Summary: Ms X complained, on behalf of her son Mr Y, that the Council took too long to move Mr Y to another residential placement. Ms X said this caused Mr Y’s health to worsen. We have found the Council at fault for the time it took to move Mr Y. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X for the uncertainty she suffered.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of her son, Mr Y, that it took the Council too long to move him to an alternative residential placement nearer to his family. Ms X said Mr Y’s health deteriorated as he put on weight and started to gamble while in the other residential placement.

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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms 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

Law and guidance

6. Under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, councils and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) have a joint duty to provide after-care services to people who have been detained in hospital for treatment under certain sections of the 1983 Act.
7. Under section 117 of the 1983 Act, as amended by the Care Act 2014, if a person is ordinarily resident in council area A immediately before detention under the 1983 Act and moves on discharge to council area B, council A will remain responsible for providing or commissioning their aftercare. However, if the patient, having become ordinarily resident after discharge in council area B, is subsequently detained in hospital for treatment again, council B will be responsible for their aftercare when they are discharged from hospital.
8. The Care and Support (Disputes Between Local Authorities) Regulations 2014, set out the procedures councils must follow when disputes arise regarding a person’s ordinary residence. They must first take all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute between themselves. It is critical the person does not go without the care they need while councils are in dispute. The council meeting the needs of the adult or the carer on the date the dispute arises must continue to do so until it is resolved. If no council is meeting the person’s needs, then the council where the person is living or is physically present must accept responsibility until the dispute is resolved. The council which has accepted provisional responsibility is called the ‘lead authority’.
9. The lead council must identify all the authorities involved in the dispute and co-ordinate an ongoing dialogue between all parties involved. The parties must provide the lead council with contact details of a named person dealing with the dispute. The lead council must be responsible for the co-ordination of any information that may be relevant to the dispute and keep all parties informed of any relevant developments. The lead council must also keep the person, or their carer if appropriate, fully informed during the dispute up to its resolution.
10. If, having followed the procedure set out in the disputes regulations, the councils are still unable to resolve a particular dispute, the lead council must apply for a determination to the Secretary of State or appointed person. This should be done as soon as the councils agree they cannot resolve it and, in any event, no later than four months after the dispute started. (Section 19, Care and Support Statutory Guidance)

What happened

11. Mr Y has care needs. The Council are responsible for his care costs. Mr Y lives in accommodation which was provided as part of his after care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
12. The residential placement where Mr Y lived was a significant distance from his family, including Ms X.
13. In April 2024, the Council started to contact another council about who was responsible for Mr Y’s section 117 aftercare costs, including his residential placement. The Council believed it was not responsible for Mr Y’s section 117 aftercare costs. It appeared it had a previous agreement with another council that it would pay the costs and bill the other council however it had not received any money from the other council.
14. In July 2024, Mr Y asked the Council to move him to a new residential placement, near to his family and which was run by the same provider as his current placement. The Council agreed Mr Y could move to a new placement.
15. In October 2024, the Council held a review of Mr Y’s care. The notes from the review said the Council was in a funding dispute with another council about Mr Y’s section 117 aftercare costs. The notes also mentioned Mr Y had asked to move to another residential placement near to his family.
16. In November 2024, the Council told Ms X it was trying to resolve the funding dispute with the other council and no one had refused Mr Y's move to the new residential placement.
17. In December 2024, the Council got advice from its legal team and decided to continue to fund without prejudice Mr Y’s section 117 aftercare costs until the dispute with the other Council was resolved. The Council then asked the residential placement Mr Y wanted to move to for its costs.
18. The Council sent a funding request for the new residential placement to Panel in mid-January 2025 and the Panel agreed the move. Mr Y moved to the new placement on 31 March 2025.

Ms X’s complaint

19. Ms X complained to the Council in November 2024 that it had not moved Mr Y to the new residential placement following his request in July 2024. Ms X said her son’s health worsened as he had not been able to move closer to family. Ms X said he had put on weight and got into gambling.
20. The Council decided to uphold Ms X complaint in its final response. The Council said there was an ongoing dispute around the responsibility for Mr Y’s section 117 aftercare costs. The Council offered to meet with Ms X to discuss the details of the dispute.
21. Ms X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

22. Ms X and Mr Y originally asked the Council to move Mr Y to a residential placement nearer family in July 2024. Mr Y did not end up moving to the new placement until March 2025, eight months later. I consider the Council was at fault for the way it handled the move.
23. While I acknowledge there was a funding dispute between the Council and another council, this should not have affected Mr Y’s move to the new placement. The Council was well aware of the funding dispute prior to Mr Y’s request to move placement, however it took it until December 2024 to seek advice from its legal team about what to do. Had the Council done this sooner it would have likely moved Mr Y to his new placement much earlier.
24. As I have found fault I need to consider what injustice this caused. I consider Mr Y was still getting care in his old residential placement and this would not have changed in his new placement. Therefore I do not believe there is significant injustice caused to Mr Y. Ms X says Mr Y's health worsened and he put on weight and gambled as his family could not support him at the old residential placement. I cannot say on balance whether moving Mr Y to the new residential placement would have stopped him from engaging in these behaviours. But I do recognise that not moving Mr Y sooner has caused uncertainty to Ms X about whether she could have supported him had he moved closer to her.

Back to top

Agreed Action

25. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Apologise to Ms X for not moving Mr Y to the new residential placement sooner. 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.
• Pay Ms X £200 to recognise the uncertainty she suffered.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman