Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly assess his care needs and the support he received in a supported accommodation placement. He said he experienced distress, and his mental health was impacted as a result. We found no fault by the Council. It properly reached decisions around the placement and support Mr X should receive based on the information available to it at the time.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about the support he received when living in a supported housing placement (the provider), which was commissioned by the Council. He said it:
• provided inadequate support and accommodation for his mental health needs, and his alcohol, drug, smoking addictions, which was made worse by living with other users of substances.
• failed to acknowledge his behaviour were directly tied to his medical conditions which should have been managed under safeguarding procedures; and
• wrongly evicted him in April 2023, which the provider said this was due to his challenging behaviour and breaches of the licence agreement.
2. Mr X said, as a result, he experienced distress and uncertainty, and his mental health was impacted.

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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A), and 25 (7) 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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have considered Mr X’s complaint about the support he received when he was referred to and stayed in the provider’s supported accommodation between July 2022 to April 2023. While Mr X’s complaint is late, I found it appropriate to exercise my discretion due to the challenges he has since experienced, and the delay caused by his initial attempt to bring his concerns to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
8. I have not investigated the eviction of Mr X by the provider. This is because the accommodation was not provided under the Council’s statutory homelessness duties. It was an offer of accommodation under a licence agreement, which Mr X agreed to. The eviction was therefore made by the provider as Mr X’s landlord, not the Council. Nor have I considered Mr X’s subsequent homelessness as this is part of a different complaint against the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and The Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X 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

Relevant Law and policy

Care Act assessments

11. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. 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.
12. 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.

Mental capacity assessment

13. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so.
14. A person aged 16 or over must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. A person should not be treated as unable to make a decision:

• because they make an unwise decision;
• based simply on: their age; their appearance; assumptions about their condition, or any aspect of their behaviour; or
• before all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.

15. The council must assess someone’s ability to make a decision when that person’s capacity is in doubt. How it assesses capacity may vary depending on the complexity of the decision.

Safeguarding

16. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

The Council’s policy for supported accommodation for single homeless people and rough sleepers

17. The policy sets out the Council’s aims of supporting single homeless people and rough sleepers through commissioned service providers. This is not a statutory service and is separate to the Council’s statutory duties under homelessness legislation. However, the Council recognises people become homeless due to a range of complex needs and some would benefit from a supported placement to recover from their experience of street homelessness and help to prepare them for moving on to independent living.
18. It expects its providers to deliver services to eligible users in the form of accommodation and support services. The support services includes:
• intensive support and case coordination to help service users move into and sustain more independent accommodation or other services;
• support of at least five hours of one to one contact with on-site staff or partner agencies. This should be flexible to respond to their fluctuating support needs and prevent crisis. There may also be additional group works and support off-site with community activities; and
• support should be personalised to individual service users. This may include mental health recovery, psychosocial, substance misuse, and coordinating access to specialist and mainstream services to improve health and wellbeing.
19. Service providers are expected to manage any risks with service users and ensure adequate staffing to support service users. Challenging behaviour should be managed effectively to nurture and promote positive change through working creatively with service users and minimising evictions and abandonment from accommodations.
20. The Council’s Supported Accommodation Panel is managed by its Homeless & Rough Sleeping Commissioning Team. It considers referrals received from partner agencies for individuals who has experienced rough sleeping and has a local connection to the area.
21. The panel meets fortnightly and considers referrals. It decides whether an individual is eligible for the support and decide whether a person is allocated as high, medium or low support need. This helps decide what service provider and placement may be most suitable to the individual.
22. Referrals are made through the Council’s Allocations team. Service users decides if they wish to take up a placement offered.

What happened

23. In 2022 Mr X was supported by a homeless organisation, who referred him to the Council’s Supported Accommodation panel for support. He had lived in a placement which was closing down.
24. The Council’s panel accepted the referral and nominated Mr X to be placed in a supported accommodation for single homeless people and rough sleepers with provider.
25. Mr X agreed to the referral and moved into the supported accommodation in July 2022. He signed a licence agreement with the provider, which he has said he did under duress due to the pressures experienced at the time. The agreement set out the expectations of Mr X when living in the accommodation. This also set out:
• the process he should follow if he experienced issues in the accommodation, which initially would be its internal complaint policy;
• if the issues related to its role as a landlord, he could escalate his concerns to the Housing Ombudsman; and
• if the issues related to the support he received from the provider, he could escalate his concerns to the Council.
26. Around the same, an incident occurred where he threatened to harm himself. The Police was involved, and Mr X was temporarily hospitalised. A safeguarding concern was considered.
27. A mental health homelessness practitioner assessed Mr X. He was considered to have capacity, and referrals were made for a wellbeing service. It was also found he now had a keyworker at the supported accommodation and he was engaging with his GP for further health assessments.
28. A month later the provider issued a warning to Mr X regarding his behaviour in the accommodation.
29. In November 2022 the provider issued a further warning as it found Mr X’s poor behaviour had continued.
30. In February 2022 the provider issued a notice to quit to Mr X. It set out dates of incidents and its reasons which included Mr X had repeated health & safety breaches, harassment, anti-social and inappropriate behaviour, verbal abuse to staff, and threats to harm. Mr X had a right to appeal the notice.
31. Mr X was not evicted when the notice to quit expired. Instead, it put Mr X on a support agreement which he signed. This set out its expectations for his behaviour.
32. However, by April 2023 the provider issued a further warning and an eviction notice to Mr X as he had breached its support agreement. This was because the behaviours had continued and due to what it referred to as an attack on a staff member. It also said he had made it clear he did not want any support from the provider, refused to engage with its services, and wanted to leave.

Mr X’s complaint

33. In Spring 2024 Mr X complained to the provider about how it had supported him whilst living in its supported accommodation. He said he had not received adequate help with his mental health needs, and his substance abuse addiction had been made worse by living with other service users. He said his mental health had been impacted and worsened by its eviction.
34. Mr X also acknowledged his behaviour whilst in the sheltered accommodation, but explained his behaviour was due to not having the appropriate support in place and lack of safeguarding.
35. The provider did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It found:
• he had refused to engage with and provide consent for some of its support services. It had therefore been challenging to support him which included access to mental health and substance abuse support;
• its eviction was not unfair as it had provided several warnings to Mr X and attempted to support him. However, he continued to breach the licence agreement. It had also consulted with the Council before reaching its decision; and
• its service may not have been appropriate to Mr X considering his needs. But this was based on the information known when the referral was made.
36. The provider also set out the evidence of the attempts its support staff had made to assist Mr X with his mental health needs, which included its wellbeing service assessment, liaising with the mental health team, co-production of a safety plan, and it worked within a multi-agency framework to prevent the eviction.
37. Mr X asked the Housing Ombudsman to consider his case. It found Mr X’s complaint was about the support he had been provided and not housing.
38. In September 2024 Mr X asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. He said the provider failed to offer appropriate accommodation and support, which led to his behaviour and the eviction. He said his behaviour was as a result of his medical conditions which should have been managed under safeguarding measures. He said his rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Care Act 2014, and the Equality Act 2010 had therefore been breached.
39. Mr X has since his eviction from the provider in April 2023 been diagnosed with some health conditions. A Care Act assessment has also taken place, but I understand he was not found eligible for support.

Analysis and findings

40. I found the Council’s Supported Accommodation Panel referred Mr X to the supported accommodation placement with the provider. It has an agreement with the provider to deliver its policy aims of providing single homeless people and rough sleepers with support. This was therefore a service the Council was responsible for, and I therefore consider the provider’s support role to be on behalf of the Council.

Should the Council have assessed Mr X?

41. Mr X said he believes the Council, or the provider, should have caried out assessments between July 2022 to April 2023 to determine the care and support he was entitled to, consider his mental capacity, and put safeguarding measures in place.
42. I found the Council was not at fault for a failure to complete a Care Act assessment of Mr X or a mental health assessment. In reaching my view, I was conscious:
• while Mr X had needs for support with street homelessness, there was no evidence available for the Council to suggest he had care and support needs, or specific conditions which would give it reason to believe he had an appearance of such needs;
• Mr X did not wish to share consent for the provider to work with some support services and health providers;
• safeguarding concerns were considered regarding Mr X, but it was found he was not a risk to others, and was considered to have capacity. There were some concerns about his own safety and referrals for wellbeing support and a mental health homelessness assessment was made;
• Mr X told the Council he had mental health issues and was a previous substance abuser. However, it was entitled to presume he had mental capacity to make decisions, and it had no evidence to suggest he had lost capacity to do so. It found he had support available in his supported accommodation although he was not engaging with all the services; and
• when Mr X was subsequently diagnosed with health conditions, the Council completed a Care Act assessment. However, Mr X was not found to be eligible for support or lack to capacity.

Was there fault in provision of support to Mr X

43. The evidence shows the provider had support available to Mr X in line with the Council’s policy on supporting single homeless people and rough sleepers. This included a keyworker, access to a clinical psychologist, support for recovery from substance abuse, and other support groups or initiatives.
44. However, Mr X did not give permission for the provider to access some health records, make some referrals, and he did not engage with some of the services it offered.
45. I found the Council was not at fault for offering the placement, and the support available from the provider was in line with the Council’s policy. In reaching my view I was also conscious:
• the provider discussed concerns about Mr X’s behaviour and challenges with the Council;
• warnings were given to Mr X and the provider attempted to put support in place for him and limit the impact its procedures had on him. It continued to work with him for several months, but Mr X continued to breach the licence agreement;
• risks were considered and mitigations were put in place, but there were no safeguarding concerns around Mr X’s safety at the time.
46. I understand the provider and the Council has since agreed the sheltered accommodation was likely not to have been suitable for Mr X. This view was based on his subsequent health diagnosis, which was unknown to the Council and the provider at the time. Although, this may explain Mr X’s poor behaviour during his time with the provider, this does not mean the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Decision

47. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman