Summary: There is no evidence that Mr X’s placements were affected by an ordinary residence dispute, or that the Council delayed in sourcing a placement for him.

The complaint

1. The family of Mr X (as I shall call him) complain that he was placed in unsuitable care settings both in Derby and in Salford, and that his care was compromised by the inability of the Council to agree funding issues with the other council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X’s family and by the Council. Both parties had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement and I considered their comments before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

5. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
6. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.
7. Everyone whose needs the council meets must receive a personal budget as part of the care and support plan. The personal budget gives the person clear information about the money allocated to meet the needs identified in the assessment and recorded in the plan. The council should share an indicative amount with the person, and anybody else involved, at the start of care and support planning. It should confirm the final amount of the personal budget through this process. The detail of how the person will use their personal budget will be in the care and support plan. The personal budget must always be enough to meet the person’s care and support needs.
8. Sometimes councils have to decide between themselves which organisation has to meet someone’s eligible care needs under the Care Act 2014. They do this by deciding where the person is ‘ordinarily resident’. There is no definition of ordinary residence in the Care Act, therefore, the term should be given its ordinary and natural meaning.
9. There may be some cases where a council considers it proper for the person’s care and support needs to be met by providing accommodation in another council area. Section 39 to 41 of the Care Act and the regulations set out what should happen in these cases. They specify which council is responsible for the person’s care and support when they are placed in another council’s area. The principle is the person placed ‘out of area’ is considered to continue to be ordinarily resident in the first or ‘placing’ authority area and so does not get an ordinary residence in the ‘host’ or second authority. The council which arranges the accommodation, therefore, keeps responsibility for meeting the person’s needs.

What happened

10. Mr X had a stroke in 2016 and lost function, and the ability to bear weight, on his left side. His then partner contacted the Council for assistance in 2022 as she was no longer able to meet his needs or cope with his challenging behaviour.
11. A social worker assessed Mr X’s needs. His ex-partner (with whom he shared the tenancy) and their son were also present at the assessment. They said they were not interested in a care package in the house and wanted Mr X to move into Extra Care Housing.
12. The social worker had concerns that Extra Care would not meet Mr X’s needs but arranged for him to have a trial period in an assessment flat. Once that placement concluded however it was not possible for him to return home because of carer breakdown. The social worker arranged a respite placement in a care home while Mr X considered where he wanted to live in the long term. Mr X was advised by the social work team of his rights to remain in his property as a named tenant. Mr X took the decision not to seek legal advice, or return to the property.
13. Mr X did not settle in the care home and staff had concerns about his behaviour. Mr X told the social worker he wanted to return to Salford where he had family (although he had lost touch with them). The social worker made enquiries about arranging a move to Salford and was advised that a referral would be made but there was likely to be a long wait for accommodation. The social worker explained to Mr X that in the interim his needs could be met in another care home or Extra Care housing in Derby while he waited.
14. The Council’s records show that Mr X’s son contacted the Council in August 2022 with a complaint that no-one was helping Mr X move to Salford as he wished. The social worker explained that the Council had no choice but to accommodate Mr X until the process for a referral to Extra Care housing in Salford was complete.
15. A further assessment showed that Mr X had night-time needs so was not eligible for Extra Care housing. The social worker discussed Mr X’s case at a funding panel and it was agreed that as he wanted to move, it would be better for him to move into a care home in Salford than move twice. Mr X agreed he would rather move straight to Salford.
16. The Council’s records show that contact was made with Salford Council in an attempt to find a care home placement for Mr X. Many of the care homes rates were above Mr X’s personal budget rate. However, it became clear that as Mr X required two members of staff to transfer, none of the residential placements were able to offer him accommodation. The records show the social worker discussed the possibility of the local NHS body funding nursing care for Mr X as this plus the personal budget rate would be able to support a nursing care placement in Salford. However, the identified care home then failed to respond.
17. Mr X’s family complained to the Council in December about the delay in finding him a suitable placement. The Council responded with an apology for the delay but explained that it had been difficult to find a suitable placement for Mr X in Salford, partly because of his changing needs, and partly because of the shortage of placements in the limited area he had requested.
18. In February 2023 a Salford care home assessed Mr X and agreed to take him. Mr X transferred to the new home on 29 March.
19. On 31 March the care home served notice on Mr X to terminate the placement as he was smoking cannabis. The social worker explained to Mr X he would need to leave the care home. He said he wanted to stay in the area and was already on the housing waiting list.
20. On 11 April the care home reported an incident when Mr X had been abusive to staff and damaged many fittings in this room.
21. The council in Salford concluded that Mr X had made himself intentionally homeless because he had been smoking cannabis. The social worker advised Mr X to present himself to the Council as homeless. The Council has no record of him doing so but his family said that he did.
22. The Council agreed exceptionally to fund Mr X’s placement at the care home, which had agreed to keep him with a behaviour contract in place, before Salford Council accepted responsibility for him as ordinarily resident in their area. The behaviour contract was set up by an adult social care representative from Salford Council following a visit they made
23. In October the social worker visited Mr X at the care home and discussed his needs with the manager, who said Mr X did not need residential care. A referral was made for Extra Care housing in Salford.
24. Mr X’s family complained to the Ombudsman. They said Mr X had been moved into residential care against his will and it was not suitable for him. They said the shortage of placements was because the Council would not pay for the placements which were available in Salford.
25. The Council says it agreed to pay more than the personal budget allowed for residential care in recognition of Mr X’s desire to remain in Salford, and also sought nursing care funding to support the higher fees at the placement which was agreed.

Analysis

26. Mr X could not remain at home without support. The Council arranged a trial for Extra Care housing at an assessment flat which was unsuccessful. The Council arranged accommodation for him in a care home when it was clear he could not return home. That was not fault on the part of the Council.
27. When Mr X expressed a wish to return to his hometown the Council made every effort to arrange a placement. The records show that multiple options were explored before it was possible to find a home which offered a placement.
28. Mr X’s behaviour at the home resulted in notice being served. The Council’s records show consistent efforts on the part of the social work team to find him suitable accommodation once the local council in Salford had decided he was intentionally homeless by virtue of having smoked cannabis in the care home. In the end the Council agreed to pay a significantly higher fee to enable Mr X to remain at the care home until suitable accommodation could be sourced.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed this investigation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman