The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: there is no fault by the Council in relation to Ms B’s complaints about the actions of her personal advisor towards her and in its handling of her complaints about this.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, says that services provided to her by the Council’s leaving care team have been unacceptable and inadequate in that the Council has failed to: deal with her reports that her personal advisor (Ms C) has assaulted and abused her, taken action that has resulted in Ms B running away and becoming homeless twice. Ms C became Ms B’s personal advisor in May 2020; provide a new personal advisor after she requested this; and deal with her complaints about this.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I carefully considered the written information Ms B provided with her complaint and made written enquiries of the Council.
I considered all the information before reaching a draft decision on the complaint.
Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened The Children Act 1989 places duties on councils to provide ongoing support for children leaving care. These duties continue until they reach age 21. If the council is helping them with education and training, the duty continues until age 25 or to the end of the agreed training (which can take them beyond their 25th birthday).
Councils should appoint each care leaver with a personal adviser, and each care leaver should have a pathway plan. The personal adviser will act as a focal point to ensure the care leaver is provided with the right kind of support. The pathway plan should be based on a thorough assessment of the person’s needs. Plans should include specific actions and deadlines detailing who will take what action and when. They should be reviewed at least every six months by a social worker.
Pathway plans should continue for all care leavers continuing in education or training. The plan should include details of the practical and financial support the council will provide.
The guidance accompanying the Act says that when young people leave their care placement the council must ensure their new home is suitable for their needs and linked to their wider plans and aspirations.
The government has issued guidance called ‘Promoting the health and wellbeing of looked after children’. This says some children who cease to be looked after will have continuing health needs that need ongoing treatment. Health professionals and social workers should ensure there are suitable transition arrangements in place, so the child’s health needs continue to be met. They should ensure that care leavers have, or know how to obtain, the information they need about what health services, advice and support are available locally to meet their needs.
Leaving care services should ensure that health matters are included as part of the young person’s pathway planning. Care leavers with complex needs may transfer directly to adult services and the pathway plan will need to ensure this transition is seamless and supported. For care leavers who do not need to receive support from adult services, their personal adviser should ensure that all other forms of support are identified and facilitated as appropriate.
What happened Ms B is in her early 20s, a former looked after child and appears to still be in education.
In its comments to me the Council says that Ms B never met Ms C after she became Ms B’s personal advisor in May 2020. The Council says the reason for this is that Ms B has “…consistently refused to meet of speak with her (Ms C)…”. The Council says Ms B has also refused to give permission for the Council to share information about her with other agencies.
The Council has put together a pathway plan for Ms B though it was last updated in September 2021 without Ms B’s involvement because she was not engaging with the leaving care team or Ms C. The pathway plan does confirm that Ms B is living out of the Council’s area in independent accommodation which was deemed to be suitable and that she was receiving appropriate financial support. It also confirms that she is known to support services in the area in which she is living. Ms B moved away from the London Borough of Camden in late 2020.
The Council has detailed all the support it has offered to Ms B since May 2020 as including: provision of supported accommodation until she moved away in late 2020; provision of financial support when she moved into independent accommodation; ensuring access to support services related to mental health and disability needs while she remained in Camden; remaining in contact with support services in the new area in which Ms B lives and satisfying itself that whilst she refuses to engage with long term support she does seek emergency help if she needs it; keeping her case open even though Ms B has left the area due to concerns about her vulnerability, wellbeing and identified particular needs; contacting appropriate emergency services on occasions when Ms B has expressed suicidal thoughts; and writing to Ms B and relevant agencies to detail what support she can access if she needs it.
The Council says that in late 2021 Ms B repeatedly said that she wanted no further contact from the Council and for her case to be closed. In response senior managers in the children’s services department agreed that Ms C would no longer be named as Ms B’s personal advisor and it told Ms B in late 2021 that she could access services in future via its duty team ie without a named personal advisor. The Council says Ms B subsequently asked for a new personal advisor. Its head of service considered this request but did not consider this would be effective given what had happened previously and so it remains the case that Ms B can access help using the duty service.
The Council says Ms B has recently found an advocate who is helping with her communication with the Council’s leaving care team and is helping her to access practical support from it.
The Council’s comments on its handling of Ms B’s complaints to the Council The Council says that it has not pursued Ms B’s complaints about Ms C because she has consistently refused any contact with her so there are no issues for investigation. It believes the matters Ms B complains about are historical. I do also note however that the Council has previously responded to concerns similar to those raised by Ms B in this complaint. These responses include: to an advocate who complained on Ms B’s behalf in May 2020. This response says that, at that time, the issues being raised were largely historical. It also refers to offering Ms B help with her housing, specifically by asking her what she would prefer in terms of support, but she had not responded to these offers. Also that Ms B had said there had been a fire in her property but had refused to allow access to staff who went to assess this further. Also that she had declined to provide details of safeguarding concerns she had raised but that if she did so the Council could look into them. It also refers to Ms B not agreeing to attend agreed appointments and meetings to complete a pathway plan; and also in May 2020 the Council wrote directly to Ms B stating council staff were concerned about her following her making a number of complaints about a variety of issues. Again this refers to difficulties with providing Ms B with housing support as she was not willing to communicate with staff in the housing team. It also refers to Ms B not paying rent and getting into rent arrears, not paying energy bills and disengaging from a mental health support service. Again it refers to Ms B’s allegations of abuse by services but that Ms B had not provided details to enable investigation of these when asked. The letter offered Ms B a meeting with whichever professional she preferred to try to resolve these issues.
The Council says that Ms B complains about a number of Council services very frequently and that it has put in place a special process to handle these given the overwhelming number of them. This process means that her emails are read but not individually responded to. Again the Council says it tries to direct Ms B towards sources of help and support if these seem suitable as a result of the content of her emails.
Was the council at fault and did this cause injustice?
Ms B complains the Council failed to deal with her reports that Ms C assaulted and abused her and took action that resulted in Ms B running away and becoming homeless twice. I have seen no evidence to support these allegations: in fact the Council says that Ms B has never met or had any direct contact with Ms C. There are therefore no grounds for me to uphold this part of Ms B’s complaint.
With regard to the complaint that the Council refused to provide Ms B with a new personal advisor, the Council says that it eventually removed Ms C as Ms B’s personal advisor because Ms B said she wanted no further contact with the Council and asked for her case to be closed in late 2021. After the Council decided to remove Ms C Ms B then asked for a new personal advisor. However, by then the Council had made alternative arrangements to enable Ms B to obtain support if and when she needed it. Given Ms B had refused any contact with a personal advisor for around 18 months I can see why the Council did not consider it should allocate a new one. Whilst I recognise that councils should provide a personal advisor to care leavers such as Ms B, having taken account of the background to this situation, I am satisfied its decision to enable Ms B to seek support using its duty service rather than allocating a new named personal advisor was evidence-based. In addition it is clear that the Council continues to provide access to practical support to Ms B via her advocate and by ensuring that other appropriate agencies are aware of her. I therefore find no fault in it reaching the decision that it did.
With regards to Ms B’s complaint I can see why the Council has not progressed this. Her complaint relates to a member of its staff with whom she has never had contact and so the basis for investigation of her complaint about this member of staff does not seem justifiable. I therefore find no fault in relation to the Council’s decision on this.
Final decision
There is no fault by the Council in relation to Ms B’s complaints about the actions of her personal advisor towards her and in its handling of her complaints about this.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman