Date of decision: 29 July 2025
Summary
A family suffering domestic abuse from their landlord and family member, complained that the Council failed to properly assess the mental capacity of household members to make a homelessness application, delayed safeguarding actions, and did not offer timely social care assessments. The same Council also failed to justify the housing offered and was slow in handling complaints. This left the family without interim accommodation, exposed to risk, and caused them significant distress.
What happened
Mr X and Mrs Y, an elderly couple, live with their adult son Mr K and daughter Ms W, in Ms W’s home. Mr X is frail and bed-bound, while Mrs Y and Mr K have mental health conditions. English is not the first language for Mr X and Mrs Y, and the Council records show Mrs Y has very limited English. Mr B, another son, supports the family and raised the complaint.
In November 2023, the family approached the Council for help due to alleged physical and verbal abuse from Ms W, which the Police had recently attended to investigate. The Council decided Mrs Y lacked capacity to make a homelessness application, without documenting proper assessment or interpreter support and failed to assess the capacity of Mr X or Mr K. Its letter to Mrs Y set out the law on this, and that it considered that she did not have capacity, without any explanation as to how it had decided this. The Council had no record of the capacity assessment, what questions it asked, how it supported Mrs Y to understand the homelessness application, nor how it reached its decision. There wasalso no note as to why it did not assess Mr X or Mr K for capacity to make a homelessness application. The Council’s Housing team merely made an urgent referral to adult social care the same day.
Mr B repeatedly contacted the Council over the following months, disputing the blanket lack of capacity finding and advising repeatedly that all three needed rehousing together.
The Council initially only looked at safeguarding for Mrs Y, overlooking Mr X and Mr K. It did not allocate a social worker until June 2024, seven months after the initial referral, and decided then not to proceed with a safeguarding enquiry.
It called Ms W, who told the Council that there was no need for a Care Act assessment because all members of the family living with her were being looked after.
The Council also noted that Mr K was open to the community mental health team. Its case note says that it did not need to start a safeguarding enquiry as the issues could be case-managed (presumably by Care Act assessments).
The Council could not evidence having ever made a referral to the domestic abuse complaint to its outreach service adequately or ever having got feedback.
Police had arrested Ms W around this time, banning her from the home for three weeks. In August 2024, after further abuse incidents and Mr K going missing, Council staff referred the case to its complex case housing panel.
Though contacted by the Council, the family received no clear response for months. A safeguarding case was closed in December 2024 after a Council visit failed to substantiate risk, despite Mr B’s concerns the interview process was poor and intimidating in and of itself. They had interviewed his father alongside Ms W who had been accused of abusing him. He said this was not good practice and his father had said he was scared to tell the truth.
Its notes say that Mr X had told the Council that he had no problems and he was well cared for by his wife and his daughter, Ms W. The Council could not substantiate that there was a current risk to the three family members. The Council closed the safeguarding case at the beginning of December because Mr X had been able to express himself, he appeared well supported, and other professionals were involved.
In early 2025, Mr B moved his parents to a hotel due to a fresh incident and sought urgent housing help. By now, Mr K had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital [nothing more is said about his status there]. The family was asked to attend a Care Act assessment, but Mr X was too frail to come from the hotel. The Council’s housing team confirmed a ‘no duty’ decision on homelessness, based on ‘family’ capacity assessments it could not properly evidence. Mr B requested a home visit for assessment from both teams. The Council’s social worker visited without an interpreter and reported that both Mr X and Mrs Y declined further assessments according to notes. They returned to Ms W’s house.
The Council later decided Mr K was owed a homelessness duty as he could not return to Ms W’s home. The Council offered Mr X and Mrs Y a one-bedroom flat in February 2025, which the couple moved into in March despite wanting to live with Mr K. The Council failed to show it had adequately considered the family’s collective needs or the medical necessity regarding housing size.
The Council took 18 weeks to respond to Mr B’s complaint from April to August 2024.
What was found
The Council’s housing team was at fault for failing properly to assess each family member’s capacity to make a homelessness application, especially without interpreter support for Mrs Y. It ignored domestic abuse evidence, failed to offer interim accommodation immediately, did not liaise with the police and delayed safeguarding action by seven months. The Council poorly monitored and closed safeguarding concerns prematurely without ensuring risks were managed.
There was no proper referral or follow-up by the domestic abuse service. The Council also delayed Care Act assessments, only meeting Mr X 15 months after initial help was sought. Interpreter use was deficient, risking inadequate assessment quality. The Council’s housing team had not justified offering a one-bedroom property for a vulnerable household of three. The Council may decide that they have a one-bedroom need but it could not show that it hads considered whether Mr X has a medical need for his own bedroom.
These failures caused the family to remain in unsafe accommodation, exposed them to ongoing abuse, caused distress, uncertainty, and frustration, and delayed meeting their care and housing needs. Symbolic compensation payments were awarded to the family members and the complainant.
The two teams were told to apologise to Mr X and Mrs Y, to Mr K, and to Mr B for the faults identified.
The Housing Team needed to pay a total of £3,750 to Mr X and Mrs Y as a symbolic payment in recognition of the distress caused to them when the Council failed to provide interim accommodation between November 2023 and February 2025 when they presented as homeless due to domestic abuse (£300 per calendar month).
It needed to pay a total of £2,250 to Mr K for the same period (£150 per calendar month).
Additionally, Adult Social Care should pay to Mr X and Mrs Y a symbolic payment of £500 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty the Council caused and the risk of harm it left them in when it took too long to act on the safeguarding referral, and to Mr K a symbolic payment of £250 on the same footing.
The Council was told to pay Mr B a symbolic amount of £200 in recognition of the distress and frustration it caused him and the time and trouble it put him to, when it took too long to deal with his complaints.
It was told to review Mr X’s and Mrs Y’s housing needs with an interpreter if required and deal with any unmet need in accordance with the homelessness law and guidance, and with its own Housing Allocations policy, without delay, and to offer a fresh Care Act assessment for Mr X and a carer’s assessment for Mrs Y, with an interpreter if required.
It was told it must refresh training for homelessness service staff on mental capacity assessments, including the need to record the assessment and the reasons for its conclusions properly; for homelessness service staff on its approach, powers and duties with regard to applicants suffering domestic abuse; review its procedure for arranging interpreters within adult social care and review how it monitors and ensures progress where a safeguarding referral is closed on the basis that the risk is “managed by Care Act assessments”.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out all councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there (Housing Act 1996, Section 175).
It is deemed not to be reasonable for a person to continue to live in accommodation if it is probable this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against them (Housing Act 1996, Section 177). If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless as a result of domestic abuse, it should make interim accommodation available to the applicant immediately whilst it undertakes its investigations (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 21.25).
A council must also secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need (Housing Act 1996, section 188).
However, a council cannot accept a homelessness application from a person who lacks the mental capacity to make an application. The council must decide whether the applicant has the capacity to make the application or not. On the other hand, someone else who reasonably lives with the person who lacks capacity can make the application in their own name, on behalf of the household.
The Care Act makes clear that refusal to assess is not lawful where safeguarding concerns or possible incapacity exist. In the case presented, the exclusion of Mr X and Mr K from timely assessments (for both capacity and support needs) did not reflect the statutory duty to consider every affected individual, particularly when safeguarding concerns are raised by a family member or third party. This underplays the importance of prompt and inclusive assessment in safeguarding and risk management.
The lack of interpreter support and adequate capacity assessments for non-English speakers was not just a process error but a breach of both statutory and equality duties. Under community care law and guidance, a presumption of capacity is fundamental, but this can only be rebutted by a properly conducted, issue-specific assessment that includes appropriate communication support, and an effort to maximise the person’s capacity, some part of which turns on understanding. Failure to provide an interpreter or to undertake an individualised capacity assessment calls into question the validity of the Council’s supposed conclusions on capacity and any ‘no duty’ decisions that followed.
Further, the application of safeguarding law is not discretionary when there are ongoing risks or new incidents of alleged abuse or neglect. Safeguarding scenarios do often require to be triaged, and they can be referred to commissioners or assessors when some fault or problem in those areas is what’s really driving the problem, but not in this scenario when there’s a fundamentally serious lack of regard for the law going on, in more than one department.
Public law principles require that councils not only initiate but also monitor and, where necessary, escalate safeguarding enquiries—promptly and proportionately. Failure to act, or premature closure of enquiries without robust evidence and consultation with all relevant parties, exposes vulnerable residents to harm and is a well-established ground for judicial review in community care law.
Delays in assessment and support—particularly where urgent accommodation and risk of ongoing abuse are concerned—can amount to a breach of statutory duty under the Care Act, as well as a breach of human rights where risks to physical safety and dignity are significant and foreseeable.
Procedurally, the failure to document decision-making, to involve all eligible adults in assessment, and to provide accessible communication fundamentally undermines the lawfulness and defensibility of the council’s actions. Community care law places heavy emphasis on transparency, record-keeping, and meaningful involvement of all parties (including representatives and carers) in planning and review.
Finally, the decision to offer unsuitable accommodation without clear evidence of need or proper explanation of medical or collective need is incompatible with the Care Act requirement to have regard to wellbeing, the suitability of accommodation, and the views and preferences of individuals and their advocates or carers.
The issues illustrated here reinforce the need for all councils to maintain robust, procedurally sound assessment and safeguarding systems, make active use of interpreters and communication support, and ensure that all decision-making is evidence-based, person-centred and fully recorded. Care Act processes should not be delayed by inter-agency communication failures or assumptions about capacity or willingness to participate. Prompt review and real engagement with family and advocates must underpin safer outcomes for vulnerable residents.
The only note of caution which we would raise is the stance by the Investigator that there could have been a Care Act duty to accommodate this family directly. That’s not a defensible stance since the Campbell case in the Court of Appeal, in May 2024, unless the only person needing the accommodation in order that their care needs would be able to be met, had been Mr K, or Mrs Y, and he or she, respectively, had lacked capacity to take on a tenancy, or had PSIC status.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s London Borough of Redbridge (24 008 348) 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!