Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed dealing with his concerns about the unsuitability of Mr Y’s accommodation and impact onto his mental health causing distress. We have found fault by the Council as it delayed reviewing Mr Y’s care needs and moving him to more suitable accommodation. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case so have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for his brother Mr Y the Council delayed dealing with his concerns about Mr Y’s accommodation and meeting his care and support needs. Mr X says Mr Y is living in unsuitable accommodation and the Council’s delays in moving Mr Y to supported accommodation have caused frustration and impacted onto Mr Y’s mental health.

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. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred.
3. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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. I have investigated events between October 2023 when the Council agreed to refer Mr Y for a further assessment of his needs and November 2024 when Mr X complained to us. I have referred to matters after November 2024 to provide an update about Mr Y’s accommodation.

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

Community care assessment

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.

Care plan

11. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.

Reviews

12. 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. Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.

What happened in this case

13. The following is a summary of key events relevant to my consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.
14. Mr Y has been diagnosed mental health conditions and received support from mental health services. Mr Y moved into bedsit accommodation in 2023. Following a referral the Adult Social Services (ASC) mental health team carried out an assessment of Mr Y in June 2023. It found Mr Y needed a package of care of 5 hours a week to support maintaining his personal care and living environment. This was mainly by prompts. The care package started and carers from an agency came to support Mr Y one hour a day for five days. Mr Y was to receive ongoing long term case management from the ASC mental health team.
15. Mr X spoke to a social worker in October 2023 as he had concerns about Mr Y’s mental health and his accommodation. The social worker advised they would be making a referral to the Safeguarding and Independent Living (SAIL) team for an assessment due to considering Mr Y needed extra support.
16. Mr X contacted the Council in January 2024 concerned about the lack of progress of Mr Y’s assessment. The Council advised it had received the referral, and SAIL would be in contact in due course. Mr X contacted the Council again in March 2024 saying Mr Y was vulnerable and needed help. Mr X complained to the Council again in April and May 2024 about lack of progress, concerns about Mr Y and it was unclear which team would be carrying out the referral.
17. The Council responded in May 2024 apologising for delay which was due to resource issues and available social workers in the SAIL team. It agreed to prioritise a review of Mr Y’s care needs due to Mr X’s continued concerns about his well-being. The Council confirmed it had allocated Mr Y’s case to a SAIL social worker to provide an assessment and case management support to Mr Y. The social worker contacted Mr X and advised they would arrange a review of Mr Y’s care and support needs.
18. The social worker started the review in June 2024 and met with Mr X and Mr Y at Mr Y’s accommodation. The social worker noted Mr Y lived in a very small room with no oven, fridge or heating. The social worker considered the room not suitable for Mr Y, causing a high risk to his welfare and wellbeing. The social worker agreed to look at Mr Y’s care and support plan and an appropriate supported living placement.
19. The Council formally responded to Mr X’s complaint in July 2024 and apologised for the delay in replying. The Council explained after Mr Y’s case was referred for a SAIL assessment in October 2023 an officer left causing staffing issues with only one social worker in place in the team. The Council accepted it delayed due to lack of resources and could not allocate a social worker any sooner. The Council acknowledged it had not responded to Mr X’s emails about the referral and to clarify which team would be responsible for it. It apologised and upheld Mr X’s complaints. The Council said it had now allocated Mr Y’s case to a social worker in the SAIL team to find out Mr Y’s needs and impact of his mental health conditions.
20. The social worker contacted Mr X in August 2024 apologising for the delay. The social worker said they would look to progress matters to ensure Mr Y’s care support structure was clear and consistent. And would also explore other housing options for him.
21. Mr X contacted the Council in September 2024 about the lack of communication and progress on Mr Y’s case. Mr X said the Council made a referral in October 2023, acknowledged it in January 2024 and held a meeting in June 2024. But there had been no progress about accommodation. Mr X considered the matter was urgent with Mr Y needing support because his mental health was constantly fluctuating. The social worker responded asking to meet with Mr Y and his support workers from the care agency. The social worker said they would refer Mr Y for a low support placement. And apologised if Mr X felt frustrated with situation.
22. The social worker carried out some welfare visits and contacted Mr Y in October 2024 and updated Mr X.
23. Mr X complained to us in November 2024 about the lack of action by the Council since April 2024. Mr X said Mr Y was living in unsuitable accommodation and needed help and supported accommodation. Mr X also complained to the Council about the lack of progress after it agreed to help Mr Y.
24. The Council’s case management records noted in November 2024 Mr Y’s review process was outstanding and needed completing urgently.
25. Mr X contacted the social worker in December 2024 for an update and sought a meeting as he considered there had been no progress on moving Mr Y. The social worker said they were aware there was not as much progress as Mr X and Mr Y would wish for. But they were building a good relationship with Mr Y which was helping to collate information about his needs, likes and dislikes. The social worker said they would continue to be in contact with Mr Y, look at options and try to transfer him to more suitable accommodation. Mr X urged the social worker to find the supported accommodation. And said Mr Y’s accommodation was not sufficient for his wellbeing with issues with water and electricity the landlord did not resolve.
26. The social worker met with Mr X and Mr Y at Mr Y’s accommodation in February 2025. The social worker confirmed again the accommodation had become unsuitable for Mr Y and was not meeting his needs. This was because it lacked basic facilities for maintaining an independent, safe and dignified life. Mr Y needed ongoing support with most of his care and support needs to ensure his safety, protection and wellbeing appropriately maintained. Otherwise, there was a risk to his mental health and wellbeing. The social worker confirmed an action plan by the Council. This included completing the care review for Mr Y, a referral to the brokerage team to find low level supported living and maintaining regular contact and updates.
27. The social worker completed the care review and issued an updated care and support plan as Mr Y was deemed still eligible to receive services from the Council.
28. In April 2025 the brokerage team sourced a low supported living placement, and it was approved by the Council’s funding panel. Mr Y moved into the accommodation at the end of April 2025.

My assessment

29. The Council advised in October 2023 it would be referring Mr Y for an assessment. But due to an officer leaving and lack of resources the Council could not allocated Mr Y’s case to a social worker. So, it took limited action on Mr Y’s case until May 2024. I consider this to be service failure by the Council due to the lack of resources. The Council has advised of action taken to resolve the lack of resources. This includes recruiting temporary staff, introducing technology, outsourcing assessments to specialist external providers and taking steps to recruit and retain permanent staff. It has provided information to show there are few outstanding care needs assessments now. As the Council is taking satisfactory action there is no need for us to make any recommendations for service improvements.
30. But delay in the referral due to lack of resources is fault and has caused an injustice to Mr Y through distress and uncertainty about the referral being made.
31. Once the Council made the referral in May 2024 it agreed to prioritise a review of Mr Y’s care needs. A social worker started a review in June 2024 and found the accommodation unsuitable for Mr Y causing high risk to his welfare and wellbeing. The social worker agreed to look at Mr Y’s care and support plan and an appropriate supported living accommodation.
32. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance that supports the Care Act 2014 says an assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale. It should take into account the urgency of needs and considering any fluctuation in them. We expect councils should complete assessments in a timescale that is proportionate to the complexity of the issues, and normally within 4-6 weeks. Councils should tell the individual how long their assessment will take and keep them informed about this throughout the process. If it is a particularly complex assessment, then the council should tell the person how long is likely to take. If, during the course of an assessment, it becomes clear more time is needed, the council should explain this to the person. We would consider the timescales are also appropriate for reviews and so should be completed within 4- 6 weeks.
33. The evidence provided shows the Council had not completed the review Mr Y’s care needs in November 2024 when Mr X complained to us. This was even though it had acknowledged Mr Y’s accommodation was unsuitable in June 2024. This is outside of the timescales we would expect a council to take. The delay in completing the review is fault. It has caused an injustice to Mr Y through distress, uncertainty and living in unsuitable accommodation. The review process started in October 2023 with the social worker’s referral. It was still ongoing nearly 12 months later when Mr X complained to us in November 2024 and not concluded until February 2025. The Council then took action to move Mr Y into supported living accommodation shortly afterwards. On the balance of probabilities therefore I consider that if Council had completed the review within the timescales expected then it is likely it would have moved Mr Y to supported living much sooner than it did. Mr Y has therefore been living in unsuitable accommodation from October 2023 to November 2024 (the period I am considering) causing him a significant injustice.
34. To remedy the injustice caused in this case I recommend the Council apologises to Mr Y for the delays in reviewing his care needs and moving him to appropriate supported living accommodation. The Council should also make Mr Y a symbolic payment of £1000 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty the delays caused and for failing to move him from the unsuitable accommodation sooner than it did.
35. I recommend the Council apologises to Mr X for the delays in Mr Y’s care needs review process. It should make him a symbolic payment of £250 in recognition of the time and trouble he has been put to in making complaints and pursuing the matter on behalf of Mr Y.

Back to top

Agreed Action

36. Within one month of the date of my final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr Y for the delays in reviewing his care needs and moving him to appropriate supported living accommodation. 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.
• Make Mr Y a symbolic payment of £1000 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty the Council’s delays caused and for failing to move him from the unsuitable accommodation sooner than it did.
• Apologise to Mr X for the delays in Mr Y’s care needs review process.
• Make Mr X a symbolic payment of £250 in recognition of the time and trouble he has been put to in making complaints and pursuing the matter on behalf of Mr Y.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault causing injustice and have recommended a suitable remedy in this case.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman