Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s adult social care department failed to provide agreed care and support. He says it then withdrew all support without notice. As a result, he says he was evicted from his home. There is fault by the Council. It waived some care contributions. It agreed a further remedy we recommended.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide him with proper care and support, and that it removed support without notice. He says this led to his landlord evicting him and he lost his car and his pet. This caused him emotional distress, pain and social isolation which has affected his mental wellbeing.

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. 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

4. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in October 2024 regarding the Council’s actions from 2022. This complaint is late.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
6. Mr X previously complained to the Ombudsman in August 2023. I have exercised our discretion and considered matters from July 2023 to September 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

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. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)
12. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment. A council must not charge more than the cost it incurs to meet a person’s assessed eligible needs.
13. People receiving care and support other than in a care home need to keep a certain level of income to cover their living costs. Councils’ financial assessments can take a person’s income and capital into consideration, but not the value of their home. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is set by national government and reviewed each year. A council can allow people to keep more than the MIG. (Care Act 2014).

What happened

14. What follows is a brief chronology, in which I have set out the key events. It is not necessary for me to detail everything that happened here.
15. Mr X has physical health conditions and a mental health disorder that can lead to angry and aggressive outbursts. In 2023 he was living in a housing association flat. His landlord had started proceedings to evict him because it said he was not maintaining his home, and it was a health and safety risk. Mr X wished to move to a different area for support and because he said his home was unsuitable. He sent a GP letter which said his housing was causing his mental decline. He was on the district Council’s housing register for accommodation.
16. In July 2023 the Council started a care assessment of Mr X. The Council completed this in late September and considered Mr X was eligible for care. The Council said his eligible needs were:
• Planning and eating healthy food and food preparation
• Managing personal hygiene
• Managing laundry and dressing in clean suitable clothing.
• Making use of his home and accommodation safely.
• Housing needs. A housing charity was assisting Mr X.
17. The Council said Mr X required daily support in:
• managing his home environment. Assisting him to sort and tidy his belongings as he was being threatened with eviction by his landlord.
• accessing the community to see his GP, and assisting him to travel to shops in more affordable locations.
18. The Council agreed it would provide eight hours of care per week. The Care Provider would visit twice a week for two hours. As Mr X had behaved in a threatening manner in the past, two care workers would attend at each visit.
19. The Council also agreed to consider a direct payment for driving lessons, as this could help with his social isolation. But he said he was too stressed for lessons.
20. In October the Council planned to meet with Mr X and the care provider. It sent a copy of the care assessment to the housing charity so it could support Mr X.
21. Mr X emailed the Council two days later that it had not sent a copy of the assessment to him, but the housing charity had. Mr X’s email was abusive. He said he did not need daily support or help with dressing. He wanted help to move.
22. The Council cancelled the October meeting due to the abusive email. It arranged a meeting in November with the social worker and care provider managers.
23. At the meeting in November Mr X said:
• He still wanted to take driving lessons once the threat of eviction was over.
• His priority was support to move from his current home.
• The Council agreed to consider direct payments for Mr X to employ a carer who could drive.
• The Council agreed to consider Mr X’s request to waive the care contribution for three months.
• The social worker manager said she would email Mr X weekly to update him, even if there was no update to give.
24. The Council’s notes of the meeting stated that:
• Mr X said his mobility car was a waste of money at the moment because he was unable to take lessons as he was too distracted.
• Mr X’s main focus was on moving house.
• Mr X asked about the care provider potentially driving his mobility car. The Council said it could consider this if the care provider’s policies allowed it.
• It had requested a housing needs assessment by an occupational therapist.
• It suggested supported living, but Mr X refused as he could not keep his pets.
• The Council advised it would arrange a professionals’ meeting, including his landlord and others to outline the impact of being homeless on Mr X.
• The Care Provider would consider providing care to Mr X from another location as it was currently investigating a complaint from him.
25. A few days later the Council told Mr X it had carried out a financial assessment. Based on his income the maximum care contribution was £106 per week. Mr X replied he could not afford the contribution and the calculation was wrong.
26. On 10 November the Council told Mr X it would review the care contribution and consider waiving the costs for three months. This must be authorised by the Head of Service. The Council also said it had found a supported living placement that may accept pets.
27. On 21 November the Council held the professionals meeting. However, the landlord said it was unwilling to stop its possession action.
28. On 22 November the Council told Mr X it had revised the financial assessment and reduced his care contribution to £38 per week. Mr X remained dissatisfied.
29. On 23 November an occupational therapist completed a housing needs assessment. This recommended Mr X required self contained accommodation in a suitable location and that a bungalow was essential.
30. The same day the social worker emailed Mr X regarding a supported living placement that may accept pets. Mr X said he would consider it as a last resort.
31. On 28 November the housing charity advised the Council that Mr X’s landlord decided not to pursue possession at that moment.
32. The same day Mr X complained the Council had promised weekly updates, but it had failed to contact him. His email was abusive and contained offensive images. He said the Council should have invited him to the professionals meeting. And it did not tell him that the landlord was not pursuing possession action.
33. On 30 November the Council explained the meeting was for professionals only. It said its social worker had emailed Mr X, and was actively working on his case while dealing with other work. It asked him to stop sending offensive emails.
34. In early December Mr X called the Council. He said he had injured himself and could not get to hospital due to being socially isolated. He blamed the Council.
35. On 6 December Mr X apologised to his social worker for his offensive outbursts. The Council noted it discussed supported living as an option. It advised Mr X the landlord could start possession proceedings in the New Year. Mr X said he was getting rid of his mobility car because he could not afford it.
36. The next day the Council suggested supported living to Mr X which accepted pets. It advised him to contact his GP as he said he would self harm. It said it took threats towards staff seriously and if he continued it would notify the Police.
37. On 18 December Mr X sent a further abusive email stating the Council had not updated him for nearly two weeks.
38. On 20 December the Council sent Mr X a copy of his Care Act assessment. It asked if him if he would change the requirement for a bungalow from essential to a preference. This would increase his rehousing chances. Mr X replied he would not change the requirement to a preference as he could not live in a flat. He threatened to come to the Council’s offices or to social workers’ homes
39. On 22 December the Council contacted its care provider to see if it could provide support for Mr X. The care provider said it would discuss this.
40. Later the same day Mr X sent an abusive and threatening email to the Council saying it could not be bothered to reply. He said he would visit the Council’s offices in the New Year and would not leave until it listened.
41. On 28 December the Council replied it had asked the care provider if it could support Mr X and was waiting for a response. It explained housing options were limited because landlords often did not allow pets. It suggested Mr X viewed the proposed supported living. It also suggested private accommodation. It said Mr X could contact his GP regarding his mental health. Finally, it repeated if Mr X continued to threaten staff it would notify the Police.
42. Mr X rejected all the Council’s suggestions. He said if it had kept its word to update him every week, it would not have triggered his mental health disorder.
43. From the end of December to early January Mr X sent multiple abusive and threatening emails and comments regarding no updates.
44. In early January the Council responded to Mr X’s 28 November complaint. It said:
• he should contact his GP about his mental health breakdown.
• It had asked him to say what he disagreed with in its care assessment.
• It accepted the Council had not contacted him weekly. But is said its team had been in contact with him since 7 November 2023.
• He had refused supported living, and said he wanted a bungalow which accepted pets. But accommodation with these restrictions was unavailable.
• Its financial assessment was in line with the Care Act. A contribution was required. It had offered to review this.
45. Mr X complained further on 8 January, disputing the Council’s response.
46. On 9 January the Council replied to Mr X. It repeated it was waiting for the Care Provider’s response. It said he should contact is GP regarding his health issues, and housing regarding his tenancy. It asked him to stop sending abusive emails.
47. On 18 January Mr X visited a community mental health centre. It appeared he was distressed and self-harming. He said he would not leave until he spoke to a social worker. The adult social care team passed information to him via the officer on duty and advised him he should bid on accommodation. It said that it was contacting a care provider about putting support in place.
48. The next day the Council met with the Care Provider. It agreed to provide support. But it would not accept threatening behaviour and emails from Mr X. It agreed care workers would contact Mr X’s landlord and the housing charity.
49. On 23 January the Council said Mr X he was still responsible for his tenancy. It said the housing charity and housing were still involved with his case. He had refused supported living options. The only alternative was a tenancy with support provided through outreach services. It said it would visit him with the Care Provider, and it would contact his mother as he requested.
50. The Council noted it tried to call Mr X’s mother, but she was unavailable. Mr X replied the Council had breached the Care Act because it said he had daily needs. But it had not provided support since July 2023.
51. On 24 January the Council asked Mr X what parts of the assessment he disagreed with. It said the support would be focussed on social care needs, management of the home and helping him clear his home. It repeated the housing charity was still involved in his case. The housing needs recommendation meant there were limited options available.
52. The Council met Mr X and the Care Provider on 31 January. The Council emailed Mr X with a summary of the meeting. It said the two weekly visits it agreed were to assist him to visit the GP, going shopping, tidying his flat, and helping with payments and budgeting. It asked Mr X to say what was not correct regarding the assessment. It said it would refer him to his GP for mental health support.
53. On 9 February the Care Provider started support visits. Mr X asked the provider about care contributions as he believed that he should not pay as he had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The Council told the Care Provider this did not apply to Mr X, but it would consider a waiver for a short period. This would be decided by a senior manager.
54. At first the Care Provider support went well. But by mid February Mr X’s landlord said it would seek possession. Mr X threatened to hurt himself or others.
55. On 28 February the Council noted Mr X said the care visits were going well. However, in March Mr X again made threats to harm others. He also said the support was not right as it did not fix the issues. The Care Provider said it had not assisted to clear the flat as Mr X had not engaged with this. He had agreed to getting a skip to remove rubbish. The Council could provide this.
56. Later in March Mr X threatened to harm Council workers and others as well as himself. In view of his threats, the Council contacted the Police. The Council held a meeting and decided its officers could not visit Mr X.
57. On 22 March the Care Provider noted it advised Mr X in a telephone call that it was pausing its support. It offered telephone support.
58. Mr X emailed the Council saying his support had just been stopped. It was the wrong support for him, and he just wanted help to move to suitable housing. He also said he should not have to pay for it, and the Council had said it would consider not charging. Mr X then sent multiple threatening emails. As a result the Care Provider decided to withdraw telephone support as well.
59. In March the court gave the landlord a possession order due to Mr X not complying with the terms of a suspended order. The housing charity did not support Mr X due to his abusive behaviour.
60. Mr X complained further in April. He repeated his earlier complaint regarding the care being unsuitable and the Council failing to contact him amongst other things.
61. In May the Council told an advice agency the district Council’s homelessness team would provide Mr X with interim accommodation if he was evicted.
62. In late May Mr X asked for help to complete a form to set aside the possession order. The eviction was due at the end of May. Mr X also asked for support to move his possessions if he was evicted. The Council referred Mr X to an advice agency and the housing charity. It obtained a van hire quote and told Mr X’s mother the costs as she was supporting him. The next day Mr X said he had arranged his own van hire. He said it was too late to complete the set aside form.
63. Mr X was evicted at the end of May. The district Council accepted he was homeless and in priority need and it provided interim accommodation.

Analysis

64. Having considered all the evidence, I do not find fault in the following complaints:
• The time taken to put care in place. There was delay from the end of September 2023 when the Council completed the assessment to early February 2024, when care started. However, I can see that the situation was complex and hindered by Mr X’s threatening behaviour. The Council tried to progress matters, but Mr X had an open complaint against the most suitable care provider. In addition, the care provider needed to arrange for two carers, which took time. I do not consider the delay was avoidable.
• The Council did not give weekly email updates from November 2023. It appears the social worker manager offered updates at a meeting. Mr X agreed. While I can see the Council did not update Mr X weekly the Council was in regular contact with Mr X from November 2023. Over a three month period it contacted Mr X ten times. I do not consider this amounts to administrative fault.
• The wrong care was put in place. Mr X said he did not need support dressing or daily care. He wanted support to access the community and to move. I can see the Council’s care plan agreed Mr X needed support to access the community, visit his GP and to tidy his home. This was the care it tried to provide, but it appears Mr X did not wish to engage to clear his home. The Council sought supported living accommodation for Mr X but he did not consider this was suitable. The Council said the recommended property type was not available. The Council made efforts to provide appropriate care. The Council was not responsible for Mr X’s eviction from his home.
• The Council did not advise the care was stopping on 22 March. I can see the Care Provider did advise Mr X it was stopping in person support the same day because of his threats to staff. Therefore, Mr X was aware care had stopped.
• Mr X had to give up his car and lost one of his pets due to the Council’s actions. He had wanted a direct payment. I have not seen evidence to support this. Mr X said he was giving up driving lessons due to stress and that he could not afford the car. The Council had offered direct payments for lessons. In its response to my enquiries the Council stated its care provider could not accept direct payments.
65. In its response to our enquiries the Council confirmed it considered a waiver of contributions but decided it would not agree. This was because it advised Mr X of the charges in advance of care. It has now offered to remove the charges. I find fault by the Council as I have not seen evidence it advised Mr X of its decision not to waive the contribution. This caused injustice to Mr X due to uncertainty that it had properly considered the matter. However, as it has since offered to remove the charges, this is a partial remedy.

Back to top

Action

66. I recommend that within one month the Council apologises to Mr X that it did not advise him of its decision regarding waiving the care contribution. 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.
67. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

68. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman