LGO raps council over handling of homeless teenager from outside area

March 11, 2014

The Local Government Ombudsman has sharply criticised a local authority for failing to assess a 17-year-old girl from outside its area when she presented as homeless.

The girl (‘Miss X’) complained that Doncaster Council failed to assess her as a ‘child in need’, and then failed to provide her with accommodation, after she told the local authority in May 2012 she was homeless and fleeing abuse from her father.

Miss X also complained that the council had failed to respond to her complaint which was covered by the statutory children’s services complaints procedure.

In a report the Ombudsman said that the Children’s Services department at Doncaster had – without conducting an assessment of her situation – told the girl to return home to North Yorkshire and given her £50 on a discretionary basis to pay for travel.

The LGO said Doncaster should have carried out safeguarding enquiries. “Without an initial assessment, the council never considered the girl’s health and welfare, education and housing needs before coming to its decision, and could not have said that she was not at risk of harm if she returned home,” it found.

Miss X was from North Yorkshire, but moved to her boyfriend’s family in Doncaster. She approached the council after her father allegedly threatened to burn down the boyfriend’s house, the LGO said.

Social workers told her they would not help her, despite being told by Miss X that her father was “extremely controlling” and that he had been physically abusive towards her since she was nine.

According to the Ombudsman, the social workers at Doncaster “did not help the girl because they wrongly thought she was not their responsibility”.

Officers from North Yorkshire had said they would investigate any safeguarding allegations relating to her siblings, but argued that Miss X was Doncaster’s responsibility as this was where she asked for help. Doncaster’s officers disagreed, saying that she was not ordinarily resident in the council’s area.

Miss X still lives with her boyfriend’s family and has not had contact with her siblings since.

In its report the LGO concluded that:

Doncaster was wrong to conclude it was not under any duty to support Miss X as she was not ‘ordinarily resident’ in its area.
The council could not determine whether Miss X was or was not a ‘child in need’ or homeless without an initial assessment. "Without a proper initial assessment the council failed to come to an informed decision as to whether Miss X was a ‘child in need’ or at risk of harm, or whether her welfare needed to be promoted."
The council failed to properly consider whether safeguarding enquiries were necessary under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. “Her allegations were not only historic but current. She alleged ongoing emotional abuse by her father and claimed her father had threatened to harm her while she was living in Doncaster."
The council failed to give proper consideration as to whether it owed a duty to accommodate Miss X under section 20(3) of the Children Act 1989 or whether it should have used its power to accommodate Miss X under section 20(4) of the Children Act 1989.
It should have provided Miss X with accommodation while it carried out the necessary checks of her as a ‘child in need’, her claims her father was still threatening her in Doncaster, and her claims that her father had hurt her siblings.
The council’s response to insist Miss X returned to North Yorkshire to be with her family "was inappropriate, given her allegations of physical and emotional abuse".

“If the council had carried out a proper assessment of Miss X as a ‘child in need’, an assessment of any safeguarding risk to her in Doncaster or of her returning home to North Yorkshire, and, if she was not a ‘child in need’ carried out an assessment of whether she was homeless, we could not be critical of the council,” the LGO said.

“We cannot question a council’s decision if taken properly (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3)). However in this case we have found significant failings in the process the council followed and are therefore critical of its decision.”

The LGO found that there had been fault causing injustice. Doncaster has since agreed to implement the following recommendations to:

apologise to Miss X for failing to assess her as a ‘child in need’ and failing to take appropriate action;
pay Miss X £500 to “acknowledge the distress it caused to her and the unnecessary risk it placed her in by not providing her with accommodation when she was homeless and most likely a ‘child in need’”;
review its ‘Joint Protocol for Young People Aged 16-17 Years in Housing Need’ within three months of the LGO’s final decision;
apologise to Miss X and her representative Mr Z for its failure to respond to her complaint;
pay Miss X £100 to acknowledge the uncertainty, distress and time and trouble caused to her by its failure to respond to her complaint; and
review its administrative procedures for complying with the statutory requirements under the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure to ensure that in future it responds to complaints. As confirmation of the review it will send the LGO a copy of this review within three months of the Ombudsman’s final decision.

Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman, said: “I am concerned that a vulnerable young girl, who has repeatedly asked for help from Doncaster council, has been told at every turn that she is ‘not their responsibility’.

“The law is clear on this, a child does not have to be ‘ordinarily resident’ in a council’s area – and Doncaster council should have assessed the girl’s situation when she came to them and presented as homeless.”

Dr Martin added: “I hope this case reminds other councils of their legal position when considering children in need who are from outside their area.”