Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped both Mr Y’s social care funding and Staying Put funding. Mr X says this stop in funding has undermined Mr Y’s welfare and the stability of his placement. On the evidence seen, we found fault with the Council delaying completion of a suitable care assessment and financial assessment for Mr Y. The Council agreed to backdate Mr Y’s direct payments to 3 January 2024. The Council also agreed to apologise to Mr Y and pay him £400 for the inconvenience cause. We also found fault with the Council failing to complete satisfactory long-term planning for Mr Y’s transition from Staying Put funding. The Council agreed to complete the Shared Lives process for Mr Y. The Council has offered to extend the Staying Put funding to 31 March 2024 and backdate the Shared Lives funding to 1 April 2024; we consider this a suitable offer to address the injustice caused by the Council’s fault. The Council also agreed to apologise to Mr X and pays him £300 for the frustration and distress caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council stopped the funding for Mr Y’s social care funding following an assessment in November 2023. Mr X says this assessment was not robust enough to make an informed decision.
2. Mr X also complained the Council stopped Mr Y’s Staying Put funding in December 2023.
3. Mr X says because of this stop in funding, this has undermined Mr Y’s welfare and the stability of his placement.

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. 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)
5. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered all the information Mr X. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
8. Mr X and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Rules and Regulations

Care Assessments and Direct Payments

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.
11. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met.
12. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. The council must ensure people have relevant and timely information about direct payments so they can decide whether to request them.
13. After considering the suitability of the person requesting direct payments against the conditions in the Care Act 2014, the council must decide whether to provide a direct payment. In all cases, the council should consider the request as quickly as possible.
14. The council must provide interim arrangements to meet care and support needs to cover the period in question.

Council’s Staying Put Service

15. The Council provides universal entitlement to care leavers until they reach the age of 21 under its Staying Put Services. The Council’s policy saying the Staying Put service will not be extended beyond the age of 21.
16. The Council funds this service by paying a foster carer directly and reclaim the Housing Benefit or Universal Credit from the Department for Work and Pensions. The Council contributes an element over and above that which a person can usually claim from Housing Benefit.
17. The Council will give a minimum of seven days notice about the end of a Staying Put arrangement.
18. The Council’s policy says adequate long term planning should be undertaken to ensure a young person can move into suitable independent accommodation following the end of the Staying Put service.

What happened

19. Mr Y was made subject to a full care order in 2017. Mr Y moved to foster carers under the Staying Put service and remained there into 2023.
20. On 13 October 2023, the Council passed Mr Y’s care over to its transition services for adults as the Staying Put service was going to end on 17 December 2023, following Mr Y turning 21.
21. The Council contacted Mr X to advise that Staying Put service was ending. The Council arranged to complete a visit to assess Mr Y.
22. On 15 November 2023, a council social worker visited Mr Y and Mr X to complete an assessment of Mr Y’s care needs. The care assessment noted:
• Mr Y was on long-term medication and needed prompting morning and night to take this.
• Mr Y was independent in his personal care routine and is an independent traveller to places he knows.
• Mr Y needs support and prompts with daily living tasks.
• Mr Y confirmed he was happy in his current home. The social worker advised they would need to look into Shared Lives contract to replace Staying Put when Mr Y turned 21.
• The social worker told Mr Y and Mr X the Council would complete a financial assessment of Mr Y’s care and support needs and Shared Lives would complete an assessment.
• The social worker concluded Mr Y needed 1 x 60 minute visit each day seven days a week with an indicative budget of £168 each week.
• The social worker committed to referring Mr Y to the shared lives scheme, referring Mr Y for a financial assessment and for this to be passed to panel.
23. The social worker referred Mr Y to the shared lives scheme and sent a financial assessment form to Mr X. Within the email sent to the shared lives team on 23 November 2023 the social worker said “staying put has been extended for 4 weeks after his birthday”.
24. The social worker told Mr X he needed to make an application to the shared lives team but this could take three months to process. The social worker said this would take Mr Y beyond the proposed extended funding period under the Staying Put scheme.
25. On 6 December 2023, the Council received Mr X’s Shared Lives application.
26. On 17 December 2023, the Council stopped providing the Staying Put funding to Mr X.
27. On 2 January 2024, the Council stopped Mr Y’s social care funding through the direct payments. The Council confirmed this with Mr X.
28. The Council social worker advised the Council that Shared Lives had not assessed Mr Y as eligible for any additional support other than the basic carers fee. The Council said once the application has been completed it can present this to panel for approval. The Council said “in the interim the carers will continue to receive the staying put service until the application is completed”.
29. Mr X contacted the Council on 3 January 2024 to dispute the stop in funding. Mr X said he had made the application but is waiting on the Council to complete its process. The Council responded on the same date to advise the Council would continue to fund the Staying Put services until the Shared Lives application was processed. Mr X and the Council discussed the level of funding Mr Y needed through his direct payments.
30. Shared Lives contacted Mr X and offered the basic funding of £337.99 per week. Mr X rejected this advising Mr Y needed extra funding and explained why. Shared Lives promised to discuss this matter further as part of the assessment process.
31. On 10 January 2024, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about withdrawing funding for Mr Y.
32. Shared Lives continued to liaise with Mr X and the Council’s social care team about Mr Y’s funding. Shared Lives recommended a further assessment of Mr X to decide the funding level.
33. A council social worker met with Mr Y in the school on 18 January 2024. The Council social worker then sought a further assessment with both Mr X and Mr Y. Mr Y complained about further enquiries and assessment of Mr X.
34. On 25 January 2024, the Council told Mr X it needed to complete the further assessments and the social worker is asking relevant questions to decide the funding Mr Y needs.
35. On 29 January 2024, Mr Y’s GP provided medical information to the Council’s social worker. Mr X and the Council liaised about the medical evidence.
36. Mr X sought escalation of his complaint on 30 January 2024 and again complained about withdrawal of funding.
37. The Council responded to Mr X to advise the social worker had booked a follow up meeting to review and clarify her assessment and it would be liaising with the relevant parties to complete the assessment process.
38. On 28 February 2024, Mr X asked the Council about extension of the Staying Put funding and advised he had not received any payments since 17 December 2023. Mr X asked for an update on Mr Y’s care assessment. The Council responded to advise they understood the Staying Put funding extension was agreed while the Shared Lives assessment was completed. The Council told Mr X it had assessed Mr Y as needing 12.5 hours direct payments each week and would backdate this.
39. Mr X responded to advise he has received no funding since 17 December 2023 and disputed the 12.5 hours of direct payments as this was too low. The Council responded to advise “An extension of payment from 17/12/2023 will be taken to panel on Monday to ensure you are paid any outstanding amounts”.
40. On 11 April 2024, the Council completed Mr Y’s care assessment. The Council had received input from Mr Y’s carers, his GP, his school teacher and support co-ordinator to reach its findings. The care assessment decided that Mr Y needed two daily visits of 30 minutes every day and 3.5 hours of social relationship time one day a week. The Council said it still needed to consider extra needs and to discuss these with Mr X. The Council said it would complete a financial assessment and put this to panel once the full care needs has been agreed with Mr X.
41. Mr X provided a response to the Council’s care assessment and provided input about how he considered this should be changed. Mr X provided extra information to the Council for its consideration.
42. On 22 May 2024, the Council held a meeting with Mr X about Mr Y’s care assessment. The Council agreed to provide 16 hours of care and support for Mr Y.
43. On 24 May 2024, Mr X agreed to the 16 hours of care and support for Mr Y. Mr X asked for reasonable time for the continuing need for informal psychological support for Mr Y.
44. In June 2024, the Council sent a financial assessment form to Mr X for Mr Y. Mr X returned this and the Council completed Mr Y’s financial assessment in July 2024.

Analysis

Care Assessments and Direct Payments

45. The Council arranged to complete a care assessment review of Mr Y’s needs in November 2023. The Council acted suitably to arrange this care assessment and I do not find fault.
46. While the Council was not at fault for arranging the care assessment, some of the Council’s actions during this care assessment process were fault. The Council failed to get relevant medical input from professionals meaning it failed to get relevant evidence for the care assessment review.
47. The Ombudsman would not normally question the merits of a professional decision made about the outcome of a care assessment. However, the later care assessment completed in April 2024, highlighted a fault in the recommendations of the November 2023 care assessment. Namely, the Council social worker was aware, as noted in the assessment, that Mr Y needed morning and evening prompts to take medicine. Despite this, the social worker recommended only one 60-minute visit rather than two 30-minute visits. Failing to consider the need for two visits was fault. The Council corrected this fault in April 2024.
48. The Council also failed to complete a financial assessment of Mr Y following the care assessment in November 2023. This was fault.
49. The Council’s fault meant it failed to complete Mr Y’s care assessment review as quickly as possible and caused delays in getting an outcome of this review. These delays resulted in a stop to Mr Y’s direct payments by the Council on 2 January 2024. The Council also did not provide any interim care services for Mr Y while it stopped the direct payments. This was fault.
50. In 2024, the Council completed a suitable care assessment review of Mr Y’s needs. The Council has met with Mr X and Mr Y on several occasions, got relevant medical information and considered Mr X’s feedback. The result of this further review was an agreement over 16 hours of care funding each week for Mr Y. Since the Council has taken the correct steps in completing this further care assessment review, I cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.
51. While the Council has completed a suitable care assessment review, it has failed to complete Mr Y’s financial assessment until July 2024. This was fault.
52. The Council should provide a backdated direct payment to Mr Y from 3 January 2024. If the Council has already completed this, it should evidence is has provided this payment.
53. The Council should also apologise to Mr Y and pay him £400 for the inconvenience caused through the delays in completing the care and financial assessments. These delays resulted in the stop of his direct payments from 2 January 2024 without provision of interim care services.

Staying Put service and Shared Lives

54. The Council contacted Mr X over two months before the end of Mr X’s Staying Put service, to advise that this service was ending. The Council took suitable steps to arrange an assessment of Mr X.
55. However, the Council failed to take satisfactory long-term planning to ensure Mr Y had suitable accommodation in place following the end of the Staying Put Service. The Council was aware it took three months for the Council’s Shared Lives scheme to process an application. Despite this, the Council failed to direct either Mr Y or Mr X to this scheme until one month before Mr Y was no longer entitled to the Staying Put service. This was fault.
56. The Council promised to extend Mr Y’s staying put service funding on 23 November 2023, 2 January 2024 and 3 January 2024. The Council also promised to take the matter to panel on 29 February 2024 with the view to extending funding from 17 December 2023. Had the Council followed through on its promises, this would have prevented any injustice to Mr Y or Mr X through the Council’s fault in long-term planning. Despite these promises, the Council did not provide any further funding under the Staying Put service. This was fault. This fault caused Mr Y’s placement to go without funding since 17 December 2023.
57. The Council is still waiting on the outcome of the Shared Lives assessment. The Council should complete the Shared Lives assessment and provide the outcome of this assessment to Mr Y.
58. The Council has offered in resolution to this matter to amend the end date for the Staying Put funding to 31 March 2024 and backdate the Shared Lives funding to 1 April 2024. I consider this suitability addresses the quantifiable loss caused by the Council’s fault.
59. Since Mr Y continued to live at his placement, despite the stop in funding, this did not cause a direct injustice to Mr Y. However, this matter has caused an injustice to Mr X through the frustration and distress in having to dispute this matter with the Council. It is also Mr X, as the carer, who has been put to financial difficulty through providing a placement for Mr Y without the funding. The Council should apologise to Mr X and pay him £300 in recognition of this fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

60. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Provide a backdated direct payment to Mr Y from 3 January 2024.
• Apologise to Mr Y and pay him £400 for the inconvenience caused through the delays in completing the care and financial assessments resulting in the stop in his direct payments from 2 January 2024 without provision of interim care services.
• Amend the end date for the Staying Put funding to 31 March 2024 and provide a payment to reflect this.
• Apologise to Mr X and pay him £300 for the frustration and distress caused through the stop in funding for Mr Y’s Staying Put funding and delays in completing the Shared Lives application.
61. Within three months of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Complete the Shared Lives assessment and provide the outcome of this assessment to Mr X.
• Backdate the Shared Lives funding to 1 April 2024.
62. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

63. There was fault by the Council as the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman