Summary: Ms X complained, on behalf of her brother Mr Z, that the Council failed to complete his care needs assessment and failed to take action regarding the suitability of his current accommodation. The Council put the assessment on hold in November 2018 until alternative accommodation was found. The issue has drifted since then with no decision on his care needs or alternative accommodation found. This delay is fault and a suitable remedy is proposed.

The complaint

1. Ms X, on behalf of her brother Mr Z, complains the Council has failed to complete his care needs assessment and has failed to take action regarding the suitability of his current accommodation.
2. Ms X says the failure to address the accommodation issues and Mr Z’s care needs have caused stress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant’s representative;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant’s representative;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr Z is an adult with learning difficulties. He previously lived at home with his family but moved into a supported living environment in 2017. Following an enablement assessment in July 2018, the Council proposed reducing his care package on the basis that he did not have any eligible needs.
7. In August 2018 the Council visited Mr Z to complete a mental capacity assessment. The Council took the view that Mr Z had capacity to consent to a care needs assessment. Mr Z said that he wanted his sister, Ms X, to be consulted on all complex financial issues and to provide him with support during the care assessment. The notes of the meeting say Mr Z expressed that he wanted to move from his current accommodation and that he felt his previous care assessment did not accurately represent his needs.
8. The Council carried out a care assessment with Mr Z. The notes indicate he chose not to have Ms X with him during the assessment. The social worker did contact Ms X for further information about Mr Z’s needs and a meeting was arranged in November 2018.
9. The proposed changes to Mr Z’s care package were discussed at panel in November 2018. There are no minutes of the panel meeting. The Council has been able to provide details of the questions asked only. It said that it was not appropriate to change Mr Z’s care package until he moved as his needs could change depending on the type of accommodation provided.
10. The social worker then helped Mr Z make a housing application. As Mr Z has suitable accommodation, he does not have high priority for re-housing. During a meeting in April 2019 the Council explained to Ms X that it was of the view Mr Z did not have the level of needs required for supported accommodation. It said this case was now a housing matter and without alternative accommodation the case could not move forward.
11. Ms X believes Mr Z does require supported accommodation but feels the current accommodation is not suitable. She says other residents with more complex needs are disruptive and affect how Mr Z enjoys the property.
12. The Council offered Mr Z a move to a temporary placement where his needs could be assessed using a reablement service but this offer was declined.
13. Due to a lack of action, Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council in September 2019 on behalf of Mr Z. She says his current accommodation is not suitable because of difficulties caused by other residents. Ms X believes Mr Z still requires supported accommodation and that he is not capable of living independently.
14. The Council responded saying Mr Z’s case had been reallocated to a senior social worker who would work with him to maximise his independence and life choices. It sent a further letter in December 2019 saying the new social worker was still working with Mr Z and it had been established that he has capacity regarding his care and support needs. The Council said Mr Z had told the social worker he wanted to live on his own and that he was unhappy in his current accommodation. It said indications were that Mr Z is self caring and fairly independent and that he does not require formal support services from Adult Social Care. It said it would signpost Mr Z to the most appropriate services and monitor his progress.
15. The information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries shows the social worker called Mr Z on 17 January 2020 asking how he wanted to proceed with the new assessment. Mr Z asked the Council to discuss the matter with Ms X. The chronology of events does not provide details of any attempt to contact Ms X.
16. The social worker made welfare calls to Mr Z in April and May 2020. The social worker explained that due to COVID-19, the reassessment of his care needs was on hold and action would not be taken until the situation changed. There was also contact with Ms X to update her.
17. In October 2020, a new social worker was allocated to Mr Z’s case as the previous social worker had moved to a managerial role. The new social worker called the care provider who reported that Mr Z is very independent and would be able to use technology for a virtual care assessment.
18. The Council says it intends to hold a meeting with all stakeholders including the housing provider and family in an effort to move this case forward. It acknowledges that the housing issue is the barrier to further action. In response to my enquiries the Council also says it hopes Mr Z will accept the offer of an independent advocate as when Ms X has acted as his supporter this has not always been productive in the relationship with the Council and moving matters forward.

Analysis

19. Ms X complains about the lack of action in relation to Mr Z’s care assessment and housing situation. She is concerned about Mr Z and frustrated by what she describes as a catch-22 situation regarding his care assessment and housing provision.
20. A reassessment of Mr Z’s care needs began in 2018. The assessment noted a reduction in Mr Z’s eligible care needs and it was proposed that Mr Z should be helped to move to live independently. However, no final decision was made and the matter was put on hold until after Mr Z found alternative accommodation. Adult Social Care has indicated it is not its role to source accommodation so has helped with a housing application and made referrals to other agencies.
21. The information provided shows that all parties agree that Mr Z’s current accommodation is not suitable however they hold different reasons for taking this view. Ms X believes Mr Z requires supported accommodation, is not capable of maintaining a tenancy and living independently. However she says the current provision is unsuitable because of problems with other residents. The Council believes Mr Z is independent and does not require the level of care provided by the current accommodation.
22. To date no alternative accommodation has been sourced. Mr Z has limited priority to be offered social housing because he is considered to be adequately housed. If the current housing provider gave notice to quit this would leave Mr Z as homeless and would cause other problems in finding suitable alternative accommodation especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
23. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a decision on the level of Mr Z’s care needs or what is suitable accommodation. This is ultimately a decision for the Council following a properly considered care assessment. This process began over two years ago and has yet to be completed. While this is delay, it was not all due to fault by the Council. It is understandable that action was put on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic and a move could only be achieved if there is available suitable housing.
24. I have considered how Mr Z has been affected as a result of the delay in this case. I consider he has suffered avoidable frustration and anxiety because of the ongoing uncertainty and I have recommended a remedy for this injustice below.
25. The Council has now proposed a way forward. It will be arranging a meeting with all stakeholders to discuss in particular the housing issues. I note the Council’s comments about Mr Z using an independent advocate rather than a family member as it considers Ms X has been obstructive. I would remind all parties involved that the care assessment should be person focussed on the needs of Mr Z. The Council says Mr Z has mental capacity and so is able to make decisions about where he lives. I consider this also means that he is able to decide who supports him at any meeting. It is not for the Council to aim to exclude anyone or say who Mr Z chooses to support him if Mr Z has mental capacity. If the Council considers Ms X is not acting in Mr Z’s best interests and wishes to exclude her then it needs to take appropriate steps to deal with this such as adult safeguarding.

Agreed action

26. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr Z as a result of the fault identified the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:

Apologise to Ms X and Mr Z for the avoidable delay in this case;

Provide details of the timescales to complete the next actions including completing the care assessment and holding the stakeholder meeting; and

Pay Mr Z £200 to recognise the anxiety, frustration and uncertainty caused.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman