Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s failure to identify a suitable long-term supported living placement which appropriately meets his assessed care and support needs. We find some fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mr Y. However, we also note the complexity of Mr Y’s needs and several factors which have limited the Council’s ability to progress the case.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has delayed significantly when arranging the necessary support to meet his social care and housing needs after he moved into the Council’s area.
2. He says the Council’s failures have significantly affected his physical and mental wellbeing, as well as his Human Rights.

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 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)
4. 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

5. During my investigation I discussed the complaint with Mr Y by telephone and considered any written information he provided.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. This included an independent review arranged by the Council for Mr Y’s case.
7. I consulted the relevant law and guidance which is referenced in this statement.
8. Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

Adult social care

9. 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.
10. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.

Section 6 of the Care Act 2014

11. Section 6(4)(b) of the Care Act 2014 places a duty on councils to ensure
    co-operation with housing. Paragraph 15.23 of the Care and Support Statutory Guidance’ (CSSG) says, “Local authorities must make arrangements to ensure co-operation between its officers responsible for adult care and support, housing, public health and children’s services” and paragraph 15.24 says, “… it is important that local authority officers responsible for housing work in co-operation with adult care and support, given that housing and suitability of living accommodation play a significant role in supporting a person to meet their needs and can help to delay that person’s deterioration”.

Human Rights

12. The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to including: the right to life, freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, liberty and security of person, a fair hearing, respect for private and family life, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from forced labour, and education.
13. The HRA requires all local authorities - and other bodies carrying out public functions - to respect and protect individuals’ rights. Not all rights operate in the same way. Instead, they break down into three separate categories.
• Absolute rights: those which cannot be taken away under any circumstances.
• Limited rights: those that can be taken away in certain circumstances.
• Qualified rights: those rights where interference may be justified to protect the rights of others or wider public interest. Note that any interference with a qualified right must be in accordance with the law; in pursuit of a legitimate aim; no more than necessary to achieve the intended objective; and must not be arbitrary or unfair.
14. Our remit does not extend to making decisions on whether or not a body in jurisdiction has breached the Human Rights Act (1998) – this can only be done by the courts. But we can decide whether or not a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in their treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
15. We consider Article 8 of the HRA: ‘right to respect for your private life, your family life, your home and your correspondence’ is engaged during the matters complained about.

Summary of key background events

16. This section will revisit the key background events relevant to Mr Y’s complaint. It is not intended to be a complete chronology of everything experienced by Mr Y.
17. Mr Y has significant care and support needs arising from both his physical and mental health needs. Risk assessments complete by professionals show that Mr Y sometimes displays challenging and risky behaviours. Mr Y is considered to have mental capacity to make decisions about his care and support.
18. In January 2022 Mr Y’s mother contacted the Council. She said Mr Y had moved into the area from a neighbouring authority and needed accommodation. At this time Mr Y was living with her mother on a temporary basis.
19. The Council met with Mr Y five weeks later to start a Care Act assessment. During the assessment Mr Y explained that he wanted a placement in supported accommodation due to his inability to live independently.
20. Four days later the allocated social worker completed the assessment and decided that Mr Y needed accommodation in a supported living setting with the highest level of 24-hour support with provision on a 2:1 basis.
21. Around one month after completing the assessment, the Council completed an action plan outlining its recommendations. It sent this to the Positive Living Options (PLO) team to be discussed at an upcoming allocations forum. In the meantime, the social worker told Mr Y the Council could arrange a package of support to be delivered at his mother’s house whilst a long-term placement was arranged. Mr Y agreed in principle but said he did not wish to pay for it.
22. The social worker explained the Council needed to assess Mr Y’s finances to determine how much he could afford to contribute towards the cost of his care and support. On 7 April the social worker visited Mr Y to complete the financial assessment. The case records show that Mr Y refused to allow entry to the social worker. Later that day, the Council consulted a potential accommodation provider for Mr Y. However, this was not successful.
23. The following day the Council consulted two further providers. Both confirmed they did not have any vacancies in the Council’s area, but possibly had availability further afield.
24. On 15 April – which was a bank holiday due to the Easter weekend – Mr Y informed the Council he was no longer living with his mother and was homeless. Mr Y asked for emergency accommodation.
25. The emergency duty team (EDT) contacted the neighbouring local housing authority. The records suggest the housing authority refused to assist Mr Y due to his high social care needs. The EDT suggested that Mr Y go to a hotel, but Mr Y said he could not afford to do so.
26. Mr Y called the Council the next day to again ask for support. The Council told him to contact the neighbouring council’s housing department to present as homeless. Mr Y called the Council again to say the housing department refused to speak with him and that he did not want to go to a hostel. The Council asked Mr Y where he was, but he would not say.
27. The social worker contacted Mr Y upon their return to work. Mr Y said he had been sleeping on the streets over the weekend and ended up in hospital. Mr Y said the hospital did not support him with his accommodation needs before discharge. At this point Mr Y said he would consider living outside of the Council’s area.
28. Mr Y went to the hospital again with leg pain. The Council’s records show Mr Y was seen by the hospital’s mental health team. Mr Y was seen to have money. He was deemed medically fit for discharge and advised to contact social services for ongoing support.
29. The Council spoke with a manager in the neighbouring council’s housing authority. They explained their view that Mr Y could not be housed in shared accommodation with other residents due to safety concerns. They agreed to refer Mr Y’s case to a local provider of hostel accommodation who house single homeless people with support needs.
30. Mr Y attended an assessment for a placement at the hostel on 22 April. The provider said it did not have a vacancy but may be able to offer Mr Y a room at another local facility with shared dining facilities and three meals per day.
31. Following completion of the assessment, the hostel provider confirmed it could not house Mr Y due to the nature of the building and the inability to keep him and others safe. The social worker told Mr Y that his verbal aggression was a barrier to him receiving emergency housing.
32. The social worker spoke to Mr Y’s mother who confirmed that Mr Y had received his monthly welfare benefits but did not confirm his location. The social worker messaged Mr Y to ask for updates on his location and whether he had access to money and food. The social worker reminded Mr Y that the Council needed to assess his finances, but Mr Y again refused.
33. One of the accommodation providers previously contacted by the Council confirmed on 29 April that they could not accommodate Mr Y. The Council re-referred Mr Y’s case to its PLO team for discussion at the allocations forum, but this failed again due to Mr Y’s high support needs.
34. The Council received notification on 7 June that Mr Y had returned to live with his mother. The records show the Council continued to contact housing providers throughout June. Mr Y’s mother also returned the financial paperwork on Mr Y’s behalf.
35. On 4 July the Council emailed Mr Y and again suggested the possibility of receiving domiciliary care. Mr Y did not respond.
36. Later that month, Mr Y’s social worker suggested a re-assessment of Mr Y’s needs. The Council thought this may have been beneficial in opening up further housing options for Mr Y. This was following a discussion with Mr Y’s mother who said he no longer posed a risk to her, or her partner. The Council also felt that Mr Y had displayed a level of independence whilst homeless. Mr Y declined to participate in a re-assessment.
37. Mr Y requested a new social worker on 21 July. The social worker noted their view that a change in worker at this stage would not be beneficial. The Council encouraged Mr Y to remain working with the social worker, but he refused.
38. The Council continued to consult with potential providers for Mr Y, but these were not successful. The Council suggested that Mr Y could place bids for privately rented properties.
39. On 11 August an advocate contacted the Council on Mr Y’s behalf to ask whether a new social worker had been allocated. The Council confirmed on 5 September that Mr Y was on a re-allocation list. A new social worker was allocated to Mr Y’s case on 14 September.
40. The Council received confirmation that Mr Y’s advocate ended their involvement in September. The new social worker spoke with Mr Y and asked whether he agreed to the Council making a referral for a new advocate. Mr Y declined because he felt he was able to express his own views and wishes.
41. In the meantime, Mr Y’s mother suggested a care agency for the Council to approach. The social worker contacted the agency in mid-October who said their only available placement was in London and that Mr Y would need to undergo assessment. The Council initially expressed some concerns about the distance of the placement from home, as well as the available room being on the second floor without lift access.
42. On 13 October the Council again offered to look at providing a package of domiciliary care to meet Mr Y’s needs whilst living with his mother, but Mr Y declined.
43. The Council re-assessed Mr Y and sent a copy of the assessment on 7 November. This recommended a mental health rehabilitation placement with round the clock support. Mr Y did not suggest any amendments.
44. The Council contacted the provider again on 1 December to further discuss the placement in London. The provider confirmed on 5 December that the place had been filled by another resident.
45. Mr Y reiterated that he wished to live outside of borough and asked the Council to continue looking at placements other than in Lancashire. In early 2023, the Council continued to consult providers nationally.
46. One provider agreed to assess Mr Y on 1 February. When the assessment took place, the provider declined to offer support due to an inability to manage Mr Y’s behaviour and maintain the safety of other residents.
47. The Council identified another provider who completed a telephone assessment on 14 March. Mr Y also visited the placement on 23 March. The provider confirmed they had availability and could offer a placement to Mr Y. The Council’s records show Mr Y refused to accept the offer because he felt unable to share bathroom facilities with other residents.
48. The Council contacted another eight providers between March and April. The providers either did not have vacancies, failed to respond to the Council or confirmed they could not meet Mr Y’s needs.
49. In April the Council identified a mental rehabilitation unit. Due to the nature of Mr Y’s needs, the placement was joint funded with the NHS. Consequently, the funding application took around three weeks to approve. Mr Y moved to the unit on 12 July.
50. During his first night at the unit, Mr Y emailed the social worker to say his room was dirty and that staff were checking on him every 15 minutes. After two days the checks reduced to one each hour, which the provider said was the minimum and least restrictive frequency of checks due to the unit’s policy.
51. Mr Y felt the unit was not appropriate for him and the Council agreed to find another placement. On 21 July Mr Y’s social worker contacted another provider who confirmed they had space and would make the necessary arrangements to support Mr Y’s move there.
52. Mr Y moved to a residential care placement on 28 July. His social worker visited on 15 August to undertake a review. Mr Y some residents were volatile and aggressive in their nature. He reiterated similar concerns in a telephone call two days later and asked to be moved to self-contained supported living accommodation. The Council continued to contact providers between August and October 2023.
53. Mr Y moved back to live with his mother on a temporary basis from 11 October. Since then, the Council has consulted a further nine providers. In response to the draft decision, the Council confirmed that it located another placement in independent supporting living in October 2023. The provider agreed it could meet Mr Y’s needs, but after a visit Mr Y said the accommodation did not meet his expectations. The Council says it remains in regular contact with Mr Y
54. At the time of writing this statement, Mr Y remains living with his mother..

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr Y?

55. We find fault with the Council for the following reasons:
• The independent review commissioned by the Council found the first social worker allocated to Mr Y’s case lacked professional curiosity when assessing Mr Y’s care and support needs. This was acknowledged by a senior officer during interview. The first assessment completed in February 2022 identified that Mr Y had the highest level of needs requiring 24-hour support. This was reviewed in July and the level of support was downgraded. Had Mr Y’s needs been more accurately reflected in the first assessment, the Council may have had more success in finding an appropriate placement sooner. This fault therefore creates uncertainty.
• There is no evidence to show how the Council kept Mr Y’s advocacy needs under review between February and August 2022. Although we know that Mr Y’s mother sometimes made contact on his behalf, this was not always the case. The records show Mr Y had an advocate in August 2022 and then refused one thereafter. The Council should have considered whether it needed to appoint someone before August to help support and advocate for Mr Y.
• There was unexplainable delay between October and December 2022 which meant that a vacancy in London was filled by another resident. Mr Y had expressed a preference to move out of area and the Council had some concerns, but noted the placement may have been suitable. The delay meant the Council and Mr Y lost the opportunity to consider the suitability of the placement any further. There is uncertainty because we do not know whether Mr Y could have moved there, had the Council maintained communication with the provider.
• The records show a lack of joined-up and collaborative planning between the Council and the neighbouring council’s housing authority. Although there were some email exchanges and phone calls between the two authorities, there is no evidence of any MDT meetings and neither service area took the lead. Communication was not always clear, and some confusion arose about a potential bed and breakfast placement when the Council sent a poorly worded email. Had the Council worked more closely with the housing authority, Mr Y may have had a greater chance of receiving emergency housing in 2022.
• There is no evidence to show the Council always had due regard to Mr Z’s right to have respect for his private and family life. We consider Article 8 of the Human Rights Act was engaged because Mr Y was not accommodated for longer than necessary which, for the reasons explained above, had a significant impact on the enjoyment of his private and family life.
56. In the Council’s mitigation, we also note the following key factors:
• Mr Y’s case is complex. He has significant needs and requires a high level of support. The records show that, despite the Council’s efforts to source provision, many providers felt they could not meet Mr Y’s needs.
• Mr Y does not want to settle in the Council’s area. This further limited the options available to the Council because it can only consider out of area placements.
• Mr Y sometimes displays challenging behaviour when speaking with professionals working on his case. This has sometimes hindered positive progression. Furthermore, Mr Y has sometimes displayed this behaviour when speaking with providers which has resulted in his assessments for placements being unsuccessful.
• Mr Y is sometimes reluctant to cooperate with professionals. At times he has refused to participate in reviews or provide information about his finances which added to the delay. He also refused to tell his allocated social worker the location of his whereabouts when he told the Council he was street homeless.
• Mr Y told the Council he did not want to receive domiciliary care whilst living with his mother. Although I understand the reasons why this may not have been suitable for Mr Y, the injustice could have been reduced had he accepted some temporary support from an agency until his long-term needs were met.
• The Council complained about has social care duties but is not a housing authority. It was therefore unable to arrange emergency interim accommodation for Mr Y under the Housing Act. We cannot make any findings about a failure to accommodate Mr Y as a homeless person; we can only consider the Council’s social care responsibilities.
• The Council identified a placement in March 2023 which it considered to be suitable for Mr Y. He declined the offer because the room did not have an en-suite bathroom. Mr Y did not have an assessed need for a private bathroom. In the Council’s professional judgement, the room was suitable for Mr Y despite it not meeting his preferences. The Council has since identified another available placement which it says was suitable, but Mr Y declined to consider it.
• Mr Y has specific requirements which he feels must be met. There have been times when the Council considers it could discharge its social care duties, but Mr Y has refused to accept what is offered to him. In the interests of being person-centred, the Council may have regard to Mr Y’s preferences, however its duty is to meet Mr Y’s identified social care needs. The failure to meet a preference is not fault.
• Mr Y’s current social worker has a positive relationship with Mr Y and the records show they have continued to proactively liaise with Mr Y and contact potential providers of accommodation.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Make a payment of £500 to Mr Y. This is a symbolic payment in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by the fault identified in this statement;
• Many of the providers contacted throughout October 2023 did not respond to the Council. The Council should provide evidence to show it has pursued any providers recently consulted who have not responded in order to ascertain whether they have vacancies and can meet Mr Y’s needs;
• Continue to maintain regular contact with Mr Y to keep him updated with the Council’s search for an appropriate placement; and
• Provide evidence showing what service improvements the Council will make to ensure that cases – such as Mr Y’s – which engage both the services of housing and social care are progressed appropriately and collaboratively. This could be in the form of a briefing paper, staff training or updated guidance.
58. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice for the reasons explained in this statement. The remedial actions listed above will provide an appropriate remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman