Date of decision: 05 December 2025
Summary
A disabled woman living in supported accommodation said the Council ignored her wishes about her care, money and relationships and treated her as if she could not decide for herself. She complained that social workers blocked her chosen personal assistant, stopped her partner staying overnight and took control of her finances, leaving her feeling unheard and controlled.
What happened
Miss X, who has cerebral palsy, a learning disability and is partially sighted, living in extra care supported accommodation where she needed help with most daily activities including medication, personal care, toileting, food, and managing her home, had a care package of 18 hours a week support from on‑site carers, and had an emergency pull-cord system.
In May 2024, the Council held safeguarding discussions after the housing staff reported that people, including Miss X’s partner, were staying overnight in her flat, disrupting carers’ access, that a guest had once locked her out, and that her partner was gambling with her money. Miss X did not consent to a formal safeguarding investigation, though, when asked for her views.
Around this period she said she wanted to move to different accommodation.
In June 2024, the Council convened a professionals’ meeting following further safeguarding incidents, including an episode where Miss X’s partner left her alone in a restaurant after taking money and her bank card, while still holding the keys to her flat; the restaurant called the Police and the Council arranged for her locks to be changed.
The Police arrested the partner and imposed bail conditions preventing contact with Miss X.
At the same time, she was also the victim of a serious sexual assault at a house party, after which an Independent Domestic Violence Advocate (IDVA) was allocated to her.
In July 2024, a manager at the care provider company asked the Council to review Miss X’s care because her mobility had declined. On 30 July, Miss X telephoned the Council to say she wanted to move in with her partner into his flat, for which she was paying rent; the Council asked her about risks of living in the community and what support she thought she would need.
In August 2024, the Council reassessed her needs to move from a commissioned care service to a direct payment so she could employ a personal assistant (PA). It was assessed she now needed a 25‑hour weekly package made up of specified timed calls (morning, lunch, tea, evening), domestic support, laundry, two hours’ weekly shopping and two hours’ community access. A Council officer visited Miss X and her father to discuss setting up the direct payment and found an unknown man in the flat; Miss X’s father said this man and others often stayed there, that items went missing and they took her benefit money, but Miss X denied this.
On 20 August 2024 Miss X phoned the Council after finding drugs in her flat left by a man, a friend of her partner, who had stayed for several days and brought another man with him. The Council asked what she would do to stop such people coming; she said she would change her phone number, asked who had decided her partner was banned from the building and why, and was told not to let people into her flat or the building and to call the Police if needed. Two PAs arranged by her father began providing care on 21 August 2024.
On 28 August 2024, the IDVA made a safeguarding referral to the Council after Miss X disclosed coercive and controlling behaviour, financial abuse and verbal, emotional and sexual abuse by her partner, and highlighted that Miss X did not seem to understand what a healthy relationship involves and could not manage the risks. The Council contacted Miss X about this referral but she did not want action taken.
On 9 September 2024, an officer again met Miss X about the direct payment; she wanted to employ a third PA (present at the meeting), agreed to email how many hours each PA would work, and mentioned she might move to live as a lodger at the third PA’s home.
Miss X told the Council she wished to reduce the existing PAs’ hours to 7.5 and 5 hours so the new PA could work 12.5 hours; the Council asked whether she had discussed this with the existing carers and she had not.
At the end of September 2024, her father emailed the Council raising concerns that the new PA was her partner’s landlord, that Miss X had signed a joint tenancy with him and that the PA had signed as both tenant and witness, which he said was unacceptable and ignored her disabilities, raising serious safeguarding issues.
On 2 October 2024, her father emailed again, reporting from bank statements that between 21 November 2023 and some point in 2024 she had given over £11,000 to her partner, over £2,000 to the proposed new PA and nearly £1,000 to a friend of her partner; he said she did not hold her own bank cards and a third party was spending her money while she was nearly £9,000 in arrears for rent and care charges. He felt the Council had failed to safeguard her and asked for support to stop the abuse.
When the existing PAs refused to reduce their hours, Miss X terminated their employment and allocated the whole 25‑hour package to the new PA, who began providing care on 14 October 2024.
Following this, the Council opened safeguarding enquiries, including arranging a mental capacity assessment regarding Miss X’s finances. The bail conditions on her partner had expired because she withdrew her statement that he was financially abusing her, so he could again visit her accommodation.
Later in October 2024 her social worker met her to carry out the financial capacity assessment, prompted by five financial-exploitation safeguarding referrals since January 2024. The social worker used bank statements and bills to explain why she was in arrears for rent, council tax, utilities and care charges, found that although she could understand information she could not retain it or answer questions about managing money, and concluded she could not use and weigh the information or explain how she would manage her finances effectively.
The social worker considered whether she was simply making unwise choices but concluded that her debts arose because she was vulnerable, unable to manage money and being exploited, and the Council decided she lacked capacity to manage her finances. The Council then made a best interests decision to apply for appointeeship to manage her benefits, and Miss X declined an offer of an independent advocate.
On 24 October 2024 the IDVA informed the Council that a receptionist at the scheme had seen the new PA push Miss X in a lift and manipulate entries in the visitor book to appear to be present for longer; the receptionist also emailed the Council. Miss X told the Council her disability did not mean she could not make decisions, accused everyone of being against her, said she was happy supporting her partner and with her new PA, and asked the Council to stop interfering. Around this time she telephoned to ask about living with her partner, acknowledging he could not live at her current scheme but suggesting they move elsewhere; the Council said this would be addressed at an upcoming meeting.
On 4 November 2024 the Council made a best interests decision that the new PA’s employment should not continue in order to safeguard Miss X and achieved this by replacing the arrangement with a commissioned care package while it reviewed her care. Her social worker met her twice in November 2024 to assess whether she had capacity to decide about her care and support; the worker concluded that while she understood some information, she did not understand the risks of refusing care or of carers treating her badly, could not retain or use all relevant information, and lacked capacity regarding care and support decisions. The Council therefore decided she lacked capacity to decide on her care and support needs.
Miss X then complained that the Council had removed her PA and would not allow her partner to stay overnight, saying it interfered in her personal life, did not listen to her and that she wanted her care package reassessed. In December 2024, the Council responded, explaining it had reassessed her needs in October and reviewed her support plan in November, that her extra care tenancy was single‑occupancy so her partner could not stay overnight (though visitors were allowed by day), and that its direct payments team had raised concerns about her financial contribution leading to a social worker visit which also covered safeguarding issues.
The Council stated professionals were concerned that the PA had pushed her in a lift, used an unprofessional tone and behaved neither professionally nor empathetically, and that adult social care staff were worried about controlling and coercive behaviour, financial exploitation and emotional and physical abuse; it said it therefore put in a commissioned package while reviewing the situation, then reinstated direct payments with different PAs. It also set out significant concerns about the partner’s coercive and abusive behaviour and financial exploitation, noted the financial capacity assessment had found she lacked capacity in that area, and said its Customer Financial Affairs Services would help manage her finances.
In information provided to the Ombudsman, the Council said it had involved Miss X in decisions about care and safeguarding, considered her wishes alongside family and professional views, but sometimes could not agree to her wishes because of its safeguarding duties, such as when she wanted to keep the new PA. It said it tried to balance her wish to live in the community with its duty to provide a safe care package, and that her current scheme did not allow overnight guests; it also said it had considered her human rights, including private and family life, yet had to prioritise her safety given concerns about her partner and strangers she brought home. The Council accepted that Miss X felt unheard but said its decisions were driven by its duty to minimise risk and keep care sustainable, and that it would reconsider her wish to live in the community in a future review, including a fresh capacity assessment and best interests decision about her care and support needs.
What was found
The Ombudsman’s analysis recorded that the Council had spoken with Miss X when receiving safeguarding referrals and initially respected her wishes not to proceed, but as incidents escalated it had a duty to act to safeguard her. The Ombudsman found the Council had followed her wishes in allowing direct payments and helping her employ the landlord PA, but was entitled to end that arrangement when serious safeguarding concerns emerged and to substitute a commissioned package.
The Ombudsman found the mental capacity assessments on finances and care were conducted appropriately, that Miss X was involved and reasons were clearly recorded, and did not criticise the Council’s professional judgement in concluding she lacked capacity on those issues.
The Ombudsman accepted that although Miss X wanted control of her money and to live with or near her partner in the community, the Council had reasonably decided that her needs and risks, including falls, increased needs and risk of further financial abuse, were best managed within supported accommodation at that time. The Ombudsman also noted the Council’s commitment to reconsider community living and reassess capacity in future, as evidence that her wishes were being kept under review.
The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s assessment and review processes, its safeguarding responses, its mental capacity assessments, or its best interest decisions about Miss X’s finances, care arrangements and accommodation. The Council acted within its Care Act 2014 duties to assess needs, review care and safeguard an adult at risk, and within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 framework to assess specific decisions and act in her best interests when she lacked capacity, particularly around finances and care.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
The report identifies that the Council initially respected Miss X’s refusal of safeguarding action but, as incidents of financial exploitation, abuse and risk of harm escalated, it was obliged under section 42 Care Act 2014 to make enquiries and take protective action, even where she disagreed.
The Council’s decision to seek appointeeship, remove a PA linked with alleged abuse, and refuse to support arrangements that increased risk (such as moving in with her partner or allowing him to stay overnight in single‑occupancy supported housing) were all found to be reasonable, risk‑based and lawfully grounded rather than arbitrary.
Miss X experienced distress, a sense of loss of control and frustration at restrictions on her relationships and finances, but the Ombudsman considered these to be unavoidable consequences of legitimate safeguarding and best interests decision‑making rather than injustice caused by maladministration. This case sits at the junction between safeguarding, mental capacity, best interests and Article 8 rights, and raises important questions about how far a council must go in balancing autonomy with protection, how carefully capacity must be assessed on specific issues, and how clearly the reasoning must be recorded when care and support, money and close relationships are tightly bound together.
The law on mental capacity, as understood in community care law, stresses that capacity is issue‑specific, that any one of the four “building blocks” (understanding, retaining, using and weighing information, and communicating a decision) can be enough to negate capacity, and that even people who understand consequences in the abstract may be unable in practice to follow through to keep themselves safe. Community care law also emphasises that lack of capacity does not depend on how risky a decision is, but on whether the person can grasp the nature and consequences of the decision in context, and that wishes and feelings must still carry real weight when decisions are close to the borderline, particularly where intimate relationships and private life are at stake.
The Ombudsman accepts the Council’s finance and care capacity assessments as sound, but it is difficult to tell how valid that view is, with regard to legal principle, from the report. Capacity law – drawing on public law principles and Court of Protection case law, expects separation between capacity to decide about care, capacity to manage property and affairs, capacity about residence and capacity about contact, because the relevant information, the emotional drivers and the human rights implications differ markedly between these issues. Without that clarity, there is a risk that a generalised concern about risk and vulnerability slides into an over‑broad finding of incapacity, contrary to the strictly issue‑specific approach described in community care law.
We think that the investigator (and the Council beforehand) did a subtle piece of social work thinking on the forms and reasonableness of protective steps – the Council ending the direct payment to the landlord‑PA, which it can do on the grounds of inappropriateness; seeking appointeeship which anyone can do; pointing out that overnight stays were excluded by her tenancy and not supporting her to move out of the extra care accommodation.
We believe that the woman’s father would have been supporting her with the direct payment, as he did the arranging of the first two PAs – but we don’t think he was a formal Authorised Person; this means that the woman was still the employer in legal terms of the employees and was believed to have capacity for that role, at the time. So the Council used the legal framework constructively: they did not sack the employee but terminated the direct payment. Appointeeship is not in their gift or for the taking, but must be approved, and it was, by the DWP, who must come to a decision on capability to manage one’s finances. The Council was not the housing provider making up the terms of the tenancy, as far as one can tell – although the report is conveniently vague about whether that WAS actually a term: the more common rule that one must not part with possession or have someone else MOVE IN, is not constituted by having one’s long term partner stay overnight!
Finally, it is an implied principle of law that no professional can be expected to support something that they regard as someone else’s harmful wish, without it being a decision, by dint of a reasonable belief in the person’s incapacity: it would be ethically wrong, if not (so far as the Council’s staff were involved) negligent in the ordinary sense of the word, to do so.
We do not think that this was a case of physical health and safety being “bought at too high a price in happiness and emotional welfare”.
However, it is right to point out that nothing much is said about exploring whether less restrictive alternatives were actively considered, recorded and, if rejected, explained in terms that show genuine engagement with the woman’s impaired but still residual autonomy. Community care law expects a visible “balance‑sheet” analysis of benefits and burdens, including emotional wellbeing, and a conscious application of the least restrictive option principle; this is not evident in the Ombudsman’s summary of the Council’s reasoning.
Community care law emphasises that when there is sustained concern about coercion or undue influence affecting relationships, contact and residence for an incapacitated adult – and especially where restrictions on contact or intimate relationships are being implemented – there is a strong expectation that significant disputes or interferences with article 8 rights will be taken to the Court of Protection for an authoritative best interests decision, or that the inherent jurisdiction will be considered where the person may technically have capacity but is vulnerable through coercion.
These steps may still remain to be taken, of course, by Hounslow. But the Ombudsman’s analysis does not question whether the Council should have escalated any aspect of Miss X’s situation for judicial scrutiny, particularly given the combination of alleged domestic abuse, serious sexual assault, large‑scale financial loss, bail conditions, and later decisions to curtail her chosen PA and to limit contact with her partner while asserting that her human rights had been considered.
For councils, practitioners and advocates, the broader implication is that lawful safeguarding in situations like this demands not only decisive protective action but also demonstrably robust capacity assessments on each contested issue, transparent best interests reasoning that visibly respects the person’s values and emotional priorities, and a clear internal consensus or threshold for when complex, high‑stakes interferences with private and family life are referred to a court for independent scrutiny.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s London Borough of Hounslow (24 022 445) 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!