Summary: Mr Y complained about the frequent changes in social worker and delays with progressing and supporting him to source appropriate long term accommodation for him. We found some fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mr Y. However, we also note the complexity of Mr Y’s case and several factors affecting the Council’s ability to progress the case. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council:
1. has frequently changed his social worker;
2. has delayed in completing his care assessment and support plan which is needed to progress with a court application; and
3. has not adequately supported him in sourcing long term or permanent accommodation after a previous placement broke down.
2. This has caused him significant frustration, uncertainty, distress and he says he has been financially affected.

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. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mr Y raised a complaint in August 2023 and the Council issued a final response in October 2023. Mr Y made another complaint in January 2024. Part of Mr Y’s second complaint added a concern about Hotel costs. He then came to us. The Council did not provide a further response or answer this part of Mr Y’s complaint, but we accepted his complaint. Mr Y has now made a new complaint to the Ombudsman specifically about the matter of Hotel costs. Therefore, this is not part of my investigation as I consider it a separable issue which the Council has not formally responded to.
7. I am aware events in Mr Y’s complaint have moved on since his complaints. For example, from May 2024, he moved into a different accommodation placement. I am not considering events since Mr Y’s complaint to us in February 2024. If Mr Y wishes to complain about this or other events since; this would need to be a new complaint direct to the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I discussed the complaint with Miss X (Mr Y’s representative, who is dealing with the complaint on his behalf) and considered her views.
9. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
10. Miss X 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

Law and administrative background

Care needs assessments

11. 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. 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.
12. 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.

Mental capacity

13. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make certain decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so.
14. Councils must assess someone’s ability to make a decision when that person’s capacity is in doubt. How it assesses capacity may vary depending on the complexity of the decision. An assessment of someone’s capacity is specific to the decision to be made at a particular time.

Court of Protection

15. The Court of Protection deals with decision-making for adults who may lack capacity to make specific decisions for themselves.
16. The Court of Protection may need to become involved in difficult cases or cases where there is disagreement which cannot be resolved in any other way. The Court of Protection:

• decides whether a person has capacity to make a particular decision for themselves;
• makes declarations, decisions or orders on financial matters affecting people who lack capacity to make such decisions;
• appoints deputies to make decisions for people lacking capacity to make those decisions; and
• removes deputies or attorneys who fail to carry out their duties.

Court-appointed Deputies

17. If there is a need for continuing decision-making powers and there is no relevant Lasting Power of Attorney, the Court of Protection may appoint a deputy to make decisions for a person. It will also say what decisions the deputy has the authority to make on the person’s behalf. The Office of the Public Guardian oversees the work of attorneys and court-appointed deputies and produces detailed guidance for them.

Relevant background

18. Mr Y is an adult with learning disabilities, issues with mental capacity, and other vulnerabilities. This affects his ability to make decisions and recognise risks. He requires a high level of support for his needs. He has a history of engaging in anti-social and risky behaviours.
19. Finances: Mr Y’s case involves of a number of professionals and agencies. This includes an external Case Manager (who has specialist knowledge around support for Mr Y) and a court appointed financial Deputy (who makes decisions about his finances as Mr Y lacks capacity in this area). The Court of Protection (not the Council) can make a decision for Mr Y in relation to purchasing property or his finances.
20. Care and support needs: Mr Y has a care package with a high number of support hours to help him daily to manage some domestic tasks and his needs in the community. Mr Y is provided two streams of money by his Deputy. The first is daily money that he can spend, the second is weekly money held by the care provider to support with activities and other purchases.
21. Mr Y’s contact: The case notes show the Council deals with large volumes of contact from Mr Y with requests and it has generally responded where it could. He had frequent frustrations about accessing his money, how much he gets, and his living situation. There have been numerous meetings and discussions with the Council and other professionals about Mr Y’s situation and day to day events.
22. Mr Y’s views and wishes: Mr Y has consistently said he wanted to buy his own property in a specific area and would generally refuse other long term options discussed. The Council and other professionals have made efforts to source accommodation. This has been difficult as there are limited options due to Mr Y’s past behaviour at other placements and its considerations of placements which could put him at high risk with his safety.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

23. This section sets out some selected key events relevant to Mr Y’s complaint. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that has happened.
24. In early 2023, Mr Y’s placement in supported living broke down. A multi-agency meeting took place to decide where to place Mr Y. As part of discussions about future potential long term accommodation, the Council decided to carry out Mental Capacity Act (“MCA”) assessments and an updated Care Act assessment for him.
25. In early February 2023, Mr Y moved to the Hotel. Mr Y’s Deputy made this decision and funded the costs. The Council allocated Social Worker 1. A new care provider took over his care package at the Hotel.
26. In April 2023, the Council allocated Social Worker 2. The Council carried out MCA assessments. It assessed him as lacking capacity around his accommodation and support needs, managing finances, and risk management.
27. In May 2023, the Council allocated Social Worker 3. In June 2023, Mr Y left the Hotel for a short period and returned in July 2023. The Council allocated Social Worker 4.
28. In late July 2023, Miss X and Mr Y’s external Case Manager contacted Social Worker 4 to ask when the assessment would be completed and for an update about the progress of a Court of Protection hearing to decide Mr Y’s accommodation. They had concerns about the lack of progress made and the Council had not shared its MCA assessments with them.
29. Between July and August 2023, Social Worker 4 carried out a Care Act assessment. Mr Y had concerns about support with his daily spending allowance. He wanted the use of a visual planner with his carers to discuss budgets with him. Mr Y felt this would be beneficial, rather than being done verbally. Social Worker 4 sent Miss X and Mr Y a copy of the assessment and provisional support plan including this. Mr Y sent feedback about how his money was allocated and the amounts. Social Worker 4 took this to his Deputy to discuss as the Deputy had the authority to decide this.
30. In mid-August 2023, Miss X, on Mr Y’s behalf, formally complained to the Council.
31. Around autumn 2023, Mr Y’s Deputy changed.
32. At the end of October 2023, the Council sent a final complaint response and upheld Mr Y’s complaint. It:
• apologised for his frustration with the high number of social workers he had been through. This was due to staffing issues and having to use agency staff who could leave at short notice; and
• apologised for the delays with the Care Act assessment. This was completed in August 2023, and it would now consider the next steps with regard to the application to the Court of Protection.
33. In November 2023, Mr Y’s new Deputy raised concerns with Mr Y paying the Hotel costs with his own funds. The Council agreed to take over the payments from this point.
34. In December 2023, the Council allocated Social Worker 5. A number of case discussions were held regarding ongoing concerns about Mr Y’s finances and accommodation.
35. In mid-January 2024, the Council allocated Social Worker 6. Mr Y raised a second formal complaint to the Council through Miss X. There was an overlap of issues with his previous complaint, such as his ongoing stay at the Hotel and further changes of social worker. Mr Y said this resulted in repetition of meetings held with his Case Manager and Deputy each time he had a new social worker which cost him financially and he said was unfair. He also said the support with a visual budget plan had not been put in place.
36. In February 2024, Miss X complained to us. The Council did not provide a response to Mr Y’s second complaint.

Events since Mr Y’s complaint to us

37. In March 2024, the Council allocated Social Worker 7. They were working with an internal Council legal representative for the Court of Protection application.
38. In May 2024, after a safeguarding concern, the Council moved Mr Y to a different temporary accommodation placement.
39. In June 2024, the Council made an application to the Court of Protection for a decision on Mr Y’s current accommodation.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

40. The Council said due to poor retention of staff, Mr Y has had a high number of social workers. It recognised this delayed progress and momentum on his case. It said an adequate handover did not take place on two occasions and accepted this as poor practice. His current social worker has been in place for several months and progressed the Court of Protection application.
41. Part of Mr Y’s second complaint included his frustration with several meetings to gain repetitive information with his Case Manager and Deputy, which comes at a charge for him. Mr Y said the Council should cover these costs. I asked for the Council’s view on this.
• It had reflected on his request and said he should not have to pay for repetition of information which has already been provided to the Council, where it is the same. If found to be the case, it would be willing to reimburse him, however it believed requests may have been similar but have been for different information.
42. The Council said the provisional support plan from the completed Care Act assessment in August 2023 had not been implemented due to the change of social worker and Mr Y’s Deputy. It was being worked on.

Analysis

Social workers

43. I appreciate Mr Y has experienced a high turnover of social workers, but I do not consider this, in itself, is fault as this is largely outside of the Council’s control when staff leave.
44. However, I would expect there to be effective handover processes to minimise disruption between the allocation of social workers. There is some fault as the Council said this did not happen on a few occasions. This has caused frustration to Mr Y and caused some delays with his case.
45. Further to this, the Council acknowledges this may have contributed to Mr Y paying avoidable costs with requesting repetitive information and I welcome its offer to remedy this injustice.

Care support

46. After the Care Act Assessment in August 2023, it appears there was a provisional plan (this included Mr Y’s agreed visual budget planner request), but no finalised one. This is fault. However, I do not consider this has caused significant injustice.
47. The overall daily care and support hours Mr Y continued to receive with his care provider seemed to generally work for him, but he regularly expressed frustration with the limitations of his finances. Records show his carers provide significant support with his budget spending through regular conversations and by phone, with some case notes saying it was through a visual budget planner. It is not clear if this is always delivered in the way Mr Y wants, but I also note his capacity issues and he generally struggles with retaining information.
48. With this in mind, I do not consider this as missed support and it has not caused injustice in the way Mr Y claims. In my view, this is not necessarily at the heart of Mr Y’s frustration on this matter. This stems from the arrangements made with how his budget streams are set, the amounts, and his access to them. But these are decided by his Deputy, not the Council. On balance, I do not find fault with the Council on this.

Care Assessment process

49. It seems the Council decided it needed a new Care Act Assessment in February 2023, when Mr Y moved to the Hotel. It completed it in August 2023. There is no specific timescale for the completion of assessments, but it should be reasonable and proportionate, depending on the complexity of the case.
50. Up to May 2023, the records do not show progress on this. There was a short period where Mr Y had to stay elsewhere, combined with another change in social worker. After he returned in July 2023, I note Social Worker 4 completed it the next month. The Council accepted it had delayed with the assessment. While I note the reasons, I consider six months overall to be too long. This is fault. This has caused frustration as this delayed other progress made towards Mr Y’s living situation. This is explored further below.

Long term housing placement

51. I appreciate the complexity of Mr Y’s case and circumstances. Mr Y is vulnerable and has experienced significant frustration when living in the Hotel. The Council has made efforts to find a suitable and safe placement for him but has been met with challenges and various barriers with this, including Mr Y’s clear wish to live in his own property.
52. Mr Y does not have capacity to make a decision about his accommodation. The decision of where Mr Y should reside long term in his best interests, and taking into account his wishes, needed to go to the Court of Protection to decide. It makes the ultimate decision.
53. The Council is one of several of professionals/organisations involved with supporting Mr Y in different ways. I can only consider the Council’s actions. Its involvement included carrying out assessments to contribute towards making the application. It has taken over a year for the Council to do this. While there is fault by the Council, I note some mitigation with this.
54. The slow progression of this has been due to a combination of factors and the Council has played a part with some of its delays. This included work it needed to undertake and some gaps with information sharing or communication with others. But I do not consider it solely at fault. Other professionals had responsibilities or made decisions about Mr Y’s situation. There were complications with co-ordination of contact between all parties, along with some conflicts and disagreements of clear ways forward amongst the other professionals. For example, regular meetings were held but agreed actions but not always effectively carried out.
55. I also recognise the volume of Mr Y’s contact with the Council, along with displays of challenging behaviour, is likely to have hindered progress made as time and resources would be directed at responding to these.
56. Taking into account there was some fault by the Council, this has caused injustice to Mr Y with frustration and uncertainty with the progress of his application.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
58. With one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mr Y (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) and pay him a symbolic payment of £250 to recognise the injustice caused by the faults identified.
59. Within two months of the final decision:
• The Council should follow up on its offer to consider Mr Y’s request for reimbursement for any repetitive information the Council has obtained and Mr Y has been charged for. It should review any specific evidence or claims he wishes to put forward, decide how much it will cover and pay this to him. The Council should write to Mr Y providing a detailed explanation of how it decided its calculations and why.
60. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

61. I found fault with the Council which caused injustice to Mr Y. The Council has agreed with my recommendations to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman