Councils slammed after 16-year-old forced to live in tent for nine months

Two local authorities have been slammed by the Local Government Ombudsman for “inexcusable failures” after a homeless 16-year-old was forced to live in a tent for nine months.

An investigation by the LGO concluded that Kent County Council failed to respond to being told about J (the youth) and failed to fulfil its duties to him under the Children Act 1989. This meant he did not become entitled to advice and assistance up to the age of 21.

Anne Seex accused Dover District Council of failing to fulfil its duties to J under the Housing Act 1996 and failing to follow its joint protocol with Kent.

J had become homeless at the age of 16. He had previously been taken into care by Kent and placed with foster parents.

He returned to live with his mother, but she told him to leave when he objected to her relationship with an intravenous drug user.

Dover turned down his application for housing.

A youth centre manager told Kent’s children’s services about the teenager. But those contacts were not recorded and, the LGO said, Kent did nothing for six months.

Dover would not accept J (the teenager) as homeless but offered him bed and breakfast, registered him for housing and offered him a one-bedroom flat.

J turned these down as he did not want to live in areas where he might be tempted into drugs or crime.

A neighbourhood police officer, the Youth Offending Service, the YMCA and a local drug and alcohol service applied pressure on Dover, which then offered the boy another flat. J accepted this offer.

However, Dover demanded an adult guarantor for the tenancy. For six weeks it refused to accept a £1,000 guarantee from Kent children’s services – demands described as “obdurate” by the LGO.

The LGO investigation revealed that J spent nine months sleeping in a tent or on friends’ sofas. The tent was vandalised and the boy’s mental and physical health suffered.

The Ombudsman said: “These failures are inexcusable. They happened after important court rulings had clarified the roles and responsibilities that housing authorities and children’s services authorities have to homeless children of 16 and 17.”

Seex added: “J was remarkably determined and resilient in the face of crushingly difficult circumstances and was well supported by a youth centre. The failures of the two councils could have easily tipped him into a spiral of drug use and crime.”

The LGO has recommended that the councils should pay J £5,050 each. The total of £10,100 is made up of:

• £3,800 as the estimated value of the housing he should have had for 38 weeks
• £3,800 as the equivalent of £100 for each week that he was homeless “to reflect the distress and inconvenience of having no home and selling or giving away his belongings”, and
• £2,500 to mark their regret for their failures.

Seex also told the authorities to undertake audits “to satisfy themselves that their staff know about and apply its joint protocol for homeless young people aged 16-21”.

The results of those audits should be reported to the Executives or the appropriate Scrutiny Committee, the Ombudsman added.

Seex called on Kent to thank a voluntary sector youth centre that stepped in and gave J personal support “above and beyond its usual level”.

The Ombudsman urged the county council to remedy its failings by agreeing to treat J as if he was entitled to that support.

“It should nominate one of the ‘independent persons’ (who protect the interests of children in care) to monitor what advice and assistance J wants and needs and ensure it is provided to him,” the LGO said.

Kent was also urged to review its arrangements for receiving and recording telephone calls to its children’s services to ensure that important messages are not overlooked. Again, the outcome of that review should be reported to the appropriate Scrutiny Committee, the Ombudsman said.

Seex acknowledged that Dover had already implemented procedural improvements to address some of the areas of concern highlighted by her investigation. The district council has also agreed to write a letter of apology and pay the proposed compensation.

However, Kent has yet to respond to the draft findings.

Shelter, the charity, and City law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer advised J on a pro bono basis.

Campbell Robb, Shelter’s Chief Executive, said: “Despite several court rulings in recent years confirming local authorities’ responsibilities to homeless teenagers, many homeless 16 and 17 year olds are still not getting the support they need and are entitled to when they approach them for help.

“The LGO’s report highlights how vital it is that local authorities comply with their legal responsibility to implement effective joint protocols for assisting homeless 16 and 17 year olds. Without this, vulnerable young people can end up falling through the cracks between children’s services and housing departments, leaving them out on the streets.”

Cabinet Member for Specialist Children’s Services at Kent County Council, Jenny Whittle, said: “There is no mistaking that the system as a whole failed. We accept our role in that and offer our sincerest apologies to this young man.
 
“The county council has largely implemented the improvements recommended by the Ombudsman - and the way we deal with homeless young people, aged 16 and 17, changed substantially following new government guidance, published in April 2010.
 
“On the particular point of reviewing arrangements for receiving and recording telephone calls to its children’s services – KCC has already introduced a Central Duty Team, led by social workers, to make sure referrals are dealt with in an efficient and timely way.
 
“KCC and its partners are working together more closely to protect and support vulnerable children, young people and their families. While this in no way makes up for this young man’s experience, I hope it offers some reassurance that lessons have been learned and procedures changed.”