Summary: Miss D complained the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation and it failed to take timely action to address the issues with the accommodation. She also complained the Council failed to provide her with appropriate redress for the damage caused to her possessions and the impact on her mental and physical health. We find the Council was at fault for how it dealt with Miss D’s accommodation and how it dealt with her complaint about the matter. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Miss D complained the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation and it failed to take timely action to address the issues with the accommodation. She also complained the Council failed to provide her with appropriate redress for the damage caused to her possessions and the impact on her mental and physical health.
2. Miss D says the matter has caused her mental and physical distress and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
7. 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

8. I considered information from Miss D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
9. Miss D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Leaving care

10. The Children Act 1989 places duties on councils to provide ongoing support for children leaving care. These duties continue until they reach age 21. If the council is helping them with education and training, the duty continues until age 25 or to the end of the agreed training (which can take them beyond their 25th birthday). 
11. Councils should appoint each care leaver with a personal adviser (PA), and each care leaver should have a pathway plan. The PA will act as a focal point to ensure the care leaver is provided with the right kind of support.

The Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations, Volume 3: planning transition to adulthood for care leavers

12. This statutory guidance is primarily addressed to local authorities and their staff in England about their functions under Part 3 of the Children Act 1989.
13. Paragraph 7.2 of the guidance says when a young person leaves their care placement the local authority must ensure that their new home is suitable for their needs.
14. Paragraph 7.13 of the guidance says suitable accommodation should comply with health and safety requirements.
15. Paragraph 7.16 of the guidance says leaving care services will need to put arrangements in place for checking suitability before a young person moves into a property. Leaving care services should establish good working relationships with local housing and environmental services so they can access advice and support with this task.

Statutory complaints procedures

16. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
17. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
18. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
19. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days, but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
20. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.

What happened

21. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
22. Miss D is a care leaver. The Council found Miss D accommodation in a flat in May 2020. Miss D was living in different accommodation before this, but she left due to issues with other tenants.
23. Miss D started to complain to her housing officer about the flat in August. This included issues about a lack of windows and a lack of ventilation.
24. Miss D’s PA recorded in the case notes from October that she had asked the Council to move Miss D to alternative accommodation.
25. Miss D raised further complaints in November about mould and high electricity bills. She said the conditions in the flat were affecting her physical and mental health.
26. A housing officer visited the flat in November and reported the issues to the landlord. The landlord sent a builder to the flat to complete the repairs. The builder said Miss D was not heating the flat and opening the windows. The builder gave Miss D advice about maintaining the right temperatures and ensuring ventilation.
27. Miss D continued to contact the Council and said her belongings were damaged by the mould in the flat. She provided photographs.
28. A housing inspector visited the flat in January. They said there was evidence of mould, but it was limited. There was no evidence of serious condensation. They noted there were only two windows in the flat, which could limit the free movement of fresh airflow, and there was limited sunlight. However, they said the flat was not uninhabitable.
29. The housing department found Miss D alternative housing in mid-January, but she declined the offer. She said it did not meet her support needs and it was too far away. The Council told Miss D it would look for other housing, but there were limited options available.
30. Miss D continued to contact the Council about her housing. The housing department noted Miss D’s case was not urgent due to the other demands of other young people.
31. A senior manager from the Council’s social care department had a meeting with Miss D in July to discuss her housing situation after she continued to raise concerns. The manager agreed to complete a risk assessment.
32. The housing department found another flat for Miss D at the end of July. She moved to the new flat in September.
33. Miss D’s advocate (Miss E) complained to the Council on Miss D’s behalf in April 2023. She said the Council failed to deal with Miss D’s concerns about the flat and it failed to respond to her communication about it. She said Miss D’s belongings, including valuable items from her mother who had passed away, were damaged because of the poor conditions in the flat.
34. The Council responded to the complaint in June. It apologised for failing to respond within 20 working days. It said it did not uphold Miss D’s complaint about its communication and its failure to act on her concerns. It said it accepted she was unhappy in the flat and she had provided evidence of mould on her personal items and furniture. It said as a goodwill gesture it would offer her £1,000 as a setting up home grant for her to access when she moved to her next property. This grant is for care leavers to buy essential things when they move into their own home.
35. Miss E referred Miss D’s complaint to stage two in early July. The Council appointed an IO and an IP. The IO agreed to investigate the following complaints:

1. The Council’s leaving care service placed Miss D in unsuitable accommodation, and the Council failed to take timely action to address the issues with the accommodation and arrange for her to move.
2. The Council unreasonably refused to meet Miss D’s requests for financial compensation for damage caused to her possessions by mould in the property, and for the impact on her mental and physical health caused by having to remain in an unsafe property.

36. The IO completed his report in September. The IP agreed with the findings. The IO partly upheld complaint one. He said the primary responsibility regarding Miss D’s accommodation lay with the housing department. He said the housing department should have provided a response to the complaint, either separately or combined with the social care response. He said the housing department inspected the flat and said it was not uninhabitable, but there were some issues with it. He concluded the leaving care service failed to respond to Miss D’s contacts consistently (November 2020 to February 2021). The service also failed to follow up on an undertaking to contact Miss D’s landlord, and it failed to ask Miss D’s PA to attend the housing inspections. He also said the service failed (August 2020 to April 2021) to advise Miss D she could seek privately rented accommodation and there was a failure to resolve her concerns about high electricity bills.
37. The IO did not uphold complaint two. He said the responsibility for any damage to Miss D’s property was with her landlord or the housing department. He said it was difficult to establish definitively whether any health problems were caused by the issues with the flat. He said the Council’s offer from its stage one response of £1,000 for the setting up home grant was reasonable.
38. The IO recommended for the Council to apologise to Miss D for the impact from the failures in complaint one. He also recommended for social care to liaise with housing at a senior management level to ensure housing provided a separate response to Miss D’s complaint. Finally, he recommended for social care to provide Miss D with support in making a claim to her former landlord for her damaged items.
39. The Council issued its adjudication letter and apologised to Miss D. It said it would ask the housing department to respond to her complaint. It also said it would ask her PA to support her in making a claim for her damaged items.
40. Miss E emailed the Council and asked how Miss D could make a claim against her landlord. She also asked whether senior managers could support Miss D in escalating the complaint to the housing department. The Council did not respond to Miss E’s initial email and her chasers. She sent a further email at the end of October and asked the Council to progress the complaint to stage three.
41. The panel heard Miss D’s case in mid-December, and it issued its response in early January 2024. Miss D said in the hearing she had asked for advice about how to make a claim against the landlord, but it had not been forthcoming. She also said she had not received a response from the Council’s housing department. The Council said Miss D’s PA was working towards preparing a letter of claim against the landlord. Senior managers from the Council’s social care department said they had not received a response from the housing department despite several chasers.
42. The panel agreed with the IO’s findings for complaint one and two. It said the damage to Miss D’s belongings was not because of fault by the social care department, and it was difficult to place a monetary value on items which have a sentimental value. It said it had no way of calculating the proportion of Miss D’s distress that was attributable to the Council. It recommended the Council should offer Miss D £500 for the frustration caused by the delay in completing the complaints procedure and the non-engagement of the housing department.
43. The Council issued its response to the panel’s findings. It offered £500 for the distress the issues caused Miss D, and £500 for her time and trouble in making her complaint. It repeated its apologies for its failings.

Back to top

Analysis

44. The issues in this case are from 2020 to 2021, but Miss D did not refer her complaint to us until March 2024. Miss D’s complaint would usually be caught by the restriction in paragraph five of this statement. Miss D explained she did not refer her complaint to us sooner because she was dealing with the mental distress from the housing issues. It was when she recovered, and she got a new PA, that she was advised to put in a formal complaint through her advocate. I consider these are good reasons why Miss D did not refer her complaint to us sooner, and so I have exercised discretion to investigate her complaint.
45. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.
46. In Miss D’s case, the IO has completed a detailed investigation. However, I have some concerns regarding the findings of complaint one. The IO partially upheld the complaint and noted the leaving care service was not responsible for identifying and approving Miss D’s housing. He said it was the responsibility of the housing department. This is incorrect. The statutory guidance, as per paragraphs 12 to 15 of this statement, makes it clear the leaving care service will need to put arrangements in place for checking suitability before a young person moves into a property. The guidance states the leaving care service should establish a good working relationship with housing services to complete this task. Therefore, while it is clear there should be collaborative working between both departments, the leaving care service is ultimately responsible for arranging suitable accommodation for care leavers. There is no evidence the leaving care service inspected the flat to check it was suitable for Miss D before she moved in or asked the housing department to complete an inspection and report back on the results. The housing department appears to have just relied on a written notice from the landlord. This is fault. The Council’s fault means there was a missed opportunity to check whether the flat was suitable for Miss D’s needs. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether the leaving care service would have decided the flat was unsuitable for Miss D if it had acted without fault. However, its fault leaves Miss D with some uncertainty.
47. It is very disappointing the Council’s housing department repeatedly failed to deal with Miss D’s complaint, even after the IO’s recommendation. We would expect councils to have a coordinated approach to how they address complaints, especially when several departments are involved. I have therefore decided to investigate whether the housing department was at fault for how it dealt with Miss D’s housing. There was some delay with the housing department carrying out an inspection of the flat. This is fault. Miss D raised issues about the flat with her housing officer in August 2020, but an inspection did not take place until November 2020. The housing department also delayed finding Miss D’s alternative housing after she rejected its offer in January 2021. In response to my enquiries, an officer from the housing department said there was an increased shortage of available accommodation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. While I can appreciate the Council’s difficulties, the housing department noted on the file Miss D’s case was not a priority, and therefore it appears to have let the matter drift until intervention from the senior manager in social care in July 2021. This is fault. It is clear living in the flat was causing Miss D distress, and the Council has accepted it was not the best in terms of the layout, lack of natural light and the lack of ventilation. Therefore, I consider there should have been more timely action from housing to resolve the matter.
48. In relation to complaint two, negligence and liability for alleged resulting damage are not straightforward matters. Therefore, it is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide whether the Council was responsible for the damage to Miss D’s belongings. Miss D is free to pursue a claim through the Council’s insurers, and if she remains unhappy, she can pursue a claim in the county court. Therefore, I have not investigated Miss D’s complaint about whether the Council offered an appropriate remedy for the damage to her belongings.
49. I have however looked at whether the Council has appropriately remedied the impact its faults have had on Miss D’s mental and physical health. The case records show Miss D was struggling with the flat, and living there was causing her distress. The Council offered Miss D £500. Given the additional faults I have found in paragraphs 46 and 47 of this statement, and the distress and uncertainty it caused Miss D, I have recommended a higher remedy. This is higher than what we usually recommend, but it reflects the distress caused to Miss D. I have also recommended service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the faults identified in this statement.
50. The Council’s offer of £500 for how it handled Miss D’s complaint is in line with our guidance on remedies and so I do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. By 17 December 2024 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Miss D for the injustice caused from the faults identified in this statement.
• Pay Miss D the £500 it offered for the injustice caused from how it handled her complaint.
• Pay Miss D £700 (instead of the £500 it offered in its complaints response) for the injustice caused from how it handled her housing matter.

52. By 20 January 2025 the Council has agreed to:

• Issue written reminders to relevant officers to ensure they are aware they must have a coordinated approach to how they address complaints, especially when several departments are involved.
• Issue written reminders to staff in the leaving care service to ensure they are aware they must put arrangements in place for checking suitability before a young person moves into a property.

53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss D an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman