Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of Mr Y about how the Council has dealt with his request for an alternative placement. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reviewed Mr Y’s care needs and dealt his request to move to an alternative placement. The Council is at fault as it delayed in responding to Ms X’s complaint but this did not cause significant injustice to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of Mr Y. She complains that the Council:

• delayed in carrying out a Care Act assessment to asses Mr Y’s needs and determine where he wants to live;
• carried out an inadequate Care Act assessment;
• failed to consider all options for alternative accommodation for Mr Y;
• failed to involve Ms X and her family in considering Mr Y’s needs and establishing the options for Mr Y’s alternative accommodation;
• delayed in dealing with Ms X’s complaint.

2. As a result Mr Y has not moved to the area where he wants to live. The delays have also put Ms X to avoidable time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

5. 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

6. I have:

• considered the complaint and the information provided by Ms X;
• discussed the issues with Ms X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• invited Ms X and the Council to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

7. 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 be person centred and involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
8. Councils should regularly review care and support plans to ensure they are up to date. The review process should be person centred and proportionate to the needs to be met. (Paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2 of the Care and Support Statutory Guidance)
9. The Council’s procedure for Adult Social Care complaints provides it should respond to complaints about adult services within 20 working days.

What happened

10. Mr Y is an adult and has autism spectrum disorder and a learning disability. He lives in a shared lives placement some distance from Ms X and other family members.
11. In March 2021 a referral was made to adult social care as Mr Y wanted to move to town A to be closer to Ms X and other family as he was feeling isolated. The Council’s records show officer 1, a social worker met with Mr Y’s carers and then with Mr Y to review Mr Y’s needs and discuss why he wanted to move. The record notes Mr Y wanted to move to town A to be nearer to family and he wanted to live in shared accommodation. The Council has said the discussions were primarily about Mr Y’s desire to move rather than his needs as they were not in dispute.
12. The Council appointed an independent advocate for Mr Y to explore his wishes. This was because there were different views between family members as to where he should live and it was concerned that Mr Y may be influenced by his family members different views. In June 2021, following several meetings with Mr Y, the advocate informed officer 1 that Mr Y was happy in his current placement. But he would like to move to town A as he thought there would be more social opportunities.
13. The Council’s records show the social worker contacted three supported housing providers. Two providers informed officer 1 that they did not have vacancies in the area and did not expect any to arise. The third provider advised it may have a vacancy in a shared house in a few months in a nearby town. Officer 1 asked the provider to put Mr Y on the waiting list for the vacancy.
14. Officer 2, Mr Y’s shared lives social worker, advised officer 1 that a shared lives placement was available in a town close to town A. The Council’s records show it arranged for Mr Y to view the placement. The records note officer 2’s view that it would be better for Mr Y to view the placement without family present so officers could get his views on the placement. The Council would then arrange for other family members to view the placement.
15. Officer 2 and Mr Y’s advocate reported that Mr Y’s visit had gone well and he liked the placement. The Council started to arrange for Ms X and family members to visit the placement. Ms X subsequently contacted the Council to advise Mr Y had changed his mind about the shared lives placement and did not want to move to it.
16. Officer 1 asked Mr Y’s advocate to meet with him to establish his wishes, including the supported housing placement as there were no placements in town A. She also continued to pursue the supported housing placement. Mr Y’s advocate then notified her that Mr Y only wanted to move to town A.
17. In October 2021, officer 1 met with Mr Y and his advocate to review where he wanted to live. The review notes Mr Y was keen to visit the supported housing placement and officer 1 would arrange for the provider to assess if they could meet his needs. Mr Y then said he did not want the placement as he wanted to live in town A. The Council’s records show officer 1 decided to close Mr Y’s case as he had been offered two potential placements and there were no vacancies in town A. The record notes Mr Y’s current placement met his needs and he was happy living there. Mr Y could contact the Council’s duty desk if he needed more assistance.
18. In November 2021 Mr Y’s advocate contacted officer 2. The advocate advised that he had discussed Mr Y’s assessment with him, noted his needs were being met in his current placement but his goal was to move to town A. He also explained to Mr Y that he could contact the duty social worker if his needs changed.
19. In March 2022 the Council received a new referral from Mr Y’s advocate as Mr Y wanted to move. The advocate asked the Council to provide details of the supported housing provider. The Council’s records show a social worker was asked to revisit the shared lives options with him. The Council’s records also noted that it understood there were still no vacancies in town A.
20. I understand Mr Y and his advocate were due to visit the supported housing placement in July 2022.

Complaint

21. Ms X made a complaint to the Council in late September 2021. Her complaint included concerns that the Council had failed to carry out an assessment of Mr Y’s needs and seek her and other family member’s views and it had made no attempt to find a placement in town A for Mr Y. The Council could not initially open the letter so it asked Ms X to resend it.
22. In early October 2021 the Council sought Mr Y’s consent for Ms X to make a complaint on his behalf. The Council responded to the complaint on 15 October 2021. It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint.
23. Ms X notified the Council that she was unhappy with its response but did not escalate the complaint. On 20 October the Council decided it should be escalated for a final review. The Council issued its response on 24 December 2021. It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint.
24. Ms X considered the Council has not been transparent when looking for an alternative placement for Mr Y and had not consulted her. She also considers the review of Mr Y’s needs to be inadequate. I asked the Council to explain how it had consulted Ms X when carrying out Mr Y’s care act assessment. The Council has said:

• Mr Y’s needs had not changed since his care act assessment. The issue was Mr Y wanted to move so the level of involvement was proportionate to the need to check and update information.
• Best practice is to meet with the service user first to understand who they want to be involved and whether advocacy is needed. Officer 1 met with Mr Y and his shared lives carers as they were best placed to give insight into his needs as they support him daily.
• It became clear there were disagreements between family members so an independent advocate was appropriate to support Mr Y in the assessment process.
• Officer 1 received communication from Mr Y’s family members during the information gathering process for the assessment so was clear about their views.
• Officer 1’s view was that a meeting with all parties would not be beneficial to Mr Y, and enabling him to express his views independently of the family gave the best chance of ensuring a person centred approach and outcome.

Analysis

Review of Mr Y’s care assessment

25. Ms X has complained of a delay in the Council carrying out a review of Mr Y’s care needs. The Council’s records show it carried out the review within six weeks of the referral for Mr Y. So, I am satisfied there is no evidence of significant delay.
26. Mr Y was referred for a review of his care needs as he wanted to move. There is no evidence to show concerns were raised about a change in his care needs. It was therefore appropriate and proportionate for the Council to carry out a review of Mr Y’s care needs, rather than a reassessment, and to focus on his request to move.
27. There is also no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision not to consult Ms X during the review. Care Act assessments and care plans must be person centred so it was appropriate for the Council to focus on establishing Mr Y’s wishes. The Council was aware of the differing views between Mr Y’s family members and could take these into account but its key role was to establish Mr Y’s wishes.

Alternative placements

28. The Council’s records show it took action to find an alternative placement for Mr Y in and close to town A. It made enquiries with providers and this included supported housing as well as a shared lives placement. Mr Y had expressed a preference for shared accommodation so I consider the Council made appropriate enquiries to find placements in accordance with his preference. The Council offered two placements to Mr Y. I am mindful these placements were not in town A but the Council’s ability to source alternative placements was constrained by what was available. The placements offered to Mr Y were in areas close to town A. I therefore do not consider there is fault by the Council as it has taken appropriate action to find alternative placements for MrY.
29. Ms X is concerned that the Council did not consult family members on the options under consideration and placements offered. I do not consider the Council to be at fault as it needed to consider Mr Y’s wishes and establish his views on the placements. I note the Council offered to arrange for family members to view the placements after Mr Y’s initial visit.
30. The Council closed Mr Y’s case after he declined the two placements. On balance, I do not consider it is at fault in doing so. The Council had taken appropriate action to source placements, offered the available placements and there were no placements in town A. There is no evidence to show Mr Y’s placement was not meeting his needs and he was able to contact the Council again if he wanted to pursue the move further. So, I am satisfied there is no fault in how the Council made its decision to close Mr Y’s case at that time.
31. I note the Council’s records show a social worker was asked to revisit Mr Y’s options following his advocate’s referral of March 2022. There is no evidence to show the action taken but it is not proportionate to pursue this matter further. Mr Y’s advocate has been exploring Mr Y’s options so, even if there was fault by the Council, there is no significant injustice to Mr Y to warrant pursuing the matter further.

Complaint

32. The Council took two months to respond to Ms X’s complaint from when it decided to escalated it. This is fault as the Council’s policy is to respond to complaints within 20 working days. I am mindful the delay will have caused some frustration to Ms X. But this is not significant enough injustice to warrant a remedy from the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

33. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reviewed Mr Y’s care needs and dealt his request to move to an alternative placement. The Council is at fault as it delayed in responding to Ms X’s complaint but this did not cause significant injustice to Ms X. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman