Summary: The Council is at fault for carrying out a flawed homelessness assessment for a care leaver. It is also at fault for failing to consider what housing assistance it could offer under its Children Act powers. Housing and Social Care did not work effectively together. The Council caused the complainant distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, make a payment to the complainant and tell the Ombudsman how it will work together better in future.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about a lack of housing help from the Council after he became homeless in early 2019. Mr B says the Council did not comply with its duties to him as a homeless person or as a care leaver under the age of 25. Specifically, Mr B complains:
• The Council turned him away and did not provide him with accommodation on the day he approached the Council as homeless, despite producing a Personalised Housing Plan and initially telling him it would provide accommodation.
• The Council refused to accept his request for a review of the Council’s decision that it does not owe him the main housing duty.
• The Council’s Aftercare service did not provide him with accommodation as a care leaver under the age of 25 in line with its duties under the Children & Social Work Act 2017.

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. 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)
3. 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)
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. Colleagues discussed Mr B’s complaint with him. We asked the Council for information and I considered what it provided.
6. Mr B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of my decision. I considered what they said before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Support for care leavers

7. The Children & Social Work Act 2017 introduced a new duty on local authorities, to provide Personal Adviser (PA) support to all care leavers up to the age of 25, if they want this support. This includes care leavers who return to the local authority at any point after the age of 21 up to age 25 and request PA support. This new duty started on 1 April 2018. Under previous legislation, this support was not available to care leavers aged over 21 who were not in education, training or employment.
8. Statutory government guidance (Extending Personal Adviser support to all care leavers to age 25) says:
• “Where the young person requests help, a PA must be provided to support them. The PA must assess the young person’s needs and develop a pathway plan setting out what support the local authority will provide.
• The needs assessment that local authorities undertake should be proportionate, taking account of the issues on which the young person is requesting support.
• Where a young person is otherwise living a successful independent life, but requires support on a single issue, a full needs assessment may not be necessary. In other cases, however, a full needs assessment will be required.”
9. This new duty was introduced alongside two related provisions in the Children & Social Work Act:
• A new duty on local authorities to consult on and then publish their ‘local offer’ for care leavers, which sets out both care leavers’ legal entitlements and the additional discretionary support that the local authority provides; and
• A new duty on local authorities which requires them to have regard to seven ‘corporate parenting principles’, that will guide the way in which the local authority provides its services to children in care and care leavers.
10. Statutory government guidance says:

“The corporate parenting principles apply to the whole of the local authority, not just Children’s Services Departments, and will therefore guide how children in care and care leavers are supported across all the local authority’s functions. This will be particularly important for local authority departments whose services have a significant impact on care leavers’ outcomes, such as Housing Services.”

11. The Children Act 1989 (as amended) gives local authorities a power to provide or pay for accommodation for a care leaver who is in full-time further or higher education. The Act also gives the local authority the power to contribute to the expenses of a care leaver in living near the place he works or where he is seeking employment. The local authority has a duty to provide this assistance if the care leaver’s welfare requires it.

Homelessness

12. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
13. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their Personalised Housing Plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
14. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the Relief duty. The Relief duty ends if the applicant finds suitable accommodation and there is a reasonable prospect he can stay there for at least six months. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
15. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
16. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
17. Councils must complete reviews of a not in priority need decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request.
18. The council must advise the applicant of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the Council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
19. The code of guidance says:

“Housing authorities may conduct and complete their inquiries into the duties that will be owed to an applicant under section 193(2), the main housing duty during the period in which they are attempting to relieve homelessness under the section 189B duty. However, this activity must not detract from the housing authority’s work to relieve the applicant’s homelessness. Where the housing authority considers an applicant is unlikely to be owed a section 193(2) main housing duty they must not limit or reduce the assistance they provide during the Relief duty for this reason. (13.9)”

20. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
21. The code of guidance also provides guidance on the link between support for care leavers and homelessness. It says:
• “Housing authorities, children’s services authorities and other relevant departments within local authorities, are advised to develop joint protocols or procedures to ensure that each department plays a full role in providing corporate parenting support to young people leaving care. (22.6)
• A joint protocol should cover arrangements for achieving planned, supportive transitions to independent living; identifying homelessness risk early and acting to prevent it, and providing a quick, safe, joined up response for care leavers who do become homeless. (22.7)
• Where there is a duty to assess a care leaver’s housing and other support needs and develop a Personalised Housing Plan, arrangements should be in place to enable the Personal Adviser to be involved in the assessment process with the young person’s consent. Where there is no agreed local working arrangement, or where the young person has been looked after by a children’s services authority which is not part of local joint protocol arrangements, the housing authority must continue without delay with the duties owed to the young person under Part 7 of the 1996 Act. (22.13)
• Where a care leaver has a Personalised Housing Plan this should be informed, by their Pathway Plan (section 23C(3)(b) of the Children Act 1989). The Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government considers it appropriate for housing authorities to involve a young person’s Personal Adviser in assessing their needs and circumstances and developing a Personalised Housing Plan that is appropriate to them. The young person’s consent must be obtained, and it would be advisable to seek their consent for the Personal Adviser to continue to be informed and involved in efforts to prevent or relieve homelessness. The Personal Adviser may also be requested to take actions to deliver the Personalised Housing Plan. (22.14)”

• Guidance on priority need and vulnerability is contained in Chapter 8, and should be taken into account when assessing whether a person aged 21 or over is vulnerable as a result of having been looked after, accommodated or fostered.

Factors that a housing authority may wish to consider include:

a. the length of time that the applicant was looked after, accommodated or fostered;

b. the reasons why they were looked after, accommodated or fostered;

c. the length of time since the applicant left care, and whether they have been able to obtain and maintain accommodation during any of that period;

d. whether the applicant has any existing support networks, particularly including family, friends or a mentor. (22.22)

• Housing authorities should take particular care in assessing whether a care leaver aged 21 or over is vulnerable, and should take into account whether, if homeless, they would be at particular risk of exploitation, abuse or involvement in offending behaviour as a result of having been looked after, accommodated or fostered. (22.23)

22. Social services have a duty (with the person’s consent) to refer to the housing authority a household that is homeless or threatened with homelessness. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 22.10)

What happened

23. Mr B was in the care of the Council between the ages of 16 and 18. He is now in his early twenties. When Mr B left care the Council arranged a place for him at a hostel. Mr B left the hostel after finding a job in another area. Mr B then lived with a friend in another area, his friend was the tenant. Mr B’s friend gave up his tenancy and Mr B faced homelessness. Mr B went to the local council, it advised him to approach Thurrock Council as it had duties to him as a care leaver. Mr B says by this time he was living in a tent in the other area.
24. Mr B approached the Council’s Aftercare Service on 8 April 2019.
25. The Council allocated Mr B a Personal Adviser, Officer C, who did an assessment. Officer C agreed to support Mr B in finding housing and employment. Officer C arranged priority for Mr B’s housing application and referred Mr B to the Homeless Team.
26. Mr B went to the Council’s Housing Department that day. A housing officer, Officer A, started a housing options assessment. In this Mr B said he had no physical or mental health needs. The assessment says Mr B was in care and is in touch with the Aftercare Team but asks no further questions about this.
27. Officer A gave Mr B a letter saying the Council owed him the Relief duty as he was homeless. This meant the Council had 56 days to work with Mr B to try to relieve his homelessness. The Council’s letter said it would provide temporary accommodation for Mr B.
28. Officer A completed a Personalised Housing Plan with Mr B. Officer A did not involve Officer C. The Plan said the Council would seek to identify suitable private rented accommodation and it would do this by 28 April (this was later recorded as ‘Not achieved’). The Plan did not include any steps for Mr B to take to try to find housing. The Council told Mr B in writing he had the right to ask for a review of the steps the Council said it would take in the Personalised Housing Plan. The Plan said the Council would review it by 15 April.
29. Mr B says Officer A asked him to wait in the office while Officer A tried to find him housing. Mr B says, at 6pm Officer A told him there had been a mistake - he was not entitled to housing because he did not have a priority need. Officer A told Mr B he would refer him to the Single Person Team to help him find accommodation.
30. The next day Officer C sent an email to Officer A asking how the Housing Department would support Mr B who was homeless and vulnerable as a care leaver. Officer A responded by saying:

“I assessed client considering all information provided without identified priority need to be considered or owed a housing duty more so he is over 21 years of age, I thought [Mr B] was in education as he informed me he was in a vocational schooling for a SSCE programme which cannot be proved, but only found out later on when I placed him for a TA [temporary accommodation] placement, I called him after the TA manager cited the omission, and informed [Mr B] that the council will not owe him a TA duty, the burden of support lies with the social services Aftercare team to continue support up until 25 years of age, if there is a material changes in circumstance, he may approach for review.”

31. Officer C responded by saying:

“The letter given to him states that he is owed a duty; has this changed? Can you please explain if TA provision is subject to the claimant being in education (as mentioned in your response below)?

Also, just to clarify that the LA [local authority] is a Corporate Parent, has the duty to support Care Leaver and such support has been extended to the age of 25 by the Children and Social Work Act 2017. The Corporate Parenting responsibility is shared among all departments of the Local Authority including Housing Solutions. The Aftercare team does not have a duty to provide housing to Care Leavers; the Housing Solutions department does.”

32. Officer A’s response included the following comment:

“The letter was an omission on my part as I thought he was in education.”

33. In response to a further email from Officer C, Officer A said:

“For clarity again, [Mr B], is not owed a Housing duty, the aspect of HRA [Homelessness Reduction Act] you quoted if digested, does not signify owed a duty, as I’m conversant with my case law. The duty lies with the Social services to continue support until 25 years of age. The single person team will assist him; if he cooperates.”

34. On 18 April the Council sent Mr B a decision on his homelessness application. The letter said the Council did not owe Mr B the main housing duty. The Council said it was satisfied Mr B was eligible and homeless but said Mr B was not in priority need. The Council said Mr B did not have any medical conditions and homelessness would present no more harm to him than an “ordinary person” facing homelessness.
35. The Council mentioned Mr B was a care leaver getting support for the Aftercare Team. However, the letter did not say what, if any, consideration the Council gave to Mr B’s status as a care leaver when assessing vulnerability. The Council told Mr B he could ask for a review of this decision.
36. In late April Officer C sent an email to several managers saying:

“According to the explanation given by [Officer A], it would appear as though the duty owed to [Mr B] was withdrawn by housing when it became clear that he is currently not in Education, Employment of Training? From what I know, this is not a criterion for a Care Leaver to be owed a duty for housing?

In your capacity as Managers, could you please advise how your department will support [Mr B] under the provisions of the law to provide him with Temporary Accommodation whilst he bids on his own Social Housing property.”

37. A Housing Manager responded by saying:

“….applicant is not one to be considered as having an automatic priority need due to making a homeless approach after his 21st birthday and not considered vulnerable for other reasons and also not in full time education. We will be looking at securing alternative accommodation in the private sector for [Mr B] which will be facilitated by his caseworker.”

38. Mr B says he asked the Council several times to review the decision on his homeless application but says the Council refused to do a review.
39. Mr B then complained to us. Mr B said he was street homeless. Mr B’s complaint had not completed the Council’s complaints procedure, but we decided to accept the complaint. This is because we did not consider it was reasonable for Mr B to complete the Council’s complaints procedure.
40. The Council did refer Mr B to the Single Person Team. On 7 May it arranged a single room for Mr B in a shared house. The Council paid Mr B’s deposit and rent in advance. The landlord gave Mr B a twelve-month tenancy.
41. Mr B made a written request for a review of the decision he was not in priority need. He did not give any reasons or provide any information. On 7 May the Council accepted the request. The Council told Mr B he could provide more information in writing or face-to-face, or both. The Reviewing Officer (Officer D) contacted Aftercare asking for information about Mr B’s time in care and why he was in care.
42. On 7 June the Council wrote to Mr B ending the Relief duty as Mr B had suitable accommodation available for at least twelve months. It told Mr B his review rights. It also emailed the letter to Mr B.
43. Mr B did not contact Officer D. On 11 June Officer D tried to telephone Mr B. He wanted to ask if Mr B wanted to carry on with the review, as even if he overturned the decision, the Council’s duty would still have ended when it provided suitable accommodation. The Officer’s notes say he tried twice but Mr B’s telephone went straight to voice mail. I do not know if Officer D left a message. Officer D wrote to Mr B the same day asking Mr B to contact him by 18 June.
44. On 18 June Officer D wrote to Mr B with his decision on the review. He said he had treated it as withdrawn because they had lost contact. Officer D said even though the Council had not found Mr B in priority need it had found him suitable accommodation under its Relief duty. Officer D said even if her had overturned the non-priority need decision, the Council would not owe the main housing duty as it had already found him accommodation. Officer D’s letter told Mr B about his review rights.
45. Officer D posted the letter to Mr B but did not send a copy by email.
46. On 26 July 2019 Mr B contacted the Aftercare Team and spoke to Officer C. He said a tenant in the house had been abusive to him. He said he was currently staying with friends in another County while the landlord sorted out a room in another house in the same street. Mr B said he now had a diagnosis of anxiety and depression and he was waiting for an assessment of other possible mental health conditions.
47. Over the next days Mr B and Officer C kept in contact. Mr B said he did not feel safe moving back to either house because of the threat from the other tenant, who was violent and took money from him. He said his mental health would not let him move back. He said he was receiving care from a friend. Officer C asked Mr B if he had spoken to the Single Person’s Team. Mr B said he had not because he was having a mental breakdown and his phone did not work properly.
48. The Aftercare Team closed Mr B’s case in November 2019.
49. In February 2020 my colleague spoke to Mr B. He said he stayed in the other County and another council is helping him find accommodation.
50. In response to us the Council accepts it wrongly told Mr B it would provide him with interim accommodation on 8 April. It also accepts it does not have a joint policy between the Housing Department and Aftercare Service. It accepts he Housing Service did not work together well when developing Mr B’s PHP.

The Council’s response to our draft decision

51. The Council recognised it applied the wrong test as part of its initial assessment. It says it rectified this the same day, limiting the distress caused to Mr B.  
52. The Council says it is making efforts to put in place a joint working protocol for care leavers as part of its efforts to effectively support any homeless care leavers. Once approved, it says it will give presentations and guidance to all relevant officers.
53. It says it has identified training for officers provided by Shelter. It says this has a focus on care leavers for both Personalised Housing Plans and assessing vulnerability. In addition, it says it has provided internal training on the relevant tests to apply when assessing care leavers.

Findings

54. There was fault in the Council’s homelessness assessment of Mr B. The Council did not properly consider the guidance on assessing the vulnerability of care leavers over 21. Instead it compared Mr B to an “ordinary person”. The only consideration the Council gave to Mr B as a care leaver was if Mr B was in full-time education. When it discovered he was not, it backtracked on its written offer to find him interim accommodation.
55. The Council was also at fault when it did not involve Mr B’s Personal Advisor when developing his PHP.
56. Mr B had the right to appeal to court on the Council’s decision he was not in priority need. I do not expect Mr B to do this as it would not change the outcome for him. The day the Council accepted his review request it also found him accommodation under its Relief duty. This accommodation was a twelve-month tenancy, 6 months longer than required under the Homelessness Reduction Act.
57. I have, therefore, considered if there was fault in the Council’s homelessness decision. I find there was fault because again the Council did not consider Mr B’s position as a care leaver.
58. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Therefore, it is not for me to investigate and come to a decision on whether Mr B was vulnerable. I can consider if the Council might have done things differently if not for the fault.
59. I cannot say for certain the Council would have classed Mr B as vulnerable and provided accommodation if it properly considered his care leaver status, but it is possible.
60. The Council caused Mr B injustice in not properly considering his position. He is left uncertain if the Council would have provided him with accommodation in April 2019 if it had done things properly.
61. The Council did properly consider its Relief duty and found Mr B accommodation. It then ended its relief duty and gave Mr B review rights.
62. The Council did accept Mr B’s request for a review of the decision he was not in priority need. I make no criticism of the way the Council handled this. It is clear the Reviewing Officer made enquiries into Mr B’s time in care. The Officer gave reasons for treating the review as withdrawn and told Mr B he could ask for a review of the decision.
63. I also find fault with the Aftercare service. I have seen no evidence it considered using its power to provide help with Mr B’s housing costs as a care leaver seeking employment. Again, I cannot say what its decision would have been it if had considered this. But again it is possible it might have assisted Mr B with housing costs.
64. Mr B contacted the Aftercare Service in late July. He told it about his mental health. He also told it he could not return to his home because of fear of violence from another resident. The Aftercare Service had a duty to ask Mr B if it could make a homeless referral. If Mr B agreed it had a duty to make the referral. The Aftercare Service did not do this, this is fault. Asking Mr B if he had contacted a housing officer is not enough. In any event, Mr B said why he had not done this.
65. The Aftercare Service then closed the case without further contact with Mr B. It knew Mr B was homeless again and having a mental health crisis. The Council was at fault for closing the case without finding out if Mr B still needed help.
66. Mr B resolved his housing situation by going to another council. The injustice it caused Mr B is not keeping in contact with him and offering support when he was in crisis.

Agreed action

67. To put matters right for Mr B within a month of my final decision the Council will:

• Apologise to Mr B
• Pay Mr B £200 for the distress and uncertainty he suffered because of the Council’s failure to properly consider his homelessness application.
• Pay Mr B a further £200 for closing his Aftercare case without finding out if he still needed help.

68. Within three months of my final decision the Council will tell the Ombudsman what progress it has made in its departments working effectively together when dealing with care leavers.

Back to top

Final decision

69. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice to Mr B. It has agreed to provide a remedy for this. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman