Summary: Mr X complains that the Council placed him in an unsuitable care placement and delayed in finding an alternative placement or housing. Mr X also complains the Council failed to protect his property. We consider the Council is not at fault in placing Mr X at the care placement. But the delay in finding another placement for Mr X is service failure and fault. The Council is also at fault for failing to consider its duty to protect Mr X’s property. The faults have caused distress to Mr X which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising to him and making a total payment of £1300. The Council will also draw up an action plan to find alternative accommodation for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:

• placed him in an unsuitable residential placement when he was discharged from hospital;
• delayed in finding an alternative placement for him which will meet his needs.

As a result, Mr X lives in a placement which does not meet his needs, restricts his liberty and means he cannot see his children.

Mr X also complains the Council failed to protect Mr X’s belongings when he was admitted to hospital and then discharged to a residential care home. As a result, Mr X has lost his belongings.

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. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
4. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making decisions on whether or not a body in jurisdiction has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can make decisions about 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
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 Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final 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 also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
8. Local authorities must take all reasonable steps to protect moveable property of and adult with care and support needs who is being care for aware from home I hospital or accommodation such as a care home and who cannot arrange to protect their property themselves. Local authorities must act where it believes that if it does not take action there is a risk of moveable property being lost or damaged. (Section 47 of the Care Act 2014; paragraph 10.88 of the Care and support statutory guidance)

What happened

9. The following is a summary of the key facts relevant to my consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that has happened.
10. Mr X has physical and mental health conditions. In 2021, he was admitted to hospital. In May 2022, he was discharged from hospital to a residential care home which specialises in supporting people with Mr X’s physical health condition. I shall call this care placement A.
11. The Council carried out a Care Act assessment of Mr X’s needs in preparation for his discharge from hospital. The Council’s records show between September 2021 and March 2022 it made enquiries of a number of providers in preparation for his discharge. The Council’s records show the providers declined to offer places as they considered they could not meet Mr X’s needs. The Council also looked for extra care housing for Mr X but there were no vacancies. I understand the Council placed Mr X on the waiting list for extra care housing in his preferred area at this time.
12. In March 2022, care placement A assessed Mr X’s needs and agreed to offer a place. Mr X had a virtual tour of the placement and accepted the place. Mr X said the Council told him that he would only be placed in the care placement A for a month.
13. I understand the Council carried out a review of Mr X’s care in July 2022 which considered him to be settled. Mr X disputes he was settled.
14. In October 2022, Mr X and care placement A raised concerns about the suitability of the placement. Mr X was unhappy as the care home operated a locked door policy for the safety of some of its residents. Mr X considered he could not leave of his own accord and his family could not visit as it was too far for them. He was also disturbed by other residents with more acute needs. Mr X has said the unsuitable placement caused his mental health to deteriorate and he was prescribed anti-depressants.
15. In response to my enquiries, the Council has said staff open the door for Mr X and he is able to access the community independently. So, care placement A’s locked door policy did not prevent Mr X from accessing the community. Mr X considers the policy prevents him from leaving the care placement as he has to wait for staff to open the door.
16. The Council allocated a social worker to Mr X and carried out a Care Act assessment in November 2022. The assessment shows Mr X wanted to live closer to his immediate family so he could see them more and maintain his family relationships. The social worker considered the support level at care placement A was too high for Mr X. He concluded Mr X’s needs could be met in supported housing. The Council’s records show Mr X disagreed with the assessment as he wanted to live independently with a care package.
17. The Council’s records show Mr X’s social worker discussed Mr X’s case with a housing co-ordinator in January 2023. He suggested the social worker considered a community pathways project for people moving from highly supported settings. He also said there was a long wait for social housing and private rented accommodation was difficult to get. Mr X’s social worker explained to Mr X how he could make an application for the housing register in his preferred area.
18. In early February 2023, Mr X’s social worker advised Mr X on how to apply for the pathways project. The Council has said Mr X had a support worker in the care placement who could support him in completing the form. Mr X completed the pathways project application form in early March 2023 with the help of another representative. Mr X’s referral was rejected as the pathway project funding was coming to an end.
19. In early March 2023, Mr X’s social worker reminded Mr X of how to apply for the housing register in his preferred areas. The Council’s records show the social worker referred Mr X to the council in his preferred area to join the housing register. The social worker’s email to Mr X refers to him not wanting to join the housing register due to the waiting lists but he was proposing to make the referral to ensure Mr X was on the housing register. The Council subsequently advised Mr X needed to make his own application.
20. The Council placed Mr X on its supported accommodation broadcast lists. These lists are sent to providers on a weekly basis to source placements. The Council’s records also note its sourcing team contacted three providers. Two declined as they could not meet Mr X’s needs. One offered to assess Mr X but he refused as it was too far from his preferred area.
21. The Council’s records also note it contacted a number of providers between March and June 2023. But none of the providers considered they could meet Mr X’s needs.
22. The Council has said Mr X is still on the waiting list for extra care housing but there were no timescales for when it could make an offer due to the demand.
23. The Council has also said social workers visited Mr X in early July 2023 to offer support for him to apply to the housing register and seek private rented housing. It is also continuing to look for supported housing for Mr X. The Council has said the social workers also advised Mr X of the difficulties in identifying placements and supported living placements in Mr X’s preferred area. Mr X disputes the Council has provided any support for him to apply for the housing register.
24. I understand that care placement A has notified the Council that it can no longer meet Mr X’s needs and has given notice to end his placement.

Protection of property

25. Mr X previously had a tenancy with a local housing authority. Mr X has said the Council refused to protect his property when he relinquished the tenancy so he lost his belongings. Mr X has said his social worker told him the Council was not a storage company. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it did not have any involvement with Mr X when he relinquished his tenancy. Its first contact was with him in June 2021 when he was in hospital. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said Mr X relinquished his tenancy in January 2022. It also said that Mr X’s social worker at the time did not undertake a protection of property visit and the Council assumed Mr X was able to protect his property.

Analysis

Placed Mr X in an unsuitable placement

26. Mr X considers the Council was wrong to place him in care placement A as it was unsuitable for his needs. The Council assessed Mr X’s needs in preparation for his discharge from hospital. So, I consider it was aware of his needs and whether care placement A could meet them. Care placement A is also a specialist placement for people with Mr X’s health condition. I therefore cannot conclude the Council was at fault for offering a place at care placement A to Mr X.
27. I understand Mr X considers the care placement to be unsuitable due to its locked door policy which he considers restricts his liberty and because his family cannot visit. Mr X considers this interferes with his human rights. Although Mr X may have to wait for staff to open the door, he can leave the care placement and access the community independently. The Care Act assessments also show Mr X’s family have visited him. Furthermore, the care placement is not an excessive distance from where Mr X’s family live. I therefore consider the Council has had regard to Mr X’s right to liberty and a family life and it is not at fault.
28. Mr X has said the social worker who offered the place at care placement A told him he would only be there for a month. There is no evidence to show the social worker told Mr X that he would only be at care placement A for a month. Mr X has said there were witnesses to the social worker’s comments. But I do not consider further investigation will establish if the social worker told Mr X that he would only be at care placement A for a month and what the Council’s intentions were. I also do not consider further investigation will achieve anything more for Mr X over and above the recommendations made below.

Delayed in finding alternative accommodation for Mr X

29. The Council decided in December 2022 that care placement A was no longer suitable for Mr X and his needs would be best met in supported housing. The Council has still not found a suitable placement for Mr X in the last 10 months. Councils have a duty to meet a person’s assessed needs so the delay in meeting Mr X’s needs is fault.
30. The evidence shows the Council has contacted a number of supported living providers to find a placement for Mr X without success. I am mindful that one provider offered to assess Mr X for a place. But, on balance, I consider this placement is likely to have been unsuitable as it was a significant distance from Mr X’s family so would not have met his assessed needs. The Council has also placed Mr X on waiting list for extra care housing but he has not received an offer due to the demand on such housing. The Council’s failure to find a suitable supported housing or extra care placement in the last 10 months is due to lack of places which can meet Mr X’s needs. This is outside of the Council’s control and is caused by external factors. But the delay in finding a suitable placement for Mr X is service failure and is fault. As a result, Mr X has lived in a placement which does not meet his assessed needs and which is not a sustainable placement for 10 months.
31. On balance, I consider there is evidence of delay in referring Mr X to the pathway project. The Council was made aware of the pathway project in January 2023 but took a month to notify him of the scheme despite being aware the scheme was due to end. The Council also did not provide sufficient support to Mr X to ensure he could complete the application form before the project ended. The Council has said Mr X had a support worker at care placement A to assist in completing the form. But there is no evidence to show the Council checked if Mr X was being supported with completing the form or could complete it himself. The submission of the application form was time critical given the project was coming to an end. I therefore consider the Council should have provided support to Mr X to enable him to submit the application form before the pathway project stopped accepting applications.
32. Mr X’s preference is to move into his own housing with a care package. The Council’s records show a social worker made enquiries about what other housing options were available for Mr X. But I do not consider the Council provided sufficient support to Mr X to pursue these options and this is fault. The Council notified Mr X that he could apply for the housing register and made a duty referral for him. But it did not provide support for Mr X to make the application when the housing authority did not accept the referral. There is also no evidence to show the Council provided support to Mr X to find private rented accommodation. There is no evidence to show the Council checked Mr X could make an application to the housing register or find his own private rented accommodation without support. On balance, this is fault.
33. I cannot say, on balance, that the Council would have found suitable housing for Mr X even if it had provided support to him with applying for the pathways project, housing register and in finding private rented housing. I cannot know if the pathways project would have accepted Mr X’s application and provided housing. Mr X has not been consistent in wanting to apply for the housing register. Mr X is also seeking accommodation in a limited geographical area which inevitably limits the supply of available social housing and private rented accommodation. But the lack of support will have caused some distress to Mr X which the Council should remedy.

Failure to protect Mr X’s property

34. The Council’s responses to my enquiries and Mr X’s complaint are contradictory as to when Mr X relinquished its tenancy and its involvement. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint suggests it was supporting Mr X at the time he relinquished his tenancy. Mr X has also suggested the Council was supporting him at that time. I therefore consider, on balance, that the Council was supporting Mr X when he relinquished his tenancy.
35. The Council has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect moveable property when a person is cared for away from home. Mr X was in hospital at the time he relinquished his tenancy and the Council was assessing his needs. The Council should therefore have considered its duty to take steps to protect his property. There is no evidence to show it did so and this is fault. It is likely this fault contributed to the loss of Mr X’s property. However, it is not appropriate or proportionate to recommend the Council reimburses Mr X for the costs of his belongings. I cannot know what belongings were lost and their value. It is also likely Mr X would have had to pay towards the storage of his belongings if the Council had stored them. But the failure to take reasonable steps to protect Mr X’s belongings will have caused distress to him.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. That the Council will:
1. send a written apology to Mr X for the distress caused to him by living in a care placement which no longer meets his needs, the failure to provide adequate support to Mr X in applying for housing and failure to take reasonable steps to protect his property. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. make a symbolic payment of £500 for the distress caused to Mr X by living in a placement which does not fully meet his needs.
3. make a symbolic payment of £300 for the distress caused by the failure to support Mr X with applying for housing including the pathways project.
4. make a symbolic payment of £500 for the distress caused by the failure to take reasonable action to protect his property.
5. draw up an action plan for seeking an alternative placement or housing for Mr X. The plan should set out the action it will take to seek an alternative placement or housing for Mr X, including exploring all options, the support it will provide for Mr X and timescales for the action to be taken. The Council should share the action plan with Mr X to ensure he is fully aware of the action it will take to find an alternative placement or housing for Mr X.
6. review what support it provides people who are supported by adult social care to find alternative care placements or housing to ensure they are sufficiently supported in finding placements.
7. by training or other means, ensure social workers and other relevant staff are aware of the Council’s duty under section 47 of the Care Act 2014 to take reasonable action to protect property.
37. The Council should take the action at a) to e) within one month of my final decision. It should take the action at f) and g) within two months of my final decision.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

39. Fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman