Summary: Mr X is a vulnerable young person living in a shared lives placement. Mr Z complained, on Mr X’s behalf, the Council failed to properly support Mr X and prioritise his care needs. We have found fault by the Council in: failing to properly consider whether Mr X should have an Education Health and Care needs assessment and the additional support he might need; its delays in responding to a request for respite care; and making a health referral and a benefits claim, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Mr X and Mrs Z, making payments to reflect the upset caused and reporting on the impact of the delay with the benefits claim.

The complaint

1. I am calling the complainant Mr X. His representative, Mr Z, has brought Mr X’s complaint to us on his behalf. Mr Z’s mother, Mrs Z, is Mr X’s shared lives carer.
2. Mr Z complains the Council has failed to support Mr X adequately, as a vulnerable young person, and properly prioritise his care and support needs. Mr Z says the Council:
1. failed to ensure Mr X had the support he needed to access education;
2. failed to arrange an assessment of his learning disabilities;
3. delayed assessing his care needs and putting an appropriate care and support plan in place;
4. failed to make a referral for his Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) issues;
5. delayed claims for all the benefits to which he is entitled; and
6. delayed approving, and unreasonably refused, expenditure requests.
3. Mr Z wants the Council to provide Mr X with the support and money to which he is entitled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mr Z, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr Z and the Council provided about the complaint.
9. I invited Mr Z and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Education health and care needs assessment

10. Councils have duties to provide support for children and young people with special educational needs (SEN). This includes carrying out education, health and care (EHC) needs assessments. (Children and Families Act 2014).
11. An EHC needs assessment is an assessment of a child or young person’s EHC needs. It may lead to an EHC plan setting out additional support or funding for a child or young person with SEN.
12. A request to a council for an EHC assessment may be made by a parent, young person, school or college.

Shared lives scheme

13. This is an alternative to traditional social care accommodation and support for adults. Users who cannot live independently receive care and support from ordinary family households. Shared lives carers are paid a fee to cover rent, household costs and care and support provided to service users.
14. A council will carry out an adult social care assessment before deciding a shared lives placement is appropriate. It will then monitor the placement to ensure the adult’s outcomes are being met.

What happened

15. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Complaint background

16. Mr X arrived in the UK as a child in February 2020. He was placed in the Council’s care under a scheme which allowed unaccompanied children to come and live safely in the UK.
17. Mr X has been living with Mrs Z since 2020. Although he turned 18 in March 2020, because of his additional needs, the Council arranged an extended foster care placement with Mrs Z. When this ended, the Council transferred this to a shared lives placement.

2020 to July 2021: assessments and educational support

18. When he was first placed in the Council’s care Mr X was referred to its virtual school, which oversees and supports the educational progress of looked after children. They advised Mr X had complex health needs and an EHC needs assessment should be completed once an appropriate college place was identified.
19. In July 2020, Mr X was referred by the Council’s care leavers’ team to its progression to adulthood team.
20. A place for Mr X at a local college was arranged. He started an English as a Second Language (ESOL) course there in September 2020.
21. In July 2021, the progression to adulthood team completed an assessment for Mr X. This noted:

• He was attending his ESOL course at college three days a week and appeared to be enjoying this. His tutors had not raised any concerns; and
• The college said Mr X did not meet the threshold for an EHC plan. It could meet his special educational needs without this.

September 2021 to October 2022: Mr X’s transition to shared lives scheme

22. The Council began Mr X’s transition from foster care to the shared lives scheme. Mrs Z was approved as his shared lives carer.
23. The Council noted in May 2022, Mr X’s college had advised it could meet Mr X’s educational needs and it was likely he would not meet the threshold for an EHC plan.
24. The progression to adulthood team completed a further assessment in August 2022. This noted Mr X was due to return to college in September 2022.
25. Mr X’s shared lives placement was formally confirmed in October 2022.

September 2021 to July 2022: Mr X’s benefit claims

26. The Council applied for personal independence payments (PIPs) for Mr X in September 2021. These were awarded at the standard rate. The Council appealed this decision and asked for payments at the enhanced rate.
27. The Council claimed universal credit for Mr X from June 2022.
28. In July 2022, following the appeal, Mr X was awarded PIPs at the enhanced rate. This was backdated to 2020 and Mr X received a significant amount as a back payment.
29. Mr X was assessed as not having capacity to manage his finances. The Council arranged for its client finance and asset management team to manage his finances and benefit claims. This team works with Mr X and Mrs Z, as his carer, to arrange funds for his day-to-day expenditure. The team also considers whether to approve other expenditure requests.

January 2023: Mr X’s support plan

30. As part of the shared lives placement agreement, in January 2023 the Council completed an individual support plan for Mr X. This said Mr X:

• found it difficult to communicate in some situations. He needed support from someone who knew him;
• was not able to read or write;
• had limited vision; and
• had refused to go back to college in September 2022, although Mr Z had arranged a place for him. Mr X wanted to work but this hadn’t been explored with him yet.

February 2023: complaint to the Council

31. Mr Z complained the Council had failed to:

• arrange appropriate educational support for Mr X. It did not ask for an EHC needs assessment and Mr X did not receive support at college;
• provide Mr X with proper financial support. It had not claimed all the appropriate benefits for him;
• respond to expenditure requests. It had delayed responding to Mr X’s request for the release of funds from his account to visit his family in another country;
• arrange a hospital referral for Mr X’s ENT issues; and
• put an appropriate support plan in place for Mr X with arrangements for respite care. Mrs Z had had to postpone a holiday because there was no support for Mr X while she was away.

The Council’s response

32. In its complaint response the Council said:

• It was the college’s responsibility to ask for an EHC needs assessment for Mr X if it thought this was necessary. Mr X’s social workers had made referrals to a number of Council and NHS services for a learning disabilities assessment for Mr X but these requests had been declined. They were now considering a private assessment;
• There had been a delay with Mr X’s universal credit claim and issues with access to Mr X’s funds but these had now been addressed;
• Mr X’s request for funds to visit his family in another country was not straightforward. There might be difficulties for Mr X re-entering that country and then returning to the UK. As a vulnerable young adult his request needed to be explored further and his capacity to make this decision assessed;
• It accepted there was no evidence of any referral for Mr X’s ENT issues. This had now been made by Mr X’s GP and followed up by Mr X’s caseworker;
• It completed a care assessment for Mr X in 2021. This identified his care needs could be met through a shared lives placement, which it then arranged with Mrs Z; and
• It was now reviewing the shared lives plan to determine what other support Mr X might need. Mr X’s caseworker had talked to him about his wish to work and discussed this with a career start project worker. It did not accept it had not properly prioritised Mr X’s needs and requests.

33. Mr Z was not happy with the Council’s response and brought the complaint to us.

What has happened since Mr Z’s complaint to us

34. The Council reviewed Mr Z’s care and support plan in July 2023. This recorded:

• Mr X had been assessed as lacking capacity to manage his finances and these were being managed by the client finance and asset team;
• Mr X refused to return to college to learn English. He did not want to engage in recreational activities. Although he said he wanted a job there had been no progress with this and the language barrier would be an issue;
• All he wanted to do was go back to visit his family. But there were concerns about difficulties Mr X might then face returning to the UK; and
• It was agreed his case worker would try to arrange a private learning disabilities assessment. A mental capacity assessment of his ability to understand the possible consequences of a visit to his family would be conducted, and the ENT referral followed up.

35. The Council has told us:

• It has now arranged respite care. Mrs Z has used this a number of times;
• A hospital appointment was booked for Mr X following the ENT referral;
• Mr X’s focus in recent months has been a trip to see his family. This has been arranged and he is currently in another country visiting his family; and
• When Mr X returns it will review plans for a privately funded learning disabilities assessment and support to prepare Mr X for work in a paid or therapeutic role.

My view – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

(a &b) Educational support and assessment of Mr X’s learning disabilities

36. The virtual school told the Council it should complete an assessment of Mr X’s EHC needs once a college place was arranged for him. But the Council appears to have overlooked this.
37. And in my view the Council was wrong to say in its complaint response it was up to the college to make the request for an EHC needs assessment. A request can be made by a school or college or a parent or carer.
38. It is accepted Mr X has some learning disability. I note the college considered his needs did not meet the threshold for an EHC plan. But while it was responsible for Mr X’s care, the Council, in my view, should have considered for itself whether there should be an assessment of Mr X’s EHC needs.
39. I have not seen any information to show the Council properly considered the virtual school’s advice and whether it should arrange an EHC needs assessment when Mr X started college in September 2020. My view is this failure to do so was fault.
40. Because of this fault, Mr X missed the opportunity to have his EHC needs assessed while he was at college. I can’t say what the outcome of the assessment would have been and whether this would have led to additional support for Mr X being provided through an EHC plan. But this was an important opportunity to have missed, as confirmed by the difficulties the Council is now facing in trying to arrange a learning disabilities assessment for Mr X as a young person no longer in education.

(c) Reviews of Mr X’s care and support plan

41. Assessments of Mr X’s needs and support plan were carried out in July 2021, August 2022 and January 2023. But even though the Council knew by January 2023 Mr X was no longer attending college there is no record of any discussion with him or Mrs Z’s family about the provision of support for Mr X to engage in education, work, training or any other activity.
42. The Council should have been monitoring Mr X’s placement to ensure his outcomes were being met. Based on the information seen, my view is it failed to properly monitor Mr X’s progress after the review in August 2022 and failed to properly consider what additional support he might need when he refused to go back to college in September 2022. In my view this failure was fault.
43. The concerns about Mr X’s lack of meaningful day-to-day activities were not, in my view, properly addressed until after Mr Z’s complaint to the Council. Because of this, Mr X missed the opportunity to have his support needs properly considered sooner.
44. I also consider there was delay by the Council in responding to Mrs Z’s request for respite care. This has now been arranged but I consider the delay was fault which caused Mrs Z frustration and upset.

(d) Referral for Mr X’s ENT issues

45. The Council has accepted it failed to follow this up properly. This was fault and delayed Mr X’s access to a hospital appointment for assessment of his ENT issues. The Council has put this right by following up the referral and Mr X now has an appointment. But I consider the delay caused him unnecessary upset.

(e) Mr X’s benefit claims

46. I haven’t seen any information showing the Council has failed to claim any benefits to which Mr X is entitled. But it has accepted there was some initial delay with Mr X’s universal credit claim. I consider this delay was fault, which may have caused Mr X to miss out on payments he should have received had the claim been made sooner.

f) Mr X’s expenditure requests

47. The Council has accepted there were some initial issues with the process for the approval of requests for expenditure. My understanding is these have been resolved.
48. I don’t propose finding fault with the Council’s response to a request for funds for Mr X’s visit to his family. In my view this was not a straightforward request. The Council was required to look into the implications of Mr X leaving the UK, any difficulties he might face returning to the UK and his capacity to understand the possible consequences of his proposed visit. Based on the information seen, I don’t consider there was any unreasonable delay by the Council in responding to the request.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for its failure to properly consider whether to arrange an EHC needs assessment and his support needs when he stopped attending college, and the delay in making his universal credit claim. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. apologise to Mrs Z for its delay in responding to her request for an arrangement for respite care. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
3. pay Mr X £200 to reflect the upset caused by the opportunity he missed to have an assessment of his EHC needs and his need for additional support when he stopped attending college. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies;
4. pay Mrs Z £150 to reflect the upset caused by its delay in responding to her request for arrangements for respite care. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies; and
5. report back to us on whether its delay in making Mr X’s universal credit claim resulted in him losing any payments which he would otherwise have received, and if so, its proposals for remedying this loss.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I have completed my investigation of this complaint and found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action as a suitable way of remedying this injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman