Summary: Miss B says the Council failed to provide her with sufficient support when she left care and failed to offer a suitable financial remedy when upholding most of her complaint. The Council accepts it delayed telling Miss B about the implications for her housing of starting university and that it failed to communicate properly with her. A revised financial remedy, the procedural remedies the Council has already implemented and a procedure to ensure actions in pathway plans are followed up on is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss B, complained the Council failed to provide her with sufficient support when she left care. Miss B says the Council failed to offer suitable financial remedy to reflect its failings.
2. Miss B says as a result of the Council’s actions she has experienced homelessness, living with an inappropriate person and mental health issues. Miss B says the Council’s actions mean she still does not have settled accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss B's comments;
• spoken to Miss B;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided as well as the outcome of its stage two and three complaint investigations.
7. Miss B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
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

What I found

What should have happened

9. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 (The Act) outlines local authorities’ responsibilities towards children that were previously looked after (qualifying persons). It says local authorities may give assistance by contributing to expenses or by making a grant to enable him/her to meet expenses connected with his/her education or training.
10. The Act says where the local authority is satisfied a qualifying person who is in full-time further or higher education needs accommodation during a vacation because his/her term-time accommodation is not available to him/her then, they shall give him/her assistance by:
• providing him/her with suitable accommodation during the vacation; or
• paying him/her enough to enable him to secure such accommodation him/herself.
11. The Council's lettings policy (the policy) says certain categories of people can be added to the Council's housing register. That includes care leavers.
12. Appendix 2 of the policy provides for some properties to be made exclusively available to care leavers and foster carers. This is capped to an agreed quota each year. Allocation is based on an assessment of need.
13. The policy says the Council will make one direct offer to each agreed quota case. If the service user refuses a property or fails to attend a viewing for a suitable offer of housing they are removed from the quota.
14. The policy says legitimate reasons for refusing a property or failing to attend a viewing will be taken into consideration but supporting evidence must be provided.
15. The Council’s Young People Leaving Care and Housing Need Protocol (the protocol), which was introduced in 2023, says a care leaver is a child or young person aged 16 or over who has been looked after by the local authority for 13 weeks or more since their 14th birthday and with a period of care taking place on or after their 16th birthday.
16. The protocol says a care leaver is a young person aged between 18 and 21 (or 25 if in need of extended support) and before reaching 18 was an eligible or relevant young person. It says the leaving care service is responsible for ensuring care leavers have access to suitable accommodation from the age of 18 until 21.
17. The Council’s local offer for care leavers (the local offer) says if you are a student in full-time residential education or in higher education the Council will ensure you have suitable accommodation if you need it during vacations. For young people in higher education the financial support the Council provides covers the academic year but it can provide advice and support with sourcing accommodation and contribution to any additional rent cost.
18. The protocol says from the age of 18 young people are no longer looked after by the local authority but it continues to have a duty to support them to find suitable accommodation up until the age of 21.
19. The protocol says the leaving care service continues to offer all care leavers a support service between the ages of 21 and 25 which does not include a duty to provide accommodation. It lists the range of accommodation options post 21 which includes:
• living with family and friends;
• private rented accommodation;
• social housing properties (the care leaver quota). This will provide accommodation to around 6 in every 100 care leavers under the age of 21 and is not available to those over 21.
20. The protocol says for those young people who have made a life for themselves in another part of London or the country and have no desire to return to Hackney they can choose to present themselves for housing in another borough.
21. The protocol says care leavers up to the age of 21 or 25 if they have been in higher education can access a rent deposit from the Council to procure a private rental. It says this can be offered at any time after the young person is 18 if the leaving care service feel they are ready for an independent tenancy. The rent deposit will cover the deposit and first month’s rent. There is also a setting up home allowance of up to £2,000 available.

What happened

22. Miss B is a former looked after child. In 2015 Miss B was living in supported accommodation. In April 2017 Miss B told the Council she intended to start a university course in September 2017.
23. Miss B contacted the Council on 9 August 2017 to ask what support the Council could offer as she was starting her university course in September. A Council officer arranged a meeting with Miss B for 11 September. Miss B was unable to attend that meeting. The Council contacted Miss B to stress it needed to meet with her to discuss how she would cover her rent. Miss B met with Council officers on 18 September. During that meeting the Council explained what financial entitlements Miss B could access and told Miss B she would have to fund any additional rent as she would not be entitled to housing benefit. The Council provided Miss B with information about the possibility of her residing on student campus in shared accommodation and Miss B and her mother left to visit the university to explore those options. The Council noted four weeks notice had been given on the present accommodation as Miss B could not afford to remain as she was not entitled to housing benefit as a student.
24. The Council contacted Miss B on 25 September to find out if she had found university accommodation. Miss B told the Council the only accommodation left were student dormitories where she would share communal areas but had her own bedroom and ensuite bathroom. Miss B said she was not happy to do that. Miss B raised concerns about not being told she would have to leave her current accommodation. Miss B subsequently agreed to rent a room off an older male friend.
25. In November 2017 the Council told Miss B as a care leaver she was entitled to funding of £1,000 per term towards her accommodation. The Council told Miss B to access that an officer would need to visit to see her living arrangements.
26. In the meantime the Council received some information from a friend of Miss B raising concerns about whether it was appropriate for Miss B to remain living with the male friend she had rented a room from.
27. On 27 November the Council emailed Miss B to offer support.
28. Miss B contacted the Council on 30 January 2018 to ask if it had heard anything about her siblings as she wanted to arrange contact. The Council passed that to the permanency team to follow up on. The Council suggested a meeting to discuss the possibility of contact and warned this might not result in contact if the adopters did not agree. The Council then approached the adopters for the children to ask whether they would agree to letterbox contact. The Council told Miss B about the option of accessing counselling.
29. On 18 May 2018 Miss B’s social worker visited her the flat she shared with her male friend. Miss B told the social worker she had previously been in a relationship with the friend and the friend wanted the relationship to continue but she did not. The social worker told Miss B she had nominated her for social housing via the housing quota allocated to the leaving care team. Miss B told the social worker she had deferred from her university course until September. Miss B referred to wanting to have contact with her younger siblings.
30. In July 2018 the Council told Miss B she would need to attend budgeting training before she could receive a bidding number for the Council’s housing register. Miss B asked the Council whether she could secure accommodation in another London Borough where she had lived most of her life. The Council told Miss B she could present as homeless to the other London Borough.
31. In September 2018 Miss B discussed with the Council her concerns about her safety living in Hackney. Miss B explained she had no friends or supportive family in the area and wanted to remain in a different London Borough where she had a network of support. The Council explained it could only offer her properties in Hackney. The Council told Miss B she had the option of making a homeless application to another London Borough but she could seek a long-term property in Hackney and then seek to transfer. This is the option Miss B decided to go with.
32. Miss B identified a suitable property to move into in 2019. However, the Council withdrew that property as it was an adapted property which was needed for a disabled household.
33. In June 2019 Miss B contacted the Council to ask for support with housing as she said she would be homeless by the end of July. Miss B said she had been bidding on properties but had not been successful. Miss B said she ideally wanted to stay in the area she was living in which was covered by another London Borough.
34. On 2 August the Council made Miss B a direct offer of a flat in Hackney and booked an appointment for Miss B to visit on 12 August. Miss B told the Council she could not visit on that date as she was at work. The Council explained if Miss B did not accept the direct offer the Council would not offer any other properties and asked for alternative dates when Miss B could view the property. The Council explained if she did not provide alternative date it would treat her as having refused the property.
35. Miss B went on holiday abroad shortly after. On 12 August the Council told Miss B it could rearrange a date to visit the property for when she returned from holiday and asked Miss B for details of her availability. The Council reminded Miss B it would only make one offer of accommodation. The Council also asked Miss B for details of any areas in Hackney where she felt she would be at risk.
36. On 13 August Miss B told the Council she considered the property unsuitable for her needs and unsafe due to the location. Miss B requested a property in a quiet location in an area within Hackney.
37. The Council contacted Miss B again on 14 August to ask for her to contact the social worker urgently with more information about the risks she was concerned about so the social worker could update housing. In response Miss B told the Council she was out of the country until 19 August and would then provide the information the Council had asked for.
38. On 19 August the Council wrote to Miss B to tell her she had lost her chance of securing housing in Hackney as she had missed the appointment and pointed out the property she had been offered was in the area she had identified as safe. The Council also noted when completing her housing application form Miss B had not raised any concerns about risks in any of the areas of Hackney. The Council told Miss B she could present at any London Borough to ask for a homelessness assessment, including Hackney and the Council could help her seek a private sector accommodation.
39. In September Miss B’s midwife contacted the Council to tell it Miss B was pregnant. The Council’s social worker then met with Miss B at the end of September to discuss her housing options. Following that meeting the social worker contacted the Council’s housing department to ask it to reconsider the suitability of the direct offer made in August 2019. The social worker explained Miss B was pregnant and had raised concerns about the safety of the property the Council had offered her. The social worker explained Miss B’s mother had ongoing issues with residents on that estate and as her mother was her main support system and would be providing childcare while Miss B was at university this would cause a problem for her accepting the property. The social worker also said Miss B was feeling unsafe and anxious following the death of her partner. The social worker outlined the four areas within Hackney Miss B was comfortable with and said she wanted a newly built flat.
40. The housing department told the social worker the quota nominations had closed and could not be reopened. The housing department noted Miss B had not told the Council about her pregnancy and said this would not affect the type of property offered to her until the baby was born. Miss B’s social worker passed that information onto her.
41. In November 2019 Miss B identified her own private rented property and asked the Council for help with removals. There is no evidence of further contact from Miss B until the end of March 2020 when she told the Council tenancy was coming to an end. The Council suggested Miss B approach the London Borough where she wanted to live to seek social housing. The Council also asked her whether she considered the risk to her in Hackney had changed. The Council said if it had it could refer her to a provision in Hackney. The Council arranged a telephone call with Miss B but Miss B did not attend the call.
42. By September 2020 Miss B had blocked the social worker’s number. Miss B says she continued to privately rent and then sofa surf until 2022. In 2022 Miss B applied as homeless to another London Borough and is currently in temporary accommodation as the London Borough has accepted a duty to house her.

Analysis

43. I have exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to consider what has happened since 2017. That is due to Miss B’s age and the fact she is a former looked after child and because Miss B has been in the Council’s complaints procedure since 2019. Her complaint has been unavoidably delayed due to the cyber attack the Council experienced in 2020 which prevented it accessing many of its systems and records.
44. Miss B has already had a stage two investigation of her complaint as well as a stage three panel hearing where a large number of her complaints were upheld. I have therefore not reinvestigated the issues Miss B raised in her complaint because I would be relying on the same information the stage two investigator relied on and it is therefore unlikely I would reach different conclusions. What I have done is therefore to consider whether the remedy offered by the Council is sufficient to reflect the impact on Miss B.
45. The Council's investigation of the complaint concluded it was at fault in the following areas:
• the care leaver offer in place in 2017 did not provide any information about the Council's responsibility to only provide accommodation for care leavers at university during non-term time and therefore Miss B likely did not receive that information;
• the Council only gave Miss B four weeks notice about having to leave her supported accommodation when she started university when it knew earlier in the year about her plans to go to university. That meant she had little time to consider her accommodation options;
• failure to complete a pathway plan in 2017 as required;
• little effort made to address possible safeguarding concerns about Miss B's accommodation when she started university;
• the Council failed to make clear to Miss B that once she received a bidding number for Hackney she would not be able to progress a housing application with another London Borough;
• the reassurance officers gave Miss B about being on holiday at the time she received the direct offer from the Council meant she did not realise the importance of ongoing communication or the consequences of failing to provide suitable times and dates to view the property.
46. As remedy for the complaint the Council apologised to Miss B and offered her £2,500. That was based on the cost of a month's rent and deposit for a private sector property. The Council also undertook the following actions:
• a review of the levels of support to care leavers attempting to enter higher education;
• a review of the relationship between children and families services and housing services:
• a reminder to officers about the need to ensure records are accurate and complete when siblings are placed in different permanent or adoptive placements;
• an officer to get in contact with Miss B to discuss the issue of contact with her siblings.
47. The Council has now confirmed it has:
• finalised the Young People Leaving Care and Housing Needs Protocol;
• refreshed the local offer which includes more information about housing for care leavers pre-and post 21;
• introduced a new document for care leavers explaining housing pathways;
• officers in the corporate parenting service meet monthly with managers from the housing service to consider how to improve the housing offer to care leavers both before and after 21;
• the Member's Scrutiny Committee has considered the issue of improving the housing offer to care leavers including looking at how social tenancies are currently made available to care leavers and alternative ways of doing that and made some recommendations;
• updated the local offer to make clear if care leavers are planning to go to university they will need to take up student accommodation as semi-independence will not be affordable.
48. The Council has also obtained information from the permanency team about Miss B's siblings dates of birth and dates of adoptions and has contacted Adoption North London to discuss contact. This is a matter that has been explained to Miss B. At the time of writing the Council has not received any response from Adoption North London.
49. Miss B says because of the Council's failures she has had to sofa surf or been in unstable accommodation, as well as being homeless, between 2017 and 2023. Miss B says if the Council had acted as it should have done in either 2017 or 2019 she would likely have received a suitable offer of social housing and would therefore have had settled accommodation for her and her daughter. Miss B says this has caused her significant distress and has impacted on her mental health.
50. I do not doubt the period from 2017 has been a difficult one for Miss B. I agree with Miss B fault by the Council in 2017 impacted on the accommodation she was able to secure during her first year at university. I consider if the Council had acted as it should have done and told Miss B she could no longer remain in her supported accommodation when it became aware of Miss B's intention to start university earlier in 2017 Miss B would have had more time to sort out suitable university accommodation to start in September 2017. I therefore consider the injustice to Miss B between 2017 and 2018 is that she stayed in shared accommodation with a male friend which was potentially unsuitable for her. I am also satisfied the Council failed to properly consider whether that accommodation was suitable during that period when a third party raised concerns. That is a serious injustice. In addition, Miss B is left with some uncertainty about whether she would have been able to complete her university course if she had not had to deal with the accommodation issues at the same time.
51. However, I could not say fault by the Council is responsible for all the accommodation issues Miss B has had since 2018. That is because Miss B had the opportunity during her first year of university to source more suitable student accommodation for the start of the second year. I also understand Miss B deferred her university course at some point during the first year. I am satisfied by that point she would have known about the need to source university accommodation early and would have had an opportunity to do so for the start of the deferred start date. There was a lost opportunity though for the Council to help Miss B source alternative accommodation when she deferred her university place. Had the Council discussed those issues with Miss B it is possible she could have avoided staying with her male friend for so long, particularly given I understand Miss B did not return to university until September 2019. So, I consider fault by the Council likely contributed to Miss B living in potentially unsuitable accommodation between 2017 and 2019.
52. In 2019 though the Council agreed to make a direct offer to Miss B of social housing as part of its quota for care leavers. It is clear Miss B did not consider that offer suitable. The Council has accepted there were some issues around its communications with Miss B about the direct offer while she was on holiday. Although the stage two investigation considered the communication issues around the direct offer it did not consider whether there was fault in how the housing department dealt with Miss B's representations about the unsuitability of the accommodation. I have therefore considered that point further.
53. As I make clear in paragraph 13, the Council will normally only make one direct offer to a care leaver and if that is not accepted the Council will not make any further offers. However, the policy is clear the Council will consider representations about the suitability of the offer. In this case Miss B had put forward concerns about whether the property was suitable on safety grounds. I am also satisfied Miss B's social worker put forward a case to the housing department about why the direct offer was not suitable. Despite that the Council has provided no evidence to show the housing department considered Miss B's representations, sought any information from her to support her representations or that it reached a view on whether the property was suitable given the safety concerns she had raised. That is fault. It is clearly Miss B's view that because of this fault she was put in the situation of having to rent privately and has experienced periods where she has had to sofa surf with the result that she is now homeless.
54. I understand why Miss B would see her current housing circumstances as connected to what happened in 2019. However, that depends on what view the Council would have taken of Miss B's representations about the unsuitability of the property offered to her. In normal circumstances I would recommend the Council consider Miss B’s representations about the suitability of that property and decide whether to reinstate her housing register application. However, Miss B has made a homeless application to another London Borough and has been placed in temporary accommodation as that Borough has accepted a duty to house her. It would therefore no longer be appropriate for me to make any recommendations around considering whether the Council should place Miss B back on its housing register. I therefore have to consider whether the failure to consider her representations in 2019 has caused Miss B to experience housing difficulties up to the present date.
55. While I appreciate why Miss B feels the Council is responsible for her current position I cannot reach that conclusion, on the balance of probability. That is because there are two possible outcomes if the Council had considered Miss B's representations properly in 2019. The first is that the Council would have accepted her representations and agreed to make another direct offer. However, even if the Council had done that it does not mean it would have then offered Miss B a property she considered acceptable. That is particularly the case given Miss B is clear she never wanted to live in Hackney and was very specific about the type and location of properties she was willing to accept. So, even if the Council had agreed to make another direct offer there is still the possibility Miss B would not have considered that direct offer acceptable.
56. The second possible outcome is the Council would have considered the property suitable despite Miss B's representations. That would have put her in the same situation. I therefore could not say fault by the Council meant Miss B missed out on a social housing property. Instead, I consider Miss B is left with some uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different. In reaching that view I am aware Miss B says she believes the Council accepted the property it offered to her in 2019 was unsuitable. I have seen no evidence to support that view.
57. I also note Miss B rented private properties between the end of 2019 and 2021. By that time Miss B was over 21 and therefore the Council had no responsibility to provide her with accommodation. I understand why Miss B would not believe private rented properties are suitable for her as she is seeking some level of permanency, particularly as she is a former looked after child. However, the reality for most young people is that private renting is the only option and most people, including care leavers, are not able to secure social housing as there is a shortage of social housing. The Council policy also makes clear most care leavers will have to rent privately as it can provide social housing to around 6 out of every 100. I therefore do not consider the fact Miss B has had to privately rent is evidence of an injustice in itself. In any event, as I said in the previous two paragraphs, I could not say, on the balance of probability, Miss B would have received a suitable offer of social housing which would have prevented her having to privately rent or sofa surf since 2019 had the Council considered her representations properly.
58. So, I consider there is a significant injustice to Miss B between 2017 and 2019 due to fault by the Council. Taking into account the points I make in the previous paragraphs about the situation between 2019 and the current date I consider the Council's offer of £2,500 a satisfactory remedy for the housing part of the complaint. That is because, as I have made clear, I am satisfied the main injustice to Miss B in terms of her housing is between 2017 and 2019 and any injustice after 2019 is uncertainty, rather than Miss B missing out on suitable accommodation. I make no recommendation for any procedural remedies in relation to the housing aspects of this case as the Council has already amended the information available to care leavers to ensure similar problems do not occur again.
59. The other issue Miss B raises concerns about is the Council's failure to support her with contact with her siblings who have been adopted. I appreciate some of this is outside the Council's control because it is dependent on the adoptive parents agreeing for contact. I also appreciate it is now not possible for the Ombudsman or the Council to review a large part of the paperwork for the case due to the impact of the cyber attack in 2020 which means the Council cannot access some of its records.
60. There is evidence though in the pathway plans the Council completed of Miss B repeatedly asking for contact with her adopted siblings. There is also evidence of the Council agreeing to discuss the possibility of letterbox contact. That is as far back as 2014. As I understand it though the Council has only recently contacted the adoption agency involved in the adoption of Miss B's siblings. Delay following up on those contact issues between 2014 and 2023 is fault. I am satisfied that has caused Miss B some distress as she is keen to make contact with her adopted siblings.
61. I cannot speculate about whether the Council’s recent approach to the adoption agency will result in contact as that is dependent on what Miss B's siblings decide. However, I consider Miss B is left with uncertainty about whether the outcome could have been different and she has suffered some distress. To recognise that I recommended the Council apologise and pay Miss B £300. That is in addition to the £2,500 for the housing issues. I also recommended the Council put in place a process for oversight of pathway plans to ensure actions identified in those plans are followed up by officers. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

62. Within one month of my decision the Council should apologise to Miss B and pay her £2,800.
63. Within two months of my decision the Council should:
• put in place a process for ensuring oversight of pathway plans to ensure actions identified in those plans are followed up by officers;
• provide evidence to the Ombudsman of the outcome of the Member’s Scrutiny Committee recommendations, referred to in paragraph 47 of this statement.

Back to top

Final decision

64. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman