Summary: Miss X, on behalf of Mr Z, complained the Council failed to take account of Mr Z’s complex needs including mental health issues when providing accommodation as a care leaver. Although Mr Z was not provided with accommodation in the location of his choice, this is not due to any fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X, on behalf of Mr Z, complains the Council failed to take account of his complex needs including mental health issues when providing accommodation as a care leaver.
2. Miss X says this caused Mr Z extreme distress and made him suicidal.

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. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Councils have specific housing duties for young people leaving care to ensure they have safe, stable, and appropriate accommodation as they transition to independent living. These duties are set out in the Children Act 1989 and the Children and Social Work Act 2017.

Local authorities must provide suitable accommodation for care leavers up to the age of 21. If the care leaver is in education, employment, or training, they are entitled to accommodation until the age of 25. This ensures that care leavers are not forced into unstable housing while pursuing their education or career.

8. Ensure accommodation meets the individual needs of the care leaver. It should be stable, safe, and allow the young person to manage the transition into adulthood effectively. This includes being in reasonable proximity to work, education, or training opportunities, and being accessible to support services if needed.
9. Councils must offer a variety of accommodation options to care leavers. These options may include:
• Supported Accommodation: where young people live independently but still receive support, such as help with budgeting, cooking, and accessing local services.
• Semi-Independent living: shared accommodation or flats where care leavers can live on their own but still receive support from social workers, PAs or other professionals.
• Independent living: own accommodation, either through renting or a tenancy agreement. The young person is expected to live completely independently, although they still have access to support services if needed.
10. Under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, local authorities have a duty to assist young people at risk of homelessness. If a care leaver finds themselves homeless or at risk of homelessness, the local authority must take action to prevent homelessness. If a care leaver is homeless and does not have suitable accommodation, local authorities must provide emergency housing and work to find longer-term solutions. Care leavers should not be left in temporary or unsuitable housing for extended periods.
11. The Homelessness Code of Practice says: “Any joint working arrangements between a children’s services authority and a housing authority for care leavers’ transition to independent living should include ensuring the delivery of effective preparation for independence with planned, sustainable moves into supported or independent accommodation. Local processes and/or practices should not involve care leavers routinely being treated as homeless when care placements come to an end in order to place the housing authority under an obligation to secure accommodation under Part 7 of the 1996 Act”.

Key facts

12. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
13. Mr Z has a diagnosis of global developmental delay and autism. He was a looked after child under the care of Hertfordshire County Council. Mr X Z lived in several foster homes during his time as a looked after child.
14. In 2024, following a period of time living in a residential care home, Mr Z moved to 16+ supported accommodation in London. Mr Z was given notice to leave this accommodation two weeks before his 18th birthday as the accommodation provider felt it could no longer keep Mr Z safe. Mr Z had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act due to concerns about him self harming and having suicidal ideation. Following his discharge, Mr Z moved to another 16+ supported accommodation provider in London and remained there until he turned 18 years old as this was a children’s placement.
15. Mr Z had made it clear to the Council, prior to his 18th birthday, that he wanted to remain in London. The Council supported him to make housing applications to four local authorities in the London area. However, they all took the view Mr Z was not eligible for housing because he did not have a local connection. The responsibility to provide housing to a care leaver would be with the home local authority and would continue until the age of 21 (or 25 in certain circumstances).
16. The Council says that it wanted to avoid Mr Z becoming homeless and so offered interim accommodation in Hertfordshire in a one bedroom property in an area he had previously lived in. It said the property offered good transport links to enable him to travel in and out of London to easily access his support network.
17. The Council previously completed an adult care assessment which found he did not have eligible adult care needs and so he was not entitled to extra support. It has offered to complete another assessment now Mr Z is living in its area if he provides consent.

Analysis

18. The information provided to me indicates the Council took the appropriate action to provide accommodation to Mr Z as a care leaver. The Council does not own any housing stock but has provided details of the types of accommodation it has available for care leavers. It supported Mr Z in making applications for supported housing as well as Staying Close provision. However, Mr Z wanted to remain living in London and so he declined to accept any of these offers.
19. The Council was aware that Mr Z’s preference was to remain living in London. It explained to Mr Z and Miss X its duties in respect of Mr Z being a care leaver and the legislation around housing and homelessness. However, it also assisted Mr Z making applications to London Boroughs. These applications were unsuccessful but this is not due to any fault by the Council.
20. Miss X felt the Council should allow Mr Z to remain in the accommodation he was placed in prior to his 18th birthday. She says the provider has other units that would have been suitable for him to as a single adult. While this may have been considered a solution to Miss X and Mr Z, this was not accommodation run by the Council. It met its duty by providing help and assistance to Mr Z and offering accommodation within its area. While I am satisfied the Council took account of Mr Z’s preference to remain in London, I cannot conclude there was fault by the Council in failing to achieve this.
21. Miss X says the Council did not properly take account of Mr Z’s mental health issues. It is clear that the thought of having to move out of London caused distress to Mr Z and exacerbated his mental health issues. The Council was aware of Mr Z’s deteriorating mental health and so worked with health colleagues. It says it encouraged him to engage with his advocate and that it offered to fund legal advice so that Mr Z would be aware of his options and likely outcomes. The fact that Mr Z was unable to stay in London is not evidence the Council failed to take account of his mental health issues.
22. While the previous adult social care assessment did not find Mr Z had eligible care needs, the Council has said that it is willing to carry out another assessment if Mr Z provides consent for this.

Back to top

Decision

23. There is no evidence of fault in this case and so I will now complete my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman