Decision Date: 3 March 2025
Summary
Mr X (a representative) complained about a number of concerns regarding the way the Council handled Mr Y’s needs and the complaints made to them. The complaints included:
- incorrect allocation of a social worker
- closure of Mr Y’s case
- insensitive communication
- poor handling of safeguarding referrals
- failure to work closely with other councils
- encouraging Mr Y to move and ask for supported accommodation
- recent agreement to provide Mr Y with supported accommodation despite there being no change in circumstances
- poorly responding to his complaints.
Fault was found in relation to closing Mr Y’s case on one occasion, communicating insensitively, delaying a response to a complaint and poorly responding to complaints.
What happened
Mr Y is autistic and believes he has a learning disability as well.
In May 2022, following Mr Y’s move to Barnet from another area, he was referred to Adult Social Care (ASC) by the previous Council (Council A). This stated that he was self-funding his own move, to accommodation in the area.
The referral was to its learning disabilities (LD) team, but he had previously been deemed ineligible after an assessment was carried out and he was transferred to a generic long-term locality team.
[We do not think that this means he had been found ineligible for services; only that he had been found ineligible for the specialist attention of the LD team, but we are not sure.]
He felt that the Council should find and fund new accommodation. He said he would commit suicide if this did not happen.
The LD team responded to an NHS referral to its LD team by telling them they had already informed Mr Y that he did not meet the criteria [again, we think that this means for the team’s specialist attention, not for a need for care and support as such?]. It had already sent a joint letter with a psychologist, to Mr Y, to tell him he did not meet its criteria citing as a reason for its decision, a psychologist’s report completed by the NHS in 2020.
The report had been inconclusive on the question of learning disability. He was deemed to be ‘above the functioning of those with a learning disability’. The psychologist’s evaluation had stated that he was independent for daily living activities, but could potentially use support to problem-solve.
A week later, the NHS sent a copy of a GP’s letter stating that Mr Y had a moderate learning disability to the LD team. The LD team said that the GP was not a specialist and therefore was not in a position to diagnose a learning disability.
On 16 June, a Care Act assessment was completed by the long-term team which recorded the following observations:
- Mr Y was walking into busy roads with a placard stating his need for supported accommodation.
- He had the mental capacity to make informed decisions about his wellbeing, safety and participation in the assessment.
- Mr Y was ineligible for benefits income.
- The outcome of the assessment was a proposed case closure, since his needs could be met by the Council’s prevention and wellbeing team and universal services.
The LD team responded to a request from the Council’s own long term team for supported accommodation by confirming Mr Y did not meet the criteria for the LD team and his needs could be addressed by services in the community to health with his mental health and suicidal ideation.
His representative contacted ASC for a multi-agency meeting, the Council responded that a meeting could be held but only with internal Council staff.
Mr Y left his accommodation threatening to harm himself unless the Council provided him with supported accommodation. In response, ASC liaised with the NHS mental health team, who concluded that Mr Y was not having a mental health crisis and had capacity to decide where he lived.
A charity made a safeguarding referral to ASC who said that Mr Y was trying to get run over. This resulted in ASC providing a hotel room for a night, and agreeing temporarily to fund Mr Y’s accommodation to prevent him being homeless.
ASC did not proceed with its safeguarding procedures, due to the threshold not being met, however.
On 22 June, a Mr X contacted the LD team for Mr Y, regarding the email which stated that a GP could not diagnose Mr Y. He said this ‘triggered’ Mr Y, and that being told a service would not help, triggered his suicidal episodes.
The same day, Mr Y was booked into accommodation for two nights by the housing department, if he made himself available for a housing assessment. The next day Mr Y refused to make a homelessness application as he wanted ASC to provide him with supported accommodation. The housing department closed his case as a result.
Throughout August 2022, Mr Y remained in ASC funded accommodation while it made enquiries with accommodation providers on his behalf.
In October, Mr Y was again offered accommodation if he engaged with a housing assessment, he initially accepted this. On 22 October, he decided to return to private accommodation without undertaking an assessment. He remained at his private accommodation until November 2022.
The housing department recorded the following from October:
- Mr Y was ineligible for housing benefit due to his savings of over £70,000 but was not willing to pay for his own accommodation.
- He would only be prepared to pay for interim accommodation at a maximum of £50 per week despite accommodation not existing at that price.
On 3 November, the LD team reconsidered Mr Y’s case. This resulted in it emailing Mr Y to say that he was not meeting admission criteria for living in the specific accommodation he wanted, and that the current offers of accommodation were appropriate.
As there was nothing that could be done, the social worker would end their involvement but the service would remain accessible to him for future reviews.
Following this, Mr Y himself asked ASC to close his case as continued allocation could well prevent him from getting help from another council.
On 21 November, Mr Y was asked to leave his private accommodation due to an incident. Another safeguarding referral was made by Mr Y to ASC, but this was not progressed. ASC said it would continue to work with Mr Y to reduce the risk of his becoming homeless.
Until January 2023, Mr Y was offered accommodation but refused it, repeating the same position he had before that he would not accept anything that did not meet his requirements. During this time he lived in hotels and emergency accommodation arranged by ASC and other organisations.
In January, Mr Y’s sister contacted the Council to ask for them to refer Mr Y to Council B as he was staying with his sister there. ASC made the referral to Council B. As a result, Mr Y’s case was closed and acknowledgement was made by the Council that Mr Y had capacity to make decisions on his housing, health and safety and was choosing to make himself homeless.
Some days later, Mr X contacted ASC to say Mr Y has returned to its area and was more flexible about his housing requirements. ASC provided Mr Y with a social worker for support with his eligible needs.
On 13 February, an analysis of Mr Y’s case was completed by an ASC manager, it read:
- Mr Y was ineligible for social housing due to his savings.
- Case records referred to Mr Y threatening to harm himself then receiving temporary accommodation as a result.
- Mr Y’s Care Act assessment stated that he had eligible needs around maintaining his home, accessing employment and maintaining personal hygiene.
- 24 hour supported living would be disproportionate to fulfil his needs as his eligible needs did not require this.
- His needs could be met in a privately rented flat, with assistive technology. The Council [we do not know if it was Housing or Social Services] offered this but he declined.
- The Council discussed the case with a clinical psychologist from the LD team who advised them to be clear and consistent in their approach to show Mr Y that his behaviours would not change the Council’s decision.
- Mr Y was at a low risk of death, serious injury and illness.
- The Council also summarised the numerous actions it had taken up to this point.
On 22 February, Council B emailed the Barnet housing department saying that it was providing Mr Y with bed and breakfast accommodation.
During March, ASC was made aware that Mr Y was homeless.
In April, ASC contacted several supported accommodation providers but these were not suitable due to Mr Y’s minimal needs.
In April and May he arranged his own accommodation.
On 19 June, another Care Act assessment was completed by Barnet’s ASC which concluded that:
- He was still capable of making decisions about his health and care needs, safety, finances and accommodation.
- Mr Y now had eligible needs around making use of his home safely, maintaining a habitable home, being appropriately clothed, developing and maintaining relationships, making use of facilities or services in the local community and accessing work, training, education or volunteering.
- The case would be closed to the long-term team as Mr Y’s eligible needs could be met by the prevention and wellbeing team or universal services.
- ASC would refer Mr Y to the housing department for a housing assessment.
On 26 June, Council G contacted ASC as Mr Y had approached it for housing. As a result they would complete a Care Act assessment with Mr Y. From then on Barnet passed on a safeguarding referral to Council G.
After receiving several referrals from services in July, the Council reiterated the amount of support it was willing to offer Mr Y as well as his options and details of housing and mental health services he could access.
On 10 July, Mr Y emailed ASC saying he no longer had a social worker and needed a new one. He further threatened suicide unless he got the right supported housing. On 12 July, ASC said he did not have needs for supported accommodation and that they would not allocate a new social worker and that he could contact the housing department with support for housing.
In mid-July, Mr X made a complaint to the Council.
In September 2023, Council D referred Mr Y back to Barnet for accommodation as he had no connection to its area.
On 20 October, Council E made enquiries to ASC about Mr Y who contacted him regarding this. He responded by asking to be referred to Council A, which ASC agreed to do.
In mid-October the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint:
- It apologised for closing My Y’s case in July 2023
- It helped Mr Y to find privately rented accommodation and referred him to organisations that could offer support with housing, but he refused the offers.
- ASC provided accommodation between June and August 2022, to support Mr Y with accessing alternative accommodation. However, Mr Y had handed back the keys.
At the beginning of November, Mr Y made a stage two complaint to the Council as he disagreed with the Council’s response to the previous complaint.
The Council responded at the end of November, it said:
- It had fulfilled its statutory duties to Mr Y.
- It apologised for the delay in its complaint response.
- It is nationally recognised that autism is not in and of itself a learning disability, therefore the LD team was not the only team that could provide support to autistic adults.
- The Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint that it did not always follow safeguarding processes.
- The Council did not uphold the complaint that it had made light of Mr Y’s suicidal ideation. The Council said that specialist support for that would be an NHS service.
- The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint that it encouraged Mr Y to move to another part of the country.
In response to the Ombudsman’s inquiries, ASC said:
- It had finally offered Mr Y supported accommodation as a resolution to a cyclical pattern of behaviour,
- it confirmed that Mr Y was not eligible for this housing and
- ASC had offered Mr Y seven options of accommodation, all of which he had declined.
What was found
The case highlights the importance of clear communication, proper case handover, and timely complaint responses, even when statutory duties are met.
1. Team Allocation
No fault found:
- ASC initially referred Mr Y to its Learning Disabilities (LD) team in May 2022 but transferred him to a generic team after assessments showed he did not meet the criteria for specialist assessment by the specific LD team.
- The Council lawfully allocates teams based on primary presenting needs under Care Act 2014 guidelines. Clinical evidence showed Mr Y’s functioning exceeded LD thresholds, with GP diagnosis deemed insufficient. That is not the same as denying someone an assessment on the basis of their IQ.
2. Case Closure
Fault found (July 2023):
- ASC closed Mr Y’s case after referring him to Council G, assuming it would conduct a Care Act assessment. When Council G failed to act, neither authority ensured continuity of care. Neither Council worked co-operatively to ensure there was no interruption to Mr Y’s care and support and did not ensure he had access to all the relevant information and advice.
- This breached Care Act S6(1) duties to co-operate between councils, causing Mr Y avoidable distress.
3. Communication
Fault found (June 2022 email):
- The LD team copied Mr Y into an email discussing him in the third person format without consent. The Ombudsman ruled this insensitive given Mr Y’s known triggers around rejection.
4. Safeguarding
Partial fault found:
- While ASC properly handled most of this man’s safeguarding referrals per Care & Support Statutory Guidance, it inconsistently documented why some cases were managed through care co-ordination rather than formal procedures.
- Mr Y was found to have the mental capacity to make decisions about his wellbeing and safety and was therefore not owed more regarding suicidal ideation. Additionally, the Council’s analysis of Mr Y’s case in February 2023 concluded that he was at a low risk of death, serious injury and illness, despite his behaviours.
5. Housing Decisions
No fault found:
- ASC offered 7 accommodation options (June 2022-November 2023), but all were refused by Mr Y who demanded specific supported housing.
- Housing Act 1996 duties were met through repeated assessment offers and temporary accommodations. Mr Y’s £70k savings made him ineligible for benefits-funded housing.
6. Supported Accommodation
No fault found:
- Care Act 2014 only requires appropriate meeting of needs in eligible domains. ASC’s 2023 analysis showed 24-hour support was disproportionate for Mr Y’s needs (maintaining hygiene, relationships, employment access).
- Capacity assessments confirmed his ability to make housing decisions.
7. Complaint Handling
Fault found:
- 12-week delay responding to Stage 1 complaint vs 15-day policy.
- Stage 2 response failed to address all concerns or explain decision rationales.
8. Inter-Council Co-ordination
No systemic fault found:
- Barnet appropriately referred Mr Y to other councils when he changed locations.
The Ombudsman agreed with the Council that it will apologise to Mr X and Mr Y separately for the faults and injustice caused by adult social care.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
We think it odd that the man did not get a care plan after he had been found eligible because it is unusual for someone to be qualifying across 5+ domains but being able to have one’s needs met, objectively, through services that do not cost the Council anything (preventive or universal services or community based assets and strengths).
We are surprised that the Ombudsman did not comment on that omission. In other cases, if it were not for the Campbell case, we would suggest that the man was trying to get accommodation plus services ie services which are meaningless unless provided in the context of accommodation which is also directly provided. A person who is not incapacitated cannot GET these services because of s23 of the Housing Act, according to the Campbell case – Court of Appeal – 2024. This man’s campaign comes over as conveying a determination that he should be assisted to jump the housing queue by dint of his disabilities but the Campbell case is not mentioned, because it hadn’t happened at the time when these facts were unfolding.
There is no legal right for an adult to have their team managed by a particular team in the council’s social services department. Any Council will have admission criteria for allocation to a team based on the person’s main presenting need.
The point is made in the report that self-neglect MAY not trigger safeguarding, but that it can. If it is rational self-neglect or risk-taking, to get attention, it would be harmful to the integrity of the service to offer it.
There is no possibility of a person being provided with access to supported living if they do not appear to need it. The tenancy is not provided FOR them or TO them: they must sign it themselves and pay rent.
We think it is noteworthy that the Council ended up offering the man accommodation with extra care and said it was a form of supported living. The Ombudsman saw this as evidence that the Council had used its discretion to offer a person-centred package of care for Mr Y and that it made no odds that it had not done so sooner, or required there to be any specific change of circumstances to explain a change of its own stance.
The fact that the man could not seemingly grasp the basics of the system makes us think that there is something much more complex going on here than just exploitation of public sector goodwill.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s London Borough of Barnet (24 015 654) report.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service?
Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £50 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!