A vulnerable teenager was threatened with eviction after Richmond Council failed to pay for her supported accommodation when she left hospital.

A watchdog found aftercare the girl was entitled to after leaving a mental health hospital should have included the placement, but instead she fell into rent arrears as Richmond Council did not pay for it.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman report found the council's failings put the girl's placement at risk and caused her dad avoidable stress and frustration.

The teenager, referred to only as Miss X, was sectioned in hospital in 2020. She was referred to Richmond's children's services in May 2023, when she was 17, to plan for her discharge.

The council's children's and adult services discussed a proposed supported living placement for Miss X over the following months, which they were concerned about because it was expensive.

Miss X moved into the placement in April 2024, when she became eligible for aftercare under section 117 (s117) of the Mental Health Act. She turned 18 in May that year.

The report said adult services noted in an email that the move had started "without explicit funding confirmation" from the team.

Children's services and the NHS South West London Integrated Care Board (ICB) split the cost of the placement until the end of April, including rent, bills and care. They agreed Miss X might be able to apply for and use benefits to pay the rent.

advertisement

The placement's provider told Miss X's dad in September that nobody had paid her rent or bills since May.

They said she was responsible for paying the debt and costs going forward, according to the report, and that she would be evicted if she did not agree to this.

The dad said she was asked to pay more than £10,000 in arrears.

The council reviewed Miss X's case in November and noted the allowance she was likely to get from Universal Credit.

It said it would need to ask for extra s117 funding to cover the shortfall between that amount and the placement costs, which would be backdated to May.

Miss X's dad complained to the ombudsman in December 2024, however, after the placement's provider threatened her with eviction again as it had not received any rent.

The watchdog found the council failed to create a proper s117 aftercare plan to outline the free support Miss X needed from the council and NHS when she left hospital.

The report said the council and local NHS Integrated Care Board (ICB) had accepted supported accommodation was part of Miss X's s117 needs, with the watchdog ruling the full cost of the placement should have been met by them.

advertisement

It found the council at fault for deciding not to include the costs of the placement in her aftercare package, and failing to pay these fees from May 2024.

The ombudsman said Miss X had been left financially worse off as she had to pay for weekly utility costs herself.

The report said: "Miss X is a vulnerable individual, entitled to s117 aftercare. The council failed to complete an adequate s117 aftercare plan for Miss X, before or after she left hospital.

"This left everyone – Miss X, her family, professionals and other stakeholders – with a lack of clarity about what she needed to help prevent her readmission to hospital.

"On balance, we consider that, had the fault not occurred, Miss X's accommodation would have been included in her s117 aftercare plan.

"All s117 services must be provided free of charge and there is no discretion to ask people to pay a contribution toward the cost.

"The council did not pay significant costs for Miss X's placement for a prolonged period. This put Miss X's placement at risk and caused Mr Y avoidable stress and frustration, which is an injustice."

The watchdog told the council to apologise to Miss X's dad for the impact of these failings, confirm the full cost of the placement would be funded through s117 – including any debt – and that it would reimburse the bills she had to pay.

advertisement

It also told the authority to pay the dad £250 to recognise the injustice its failings had caused him. The ombudsman did not find fault with the ICB as it relied on information and costs submitted by the council.

Richmond Council has been contacted for comment.