Summary: Miss Y complained about the way Council’s services, including Adult Social Care and Housing, have dealt with her and her concerns. We have not found fault by the Council in the way its services have dealt with Miss Y. But we have found fault, causing injustice, with the Council’s complaint handling. The Council should remedy this injustice by reviewing its process for handling her complaints.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the way a number of the Council’s services, including Adult Social Care, Occupational Therapy and Housing, have dealt with her and her concerns. She says the Council:
1. failed to carry out an adequate assessment of her adult social care needs in July 2024;
2. failed to carry out an Occupational Therapy assessment and arrange adaptations to her property;
3. tried to have her admitted to a mental health hospital unit when she asked Adult Social Care for help:
4. forced her to return to her property in April 2024 on her discharge from hospital;
5. failed to move her to suitable alternative accommodation when she reported harassment by neighbours in 2023;
6. failed to safeguard her when her landlord started eviction action;
7. failed to arrange a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) and refused a community trigger; and
8. failed to issue a final response to her complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
3. 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(1), as amended).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Miss Y first contacted us about this complaint in October 2024 and then again in January 2025. I have investigated events which took place from the end of 2023 to early 2025 relating to the issues raised by Miss Y at the time she contacted us about her complaint.
6. I have not investigated Miss Y’s further complaint about the Council’s Environmental Health Service’s response to concerns she raised with it about her accommodation. This is because this issue was not included in the matters Miss Y raised with us initially and I have not yet been able to confirm the Council has had an opportunity to respond to this complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Adult Social Care: Care Act assessment and care plans

9. The Care Act 2014 requires councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
10. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.
11. The Care Act also requires councils to provide a care and support plan. This should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. 

Mental Health Act - Detention in hospital

12. The Mental Health Act 1983 sets out when a person can by law be admitted, detained and treated in hospital against their wishes.
13. A person can be detained in hospital under section 2 of the Act. Before a person can be lawfully sectioned, they must be assessed, usually by an approved mental health professional and two doctors. The doctors must agree that being detained in hospital is the best way of providing the care and treatment the person needs.
14. A person can be kept in hospital under section 2 for a maximum of 28 days. Before the person is discharged, a social care assessment should take place to see if they have any social care needs the council should meet.

The anti-social behaviour case review (formerly known as the Community Trigger)

15. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
16. When a person asks for a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether it meets the local threshold. Relevant local bodies should agree their review threshold, but the ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months.
17. If the threshold is met, the relevant bodies should carry out the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then tell the complainant the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan.
18. Asking for an ASB case review is not the same as making a formal complaint against a council for how it has handled reports of ASB.

Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)

19. A community risk MARAC is a meeting held following a referral by a professional dealing with a high risk ASB case.

What happened

20. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint

Background

21. Miss Y was living in temporary accommodation provided by the Council under its homelessness duties.
22. In 2021 the Council made Miss Y an offer of permanent accommodation in discharge of its main housing duty. Miss Y accepted the offer and moved into her current home, a social housing property, in December 2021.
23. Miss Y was unhappy with the property and its suitability. She complained to the Council about this and many other issues.
24. We have investigated two previous complaints by Miss Y about the Council.

February 2023: Miss Y’s first complaint to us

25. Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with the offer and her move to her social housing property in December 2021. We upheld this complaint and found fault by the Council in failing to:

• promptly assess Miss Y’s need for care and support and Occupational Therapy and make safeguarding enquiries;
• provide Occupational Therapy support with the final accommodation offer and consider her request for support with her move;
• respond properly to her concerns about the accommodation after she moved, and her review request; and
• consider reasonable adjustments, and with its delays in complaint handling.

November 2023: Miss Y’s second complaint to us

26. The Council had accepted, in May 2022, Miss Y’s accommodation was causing her difficulties. It was hard for Miss Y to access amenities because of mobility issues, and her property was not close enough to transport and shops. In recognition of these difficulties, the Council agreed to make Miss Y one direct offer of alternative permanent social housing.
27. By March 2023, Miss Y had still not moved to alternative accommodation. In her second complaint, Miss Y said the Council had not done enough to find her a suitable property to move to and had not provided the support she needed to engage with the process.
28. We did not uphold this complaint. We found the Council had worked with Miss Y to try to find her somewhere else suitable to move to. It had put forward a number of options which had not progressed. Although Miss Y had not been able to move yet, we said this wasn’t because of any failure in support by the Council.

Miss Y’s further complaint to us

29. Following our decision on Miss Y’s second complaint, the Council said it would continue to offer support for Miss Y to bid for an alternative property through its choice based letting process.
30. But Miss Y has not yet moved to alternative accommodation. She is still living at the social housing property she moved to in December 2021.
31. Miss Y made further complaints to the Council about a number of issues. She contacted us in October 2024. The Council told us it had not completed its response to her complaints. We said the Council should complete its complaints process before we began an investigation into Miss Y’s concerns.
32. The Council issued its first stage response to Miss Y’s concerns. Miss Y contacted us again in January 2025 and asked us to investigate her complaint.
33. The Council issued its final response to Miss Y’s complaint in May 2025.

Contact with Adult Social Care (ASC): January 2024 to December 2024

34. In February, concerns about Miss Y’s mental health were raised by professionals, including the police, with the Council’s ASC mental health team. The team arranged a Mental Health Act assessment for Miss Y. Following this assessment, Miss Y was detained in hospital under the S2 of the Mental Health Act. She was later discharged and returned home.
35. In March, Miss Y requested an ASC Care Act assessment. A member of the ASC mental health team visited her.
36. Following a further Mental Health Act assessment, Miss Y was again detained in hospital under S2 of the Mental Health Act. She was discharged and returned home at the end of March.
37. In July, the ASC mental health team visited Miss Y at home to carry out an assessment of her support needs. Miss Y said she did not want any further contact.
38. Miss Y then contacted ASC about a Care Act assessment. An ASC social worker (social worker A) contacted Miss Y about her request. Miss Y was unhappy about the visit by the ASC mental health team and wanted to know who had sent them. She said her request for a Care Act assessment was over now.
39. In October, ASC contacted Miss Y again to offer a Care Act assessment. Miss Y said it was a difficult time at the moment due to the death of a family member.
40. In December, Miss Y asked ASC to carry out the Care Act assessment.

Care Act assessment: January 2025

41. Social worker A carried out a Care Act assessment with Miss Y in January 2025. They sent Miss Y the assessment report and asked for her comments. Miss Y did not respond, and ASC were not able to progress the assessment.
42. In March 2025, Miss Y’s case was transferred to the ASC complex case team.

Contact with the Occupational Therapy team: December 2024 to June 2025

43. Miss Y contacted the Council’s ASC Occupational Therapy (OT) team in December 2024. She asked about adaptations to make her property accessible for a mobility scooter.
44. Miss Y contacted ASC again in January and February 2025. She was unhappy the OT team had not yet been in touch about the OT assessment.
45. The OT team contacted Miss Y and carried out an assessment on 11 March. The OT assessment report confirmed they discussed possible adaptations including:

• perching stool for shower
• equipment for toilet transfers
• grab rails
• bed levers and servicing
• property adaptations for mobility scooter access

46. Miss Y’s landlord’s consent would be needed for any adaptations to the property for a mobility scooter. The Occupational Therapist contacted Miss Y’s landlord about these consents. They also ordered the other items discussed, including perching stools and a request for the bed repair.
47. There was an issue with the delivery of the items. The OT team spoke to Miss Y about this. They told her they would re-arrange delivery and also that her landlord would have to assess the property adaptations for scooter access.
48. In April, the OT team spoke to Miss Y and medical professionals about her request for a riser recliner chair. It placed an order for the previously agreed equipment (which had not been delivered) and the riser chair.
49. In May, the OT team understood from Miss Y she no longer wanted the equipment because she wanted to move out of her accommodation.
50. Miss Y then complained she had not been sent a copy of the OT report and about a failure to make an application on her behalf for a grant to buy a mobility scooter.
51. The Council sent the OT report to Miss Y in June.

Miss Y’s reports of anti-social behaviour: 2024 to January 2025

52. Miss Y raised a number of concerns with the Council about anti-social behaviour (ASB) in her local area and by her neighbours.
53. The Council’s social care notes refer to Miss Y’s contact in February 2024 in which she said she had been asking for an ASB review and a MARAC since September 2023 and was unhappy her request had not been accepted.
54. In March 2024 Miss Y submitted a safeguarding concern for herself complaining about the condition of her accommodation and asking for a MARAC.
55. In July 2024 the Council issued a final response to Miss Y’s complaint about the way it had dealt with her reports of ASB. The Council referred to her reports of 15 April; 27 June; 3 July; and 13 July 2024. It set out the action it had taken in response to these reports. It also said it could not identify any service failings, without further details from Miss Y of why she believed her reports had not been handled correctly.
56. In May 2025, in a further complaint response, the Council told Miss Y a community MARAC was a forum to discuss high risk situations referred by partner agencies who considered the case eligible for a MARAC referral. This had not been the case with her situation. The Council’s Community Safety Unit had received only one referral about Miss Y and on that occasion the situation had been managed through alternative intervention. The Council says it advised Miss Y to speak to her GP about a referral for a community MARAC.

February 2025: Housing Need’s decision to make Miss Y a direct offer

57. On 17 February 2025, the Council’s Housing Needs Service told Miss Y by email it had agreed to make her a single offer of alternative accommodation. It wanted to check her housing risk areas and preferences and said it understood she had identified a risk area and expressed a preference for a new build.
58. It also confirmed the offer would be made in line with the following Occupational Therapy recommendations for:

• a ground floor property with no steps and level access, or possibly a lifetime home property;
• level access shower/wet floor shower area with spacious shower enclosure and sufficient space around toilet for equipment to assist transfers;
• good access to shops, chemist and transport; and
• an Occupational Therapist to undertake a viewing and report on the property’s suitability and feasibility of adaptations for any necessary equipment.

59. The Council asked Miss Y to come back to it about the proposed alternative accommodation offer.
60. Housing Needs confirmed in April 2025 Miss Y was on its list for a direct offer. This would be made once a suitable property became available.

My decision - was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Complaints about Adult Social Care (ASC)

61. Miss Y’s complaints about ASC were that it: failed to carry out an adequate assessment of her adult social care needs in July 2024 (complaint a); failed to carry out an Occupational Therapy assessment and arrange for adaptations to her property (complaint b); tried to have her admitted to a mental health hospital unit when she asked ASC for help (complaint c); and failed to safeguard her when her landlord started action to evict her (complaint f).
62. I have reviewed all the information provided about Miss Y’s contact with ASC over the period from late 2023 to early 2025.
63. I have not found fault by the Council regarding these complaints. This is because:

• the Council’s ASC mental health social work team offered to carry out an assessment of Miss Y’s support needs in July 2024. I appreciate she did not want this type of assessment. But the Council then offered a Care Act assessment by an ASC social worker. This assessment was then properly completed in January 2025;
• the OT team carried out a proper assessment of Miss Y’s OT needs in March 2025. It discussed equipment options with her and made arrangements for these items to be delivered. It began the process of obtaining the necessary consents from her landlord for property adaptations to allow access for a mobility scooter. The OT team’s work on the provision of equipment and the possibility of mobility scooter access ended when it understood from Miss Y she didn’t want to pursue this further because she wanted to move;
• the Council’s ASC team had a duty to respond to concerns raised about Miss Y’s mental health. Its specialist ASC mental health team was the appropriate team to deal with these concerns. The information I have seen indicates the proper process was followed; and
• the Council’s ASC mental health and social work teams have offered support for Miss Y and liaised with the Housing team. Miss Y had a designated ASC social worker (Social worker A) as her point of contact. The Council has confirmed Miss Y will be able to make a homelessness application if she is evicted. But the landlord’s action to evict her is a separate legal process over which the Council has no control.

Complaints about the response to anti-social behaviour reports

64. Miss Y’s complaints were that the Council failed to arrange a MARAC and refused an ASB review (complaint g)
65. I have reviewed all the information provided about Miss Y’s contact with the Council about ASB reports over the period from late 2023 to early 2025.
66. I have not found fault by the Council regarding these complaints. This is because:

• a community MARAC is held following a referral by professionals dealing with a high risk ASB case. It is not an appropriate forum for considering a resident’s complaints about ASB. The Council explained this to Miss Y in its complaint response in May 2025; and
• the Council has told us Miss Y’s request for an ASB review was considered but rejected because it did not meet the statutory threshold for review.

Complaints about Housing Needs Services

67. Miss Y’s complaints were that the Council: forced her to return to her property in April 2024 on her discharge from hospital (complaint d); and failed to move her to suitable alternative accommodation when she reported harassment by neighbours in 2023 (complaint e).
68. I have reviewed the information provided about Miss Y’s contact with the Council about her accommodation over the period from late 2023 to early 2025.
69. I have not found fault by the Council regarding these complaints. This is because:

• I appreciate Miss Y is very unhappy with her current accommodation, but it is, and was, her home when she was discharged from hospital in February and March 2024. The Council has supported Miss Y with the search for alternative permanent accommodation, but this has not yet been successful;
• senior Council officers have been personally involved with her concerns and visited her at home to discuss these; and
• the Council has considered and responded to Miss Y’s reports of ASB by her neighbours. It has agreed to make her a direct offer of alternative accommodation when a suitable property becomes available.

Complaint handling

70. Miss Y complained the Council failed to issue a final response to her complaints (complaint h).
71. There was a delay by the Council in issuing its final response to Miss Y’s complaints. It knew in October 2024 she had brought her complaints to us, but it did not issue its final response until May 2025.
72. I also note the Council has not always issued its responses in a reader-friendly format, which it agreed to do for Miss Y as a reasonable adjustment. It has now sent her reader friendly versions of its recent complaint responses.
73. But in my view the failure to ensure all its complaint responses were initially sent by post to Miss Y in a reader-friendly format and the delay in issuing the final response was fault. This caused Miss Y uncertainty about how the Council was dealing with her complaints.
74. Miss Y has told me she does not want any apology from the Council for this failure so I have not included any recommendation about this.

Conclusion

75. I know Miss Y is very unhappy with her current accommodation and situation. I appreciate she feels the Council is not helping to resolve her difficulties and that it has failed her.
76. I understand how strongly Miss Y feels about the Council and its actions. But, having reviewed the records and information, my view is the Council, and its officers, have tried hard to provide Miss Y with appropriate support and to take steps to resolve her concerns.

Back to top

Action

77. To remedy the injustice caused by the above fault, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• review its process for dealing with Miss Y’s complaints and ensuring complaint responses are provided to her in a reader-friendly format and in a way she is able to access.

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

Back to top

Decision

79. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman