Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council incurred delays in carrying out a care needs assessment for Mr X and in finding him suitable accommodation. They also complained the Council delayed pursuing a possible placement at a preferred setting. Mr X and Ms Y say the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and frustration. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mr X and Ms Y.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council delayed carrying out a care needs assessment for Mr X. They also complained the Council incurred delays in finding suitable accommodation for Mr X and delayed pursuing a possible placement at a preferred setting. Mr X and Ms Y say the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and frustration and meant Mr X missed out on an opportunity to move into his preferred placement. They would like the Council to provide an appropriate financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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. 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

5. I have exercised discretion to investigate the complaint dating back to November 2022.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X, Ms Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X, Ms Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Care Act assessments

8. 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.
9. Care and support statutory guidance says 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.
10. There are different types of service provision. Supported Living accommodation provides housing with support services to help individuals live as independently as possible. This is designed for people with disabilities or other needs who require some level of support to manage daily life, but who do not need full-time residential care.
11. Residential care refers to care services for individuals who need more significant help with personal care and daily tasks.
12. Councils may provide a written description of an individual’s needs and circumstances to service providers to facilitate an understanding of the individual's situation and requirements. This is known as a pen picture or pen portrait.

What happened

13. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
14. Mr X lived with his parents at their home address. In November 2022, Mr X’s mother, Ms Y, contacted the Council. Ms Y said Mr X wanted to move to his own address; she requested a move for Mr X to a shared house where he could continue to receive support. The Council told Ms Y it would initiate a needs assessment as a result.
15. In December 2022, an Occupational Therapist (OT) visited Mr X and carried out an assessment. The OT recommended a care needs assessment for Mr X in support of consideration of supported living/independent living options.
16. In February 2023, Ms Y asked the Council to provide an update regarding the care needs assessment. She requested an update again in May 2023. The Council responded and said it was experiencing a huge demand on its services. It said it hoped to allocate a social worker later that month.
17. A social worker visited Mr X on 31 May 2023. They initiated a care needs assessment and following the visit, sought additional medical information from Mr X’s GP and diabetic nurse.
18. In July 2023, the Council told Ms Y it was still waiting for information from Mr X’s diabetic consultant and nurse. The Council contacted Ms Y again in August 2023 to tell her it had received some, but not all of the required information. Shortly after, the social worker visited Mr X again to review a draft of the care needs assessment.
19. The Council continued to seek information from Mr X’s diabetic nurse in August and September 2023.
20. The Council finalised the care needs assessment on 18 September 2023 and provided Mr X and Ms Y with a copy on 19 September 2023. The Council’s assessment identified that the appropriate service provision to meet Mr X’s needs was supported living. At about the same time, the Council appointed a different social worker to Mr X.
21. The social worker visited Mr X on 27 December 2023 to discuss the care needs assessment. Mr X confirmed he still wanted to move to supported living accommodation. The Council noted Mr X required support in managing his diabetes.
22. In February 2024, Ms Y asked the Council if there had been any progress in finding a supported living placement for Mr X. The Council said it would chase a response from its brokerage team.
23. The Council completed a pen picture regarding Mr X on 22 March 2023. The Council sent the pen picture to supported living service providers on 16 April 2024.
24. A care provider, Provider A, contacted the Council on 17 April 2024 and offered to provide an assessment. The Council agreed and informed Ms Y.
25. Provider A visited Mr X and Ms Y on 25 April 2024 and completed an assessment. Mr X and Ms Y agreed to visit Provider A’s accommodation and visited the site on 1 May 2024. Mr X and Ms Y were happy with the accommodation and expressed a wish for Mr X to move in. Provider A offered Mr X a room on the basis of funding being agreed.
26. On 2 May 2024, the Council asked Provider A to send details of the cost of the care setting. Provider A responded and gave information regarding the level of 1:1 support it considered appropriate. Provider A also clarified the type of accommodation it offered is residential care.
27. The Council contacted Ms Y on 3 May 2024. It said Provider A’s accommodation was not the type of support it had requested as the pen picture requested supported living, not residential care.
28. The Council met with Provider A on 10 May 2024 to discuss the cost of care offered. The Council confirmed it was looking for a supported living placement; Provider A confirmed it did not provide this service. The Council discussed the level of 1:1 support offered by Provider A and said it would need to look at the offer again as it was not what was expected.
29. In mid-May 2024, the Council allocated a different social worker to Mr X. The social worker contacted Provider A to discuss amending the level of support offered; Provider A declined to amend its offer. The Council contacted Ms Y to inform her.
30. Ms Y emailed the Council on 31 May 2024. Ms Y said Mr X required 24-hour support with his diabetes and said this was one of the attractions of Provider A’s accommodation. Ms Y said Provider A was the only organisation to make an offer to assess Mr X for suitability. She said Provider A had carried out an assessment and this had been very successful.
31. The Council replied on 4 June 2024 and said it may not agree to the placement with Provider A due to its rates. The Council said it must consider other options which may represent best value for money.

Ms Y’s complaint

32. Mr X’s and Ms Y’s representative complained to the Council on their behalf on 12 July 2024. They complained the Council had not carried out a needs assessment for Mr X within a reasonable timeframe, and had failed to enable Mr X’s move to his own accommodation. They also complained the Council had asked Mr X and Ms Y to consider Provider A’s accommodation, but then said it would not place Mr X there.
33. The Council sent Mr X’s pen picture to supported living providers on 17 July 2024.
34. The Council called Ms Y on 18 July 2024; it said it had not discounted Provider A’s accommodation but said it was gathering as much information as possible to ensure it placed Mr X in the most appropriate setting. Ms Y told the Council she considered Provider A’s accommodation was perfect and she did not want the vacancy to be taken by someone else.
35. The Council sent Mr X’s pen picture to other supported living providers on 6 August 2024.
36. On the same day, the Council provided its complaint response. It said it had added Mr X to its pending list in November 2022 for a social worker to carry out a needs assessment. The Council said at this time, it was experiencing significant challenges due to staff shortages and increased demands. The Council said it had removed Mr X from the pending list in error in March 2023, but it rectified this the following month. The Council apologised for the error but said this did not impact the time taken to allocate a social worker to Mr X. The Council apologised for the delays in being able to provide a service to meet Mr X’s needs. It said there had been indefensible delays in actions being followed through, and the process to start sourcing a supported living provision was not fully completed until April 2024. Regarding the offer made by Provider A, the Council said the provider should not have used the Health and Social Care framework to offer a place. However, the Council said it had not discounted the placement, and it was still under consideration. The Council apologised for the errors that occurred in the proposal of Provider A’s accommodation and the expectations and frustrations this caused. The Council acknowledged the distress caused by its actions and offered a financial remedy to Ms Y.
37. Mr X and Ms Y visited several supported living settings in August 2024.
38. On 22 August 2024, Mr X’s and Ms Y’s representative escalated the complaint. They said the delays incurred by the Council meant the financial remedy offered was not sufficient. They said Mr X and Ms Y had visited some potential supported living schemes, but none were suitable. Mr X’s and Ms Y’s representative said the accommodation offered by Provider A was perfect for Mr X and asked the Council to take immediate action to secure the vacancy.
39. The Council reviewed Mr X’s case again and on 29 August 2024, decided to re-enter negotiations with Provider A to implement a transition plan. The Council agreed in principle to proceed with a residential placement at Provider A’s accommodation.
40. Mr X and Ms Y visited several other supported living settings in September 2024.
41. On 17 September 2024, the Council provided its stage two complaint response, clarifying that the financial remedy previously offered was to Mr X and Ms Y. It said the Council had been due to start further in-depth discussions with Provider A regarding the level of support for Mr X, and to prepare a transition plan to enable his move to the service. However, the Council said, due to external circumstances, Provider A no longer had a vacancy at their accommodation. The Council said two of the settings visited by Mr X and Ms Y were able to meet Mr X’s needs; it said it would liaise with them regarding these options.
42. Mr X and Ms Y visited several other supported living settings in late September 2024.
43. Mr X and Ms Y remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought their complaint to us, via their representative.

What happened next

44. Mr X moved to a supported living setting in mid-November 2024.

Analysis – delays in carrying out a care needs assessment

45. The care and support statutory guidance says that an assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale, taking into account the urgency of needs and considering any fluctuation in them.
46. The assessment process starts from when local authorities begin to collect information about the person. We expect councils should complete assessments in a timescale that is proportionate to the complexity of the issues, and normally within four to six weeks.
47. Ms Y requested a needs assessment for Mr X in November 2022. The Council allocated a social worker in May 2023, and started the assessment process on 31 May 2023. The care assessment was finalised on 18 September 2024.
48. The evidence shows a delay in carrying out the care needs assessment. The time taken from starting the assessment to completing it is more than 15 weeks. This is not an appropriate and reasonable timescale. I acknowledge the Council’s comments that delays were due, in part, to a lack of response from Mr X’s diabetic nurse. However, the evidence indicates this is not the sole reason and the Council incurred delays during the assessment process. In addition, there was a period of six months from the time of the request for the care needs assessment to the Council’s allocation of a social worker.
49. It is positive the Council itself identified delay in the process as part of its complaint investigation and apologised to Ms Y as a result. Nevertheless, the delay incurred regarding this aspect of the complaint is fault.

Delays in finding suitable accommodation for Mr X

50. In its response to my enquiries, the Council acknowledged it incurred significant and avoidable delays between 18 September 2023 (when it finalised the care needs assessment), and 22 March 2024 (when it completed Mr X’s pen picture). The Council says the allocated social worker contacted the family just four times during this period.
51. In addition, the Council’s stage one complaint response acknowledges delays for the period 27 December 2023 (the visit to Mr X by a social worker), to 15 April 2024, (when the Council sent the pen picture to supported living providers). I agree with the Council’s comments and find the delays identified to be fault.
52. The evidence also shows additional delay. In April 2024, Provider A initially offered a placement on the basis of agreed funding. However, soon after, the Council identified this placement was not supported living and was therefore not the type of setting identified as required. The evidence indicates the Council did not resend the pen picture to supported living providers until 17 July 2024, three months later.
53. The Council says the role of its brokerage team in sourcing supported living vacancies and the interaction with its adult social care teams is not always clear, and this caused a delay. I acknowledge the Council’s comments and find the delay identified to be fault.

Delays pursuing a possible placement at a preferred setting

54. The preferred setting was Provider A’s accommodation. The evidence indicates a delay from mid-May 2024, (when the Council met with Provider A to discuss the offer received, and Provider A declined the Council's request to reduce the level of support), to late August 2024, (when the Council decided to re-enter negotiations with Provider A). This is a period of 3 months.
55. The Council told Ms Y it had not discounted Provider A, but the evidence indicates it did not take further action to progress this possibility during this period. When the Council decided on 29 August 2024 to re-enter negotiations, the vacancy was filled shortly after.
56. I acknowledge the Council’s decision on 29 August 2024 was made with consideration that no other service was identified or agreed upon at that time. I also acknowledge the Council had sent the pen picture to other providers during this period. However, the Council told Ms Y it had not discounted Provider A’s accommodation, but I have seen no evidence the Council actively pursued this placement during the period identified.
57. The period of delay identified is fault causing an injustice to Mr X and Ms Y, namely the missed opportunity for Provider A’s accommodation to be pursued further as a placement for Mr X, and the uncertainty as to whether the placement would have gone ahead.

The Council’s consideration of Provider A’s accommodation

58. In its complaint response dated 6 August 2024, the Council apologised for the errors that occurred in its initial proposal of Provider A’s accommodation, given that this was a residential care setting instead of a supported living placement and was therefore not the type of care setting identified as required. The Council acknowledged this error had raised the expectations of Mr X and Ms Y and caused avoidable frustration.
59. I agree with the Council’s findings regarding this matter and find the Council’s failure to identify this issue prior to agreeing to Provider A carrying out an assessment is fault.

Injustice to Mr X and Ms Y

60. In addition to the uncertainty and raised expectations identified, Mr X and Ms Y say the injustice to them is the frustration and distress caused by the delays; Mr X wanted to move to his own accommodation to increase his independence and Ms Y says she had to continue to care for Mr X at home for a longer period.
61. Ms Y says her continued care of Mr X at home during the period of delay meant she incurred higher living costs for a longer period. I acknowledge Ms Y’s comments but consider the issue of higher living costs is not quantifiable. I considered the financial remedy previously offered by the Council and our own guidance on remedies, and recommended the Council takes the following actions.

Back to top

Action

62. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X and Ms Y for the fault identified. 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 each to Mr X and Ms Y in recognition of the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays identified. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies;
3. Make a further symbolic payment of £350 each to Mr X and Ms Y in recognition of the raised expectations caused by initially putting forward Provider A’s accommodation as a proposal;
4. Remind staff of the need to complete care needs assessments within an appropriate and reasonable timescale, in line with the care and support statutory guidance;
5. Remind staff to keep cases under regular review to avoid drift and ensure the correct type of accommodation is considered, and
6. Remind staff to explain to service users where necessary the difference between residential care and supported living accommodation.
63. The Council has agreed to take the following additional action within three months of the final decision:
1. Review the role of the Council’s brokerage team in its sourcing of supported living vacancies and its interaction with adult social care teams, with a view to improving communication and taking a pro-active approach regarding available pen pictures.
64. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

65. I have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy the injustice identified and I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman