Mr Y’s social worker contacted some other supported accommodation providers. They identified a possible provider, property D, and were exploring what options it had available.
36. In mid March 2019 Mr Y turned up at Mrs X’s home and she let him stay. Mrs X phoned the Council unhappy at the support the Council provided to Mr Y. Mr Y had lost his phone and was hungry. The Council arranged for the social worker to visit Mrs X to discuss housing options and to bring him some money. Mr Y agreed to give Mrs X £80 a week for his board.
37. Mrs X and Mr Y met with the social worker. Mrs X believed Mr Y had no concept of risk, appropriate social skills or understanding of his behaviour. She believed Mr Y had a learning disability and had the wrong diagnosis. The social worker explained:
• they could not override an official diagnosis.
• Mr Y had shown he could make choices to collect his money and to visit friends outside the council area.
• Mr Y had accommodation but had walked out of its housing department several times and was given money as food vouchers so he did not spend it all on other things.
• they would arrange extra money for Mr Y to get a phone, some clothing and other items.
38. Mrs X contacted the Council a week later for an update on progress. She raised concerns about Mr Y staying with them and about the Council’s delays in finding him suitable accommodation. The Council explained it was looking for somewhere suitable. It said Mrs X had agreed to let Mr Y stay until the Council could make arrangements but if she wanted Mr Y to move out it could arrange something.
39. The Council contacted Mrs X to advise her property D may have availability from the start of April. The Council also agreed to provide Mr Y with a package of support at the property to assist the prompting of his personal care, meal preparation, shopping and cleaning/laundry. It arranged an interim placement for Mr Y until property D was available. This was from the end of March to the start of April 2019. Due to Mr Y’s poor behaviour at the interim placement, the Council provided Mr Y with 24/7 support for the duration of the placement.
40. In early April 2019 Mr Y moved to property D on a 12-week fixed term tenancy for assessment. The Council also contacted its Learning Disability Services who considered it unlikely a further assessment would lead to a different diagnosis. They considered it more appropriate to focus on what support was available to assist Mr Y.

Findings

41. The Council has sought to meet Mr Y’s needs as a former relevant child. The social worker, acting as Mr Y’s personal adviser, has met with Mr Y regularly and attempted to support Mr Y to engage in education or training and to support him with housing. From one visit per month, the social worker’s involvement with Mr Y increased to taking action to support Mr Y on an almost daily basis. The Council arranged interviews for college and Mr Y has chosen not to attend. It is Mr Y’s choice to not engage in education and training. The Council has arranged supported accommodation for Mr Y. He did not always engage and did not comply with the rules of behaviour expected at the placements. The failure of these placements is not because of fault by the Council. It also arranged emergency accommodation while trying to arrange more settled accommodation as soon as possible. It took appropriate action in a timely way. There was no fault.
42. As Mr Y’s financial appointee, the Council considered the best ways to support Mr Y to make sensible financial choices and has acted appropriately. It has provided him with money through the week, on a daily basis or through food vouchers. Mr Y has not always chosen to use his money for food. There was no fault.
43. Mr Y stayed with Mrs X in February and March 2019. The Council records show it was Mr Y who contacted Mrs X and asked to stay there and on the second occasion turned up at Mrs X’s home. On the information available, I cannot say the Council placed Mr Y with Mrs X. Mrs X may have felt pressured into accepting Mr Y to stay. However, I cannot say this was because of fault by the Council. The Council offered Mr Y accommodation outside the Council’s area but he was not willing to accept it and there is no evidence this was an unsuitable offer. It also accommodated Mr Y in a hotel when no other accommodation was available. Mr Y chose not to always accept the accommodation the Council offered and that was his decision to make.
44. Mr Y arranged to pay Mrs X £80 a week for his board and lodging. Mr Y received financial support for his living expenses and paid Mrs X from these. This payment is a matter between Mrs X and Mr Y and the Council was not required to fund this.
45. Mrs X has questioned Mr Y’s capacity to make decisions. However, capacity is time and decision specific. The social worker considers Mr Y has been able to articulate why he was homeless and has demonstrated he knew his behaviour was wrong in previous accommodation. As the social worker’s decision was based on a medical assessment, evidence of Mr Y’s behaviour and observations of him, I cannot question their view. Mr Y has chosen to make decisions which may be considered unwise but that in itself does not mean he lacks the capacity to make the decisions.
46. Mr Y was assessed as having learning difficulties. Mrs X does not agree with the diagnosis. However, the diagnosis was made by a health professional, using a recognised assessment tool. Even if Mr Y is reassessed and receives a different diagnosis I cannot say this would affect the outcome. The Council is required to provide support to Mr Y to meet his needs as a former relevant child and is seeking to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman