Summary: Mr B complained that the Council is taking too long to find a supported living placement for his son Mr C. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions and noted that several assessments are ongoing.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Medway Council (the Council) has failed to find a suitable supported living placement for his son Mr C, which can meet his complex needs. This continuing delay since August 2021 is causing Mr C and his parents significant distress.

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 an injustice, 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 have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr C has complex needs and has lived in a residential care placement for a long time run by Provider Z.
6. In August 2021 the Council reviewed his assessment of need and noted that Mr C wanted to move to some form of supported living. The Council considered he had capacity to make that decision. Mr B sent some corrections and comments in response to the assessment. He wanted to make clear that the risk of Mr C being violent was a current risk, not historical and that he needed 1:1 support when going outside at all times. He also disputed he could prepare meals or pick his clothes. The Council made some amendments to the assessment. It said Mr C had an ongoing risk of violence and needed a high level of support managing his emotions and behaviour. He needed support with accessing the community, including transportation to activities and a high level of emotional support. It noted he benefits from a very structured weekly timetable and liked to attend activities and work placements in the community. He had been attending an employment opportunity at a school but this had been limited during COVID. When he was anxious he needed support from mor than one person. The assessment said his total weekly indicative budget was £415. His current placement was costing over £1300 a week. Mr B acknowledged that finding a suitable placement was likely to take some time.
7. The Council’s resource panel approved the recommendation to look for supported living accommodation and the Council found three care providers who wanted to assess Mr C for a possible place in their accommodation. Mr C rejected one of these and a second assessment did not go well. At the end of September 2021 Mr B suggested the Council was trying to find a substandard cheaper placement. The Council responded the next day explaining the process and confirming that cost was not a factor: the service provided was based on Mr C’s individual needs. The Council advised Mr B to support Mr C to visit some of the placements offered. The Council also offered a meeting to discuss the issues raised.
8. A meeting took place at the beginning of October 2021. The Council advised Mr C not to make an instant decision as the assessment process was quite lengthy. Mr C’s mother raised concerns about some of the placements not offering sufficient support and that Mr C may be put in risky situations by other residents perhaps buying alcohol.
9. The Council found three more providers who were offering Mr C an assessment. In November 2021 Mr B complained to the Council that the process was a ‘complete disaster’ as no placement had been found and Mr C was very stressed. He said out of six assessments, five had been held and only one visit offered. He requested that the Council considered providers outside of their commissioned list.
10. The Council replied the same day and again explained the assessment process involved several stages. It said the most recent three assessments were still ongoing.
11. At the beginning of December 2021 another provider offered to do an assessment of Mr C with a view to offering a placement. Around this time Mr B asked the Council to stop the assessments. He said they were causing Mr C great distress, were not suitable for Mr C as they were too unstructured without any activities. He said Mr C had been coming home for the whole weekend due to the lack of activities and placements and this was stressful for Mr and Mrs B.
12. In January 2022 the Council chased up one of the providers who had cancelled an assessment due to internal issues but had not rearranged it (Provider Y). It also contacted Provider Z to find out the reasons for his distress and for spending more time at home. Provider Z confirmed nothing had changed, it was a family decision for him to come home at the weekend and the staffing numbers at the accommodation were unchanged and suitable for Mr C’s needs. It confirmed he was doing activities on two days each week.
13. Another provider offered an assessment (Provider X) and the Council liaised with Mr C’s mother explaining what supported living was and that high support could be offered in such accommodation. It confirmed it was looking for a placement with 24 hour support for Mr C.
14. Mr B made a formal complaint about the time the process was taking and said the Council wanted to reduce Mr C’s funding from £1300 a week to £400.
15. At the beginning of February 2022 Mr C had a successful assessment by a new provider and a visit was arranged. The Council chased Provider Y again about rearranging the assessment visit. It said a visit may be possible in three weeks. Mr C said he liked the visit with the Provider X and was keen to move there, but Mr B then raised concerns about its registration and staffing. He again said the Council wanted to save money and dump his son in substandard care. He said the Council had not responded to his request to consider providers outside of the Council’s commissioned list, including Mr C’s current provider who had supported living facilities.
16. The Council replied in mid-February 2022. It said it had considered eight providers, five assessments had been done, one visit and one place had been offered but Mr B had rejected this due to concerns about registration. The Council said it would look further afield once the current list was exhausted. Mr B said Provider Y who had finally offered a rearranged assessment, was no longer suitable as the accommodation was too far away for Mr and Mrs B to drive to, given their deteriorating health. The Council contacted Provider Z to see if they had any suitable supported living placements, even though these were not on the Council’s commissioned list.
17. In March 2022 Provider Z said it did not have any suitable placements. Provider X offered a placement, and the Council said its quality team was going to visit to assess the accommodation in the light of Mr B’s concerns. Two further providers offered assessments, but Mr C tested positive for COVID in April 2022 which caused a short delay.
18. In early May 2022 Provider Z offered visits to two places. Mr C liked one of them. The Council obtained costings which were only slightly less than Mr C’s current provision. The Council noted that in order for Mr C to gain greater independence he will need additional dedicated support to access the community and to participate in meaningful activities. This process is still ongoing.
19. The Council says that it will also chase two other providers, one who offered an assessment and the other who offered a visit.

Analysis

20. I understand the delay in finding a suitable placement is causing Mr C and his family distress. However, I have not found fault in the way the Council has dealt with the situation. It reviewed Mr C’s assessment of need and has acted on Mr C’s wish to move to supported living to give him greater independence. The assessment correctly identifies his needs and includes comments made by Mr B.
21. Within several weeks the Council found three providers and proceeded with the assessments. Following some challenges and concerns raised by Mr B, the Council arranged a meeting to discuss the process in detail and continued to look for suitable placements.
22. In nine months it has had contact with ten providers. One has offered a placement which Mr C liked but Mr B raised concerns. Another placement with his current provider is currently being costed and several assessments are still ongoing. The records show that the Council has regularly chased up providers and looked for new ones. It has also responded to Mr B’s concerns and complaints promptly.
23. The Council has looked further afield once the initial providers proved unsuccessful, and explored whether Provider Z, Mr C current residential provider had any suitable supported living placements. This process is ongoing.
24. I do not agree with Mr B that the Council is trying to save money and look for cheaper accommodation. The evidence shows that the Council is looking for a placement which will meet Mr C’s needs and the costs are comparable. I agree that the indicative budget figure given in the assessment done in August 2021 is misleading. But the Council has explained on several occasions that its search is not resource-driven but led by Mr C’s needs. This is borne out by the recent weekly costings for a possible placement with Provider Z. I would urge the Council to continue its effort to secure an alternative placement for Mr C.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr B or Mr C.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman