Summary: The Council failed to meet Mr Y’s care and support needs between March and December 2024. This caused Ms X and Mr Y avoidable distress. The Council will issue an apology make symbolic payments and take action in this statement to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained for her brother Mr Y the Council failed to provide adult social care and support, including a failure to provide a supported living placement and to liaise with mental health services. She said this caused avoidable distress.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Ms X complained to us in March 2025, so matters between March 2024 and March 2025 are not late. She has also raised issues before March 2024, including the service from the Council’s leaving care team. But as she has given no reason for her delay complaining to us, I have not investigated earlier matters.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

Relevant law and guidance

8. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice set out our expectations of councils. They say:
• Councils need to be citizen focussed. This includes responding to needs flexibly and co-ordinating a response with other service providers.
• Councils need to be open and accountable. This includes keeping proper and appropriate records.
9. A council must carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the outcomes they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where appropriate their carer or any other person they might want involved. (Care Act 2014, section 9)
10. If a council decides a person is eligible for care, it should prepare a care and support plan which specifies the needs identified in the assessment, says whether and to what extent the needs meet the eligibility criteria and specifies the needs the council is going to meet and how this will be done. The council should give a copy of the care and support plan to the person. (Care Act 2014, sections 24 and 25)
11. There is a legal duty on a council to meet an adult’s eligible care and support needs (needs which meet the eligibility criteria). (Care Act 2014, section 18)

What happened

12. Mr Y has mental health problems and is autistic. In March 2024, he lived with a relative. Mr Y could no longer live with the relative and he went to live with Ms X. Ms X said this was only ever intended as a short-term solution. The Council’s records indicate it accepted this was a temporary arrangement and that it was aware of Ms X’s circumstances: she was living in shared housing, was working and had a child.
13. Ms X requested emergency accommodation for Mr Y in March 2024. The social care team’s case notes indicate ‘a Care Act assessment was needed before Mr Y could be considered for mainstream housing.’
14. I have summarised key case notes between March 2024 and January 2025:

Month Summary

March The Council completed a social care assessment and Mr Y was deemed eligible for adult care and support. (The Council has not provided me with a copy of the assessment.)

April The leaving care team offered Mr Y a two-bedroom flat with another person in April. The case notes do not explain what happened with this property.

June/July The Council made applications to supported living providers. Providers declined to offer Mr Y a service or had no vacancies.

June The Council asked the GP to make a referral to the mental health team. This referral was ‘cancelled’ by the mental health team as Mr Y had not engaged. This was due to the Council providing an incorrect home address for Mr Y. The social care team wrote to the GP’s surgery about this.

September and

October The Council pursued further supported living providers in September and October. It agreed Bed and Breakfast was unsuitable for Mr Y.

October A supported living provider with a suitable vacancy offered Mr Y a place. However, there was a risk associated from a family member living close by, so it did not go ahead.

December Mr Y was placed on the waiting list for specialist NHS mental health services. He moved into supported living with additional care and support hours funded by the Council.

January 2025 The social worker asked the GP to refer Mr Y to mental health services in the area (as he had moved to a different area).

The Council’s complaint responses

15. Ms X complained to the Council in June 2024. The Council responded in August saying:
• The GP referred Mr Y to the mental health team in June.
• Adult social care had accepted responsibility to provide Mr Y with accommodation through his assessed needs under the Care Act 2014 due to his disabilities.
• Mr Y’s needs were higher than most supported housing providers could meet and the Council considered he could have an additional care package.
• The difficulty was finding the right type of accommodation and level of support and the lack of vacancies.
• It accepted the delay finding accommodation had affected Ms X. It also accepted communication with her could have been better and was sorry.
16. Ms X asked to escalate her complaint at the start of November; the issues she raised were about matters predating the timeframe of my investigation. The Council responded to those issues in December and signposted her to the LGSCO. The Council said:
• It had completed an assessment and Mr Y was eligible for adult care and support.
• It was looking for suitable supported living which would include core support plus additional hours.
• It was going to provide five hours a day of care and support temporarily to support both of them, as Mr Y was still living with her.

Further social care assessment and care and support plan

17. The Council completed a social care assessment in December 2024. It said:
• Mr Y’s current ‘placement’ (that is, with Ms X) was no longer sustainable and he needed an urgent placement.
• Ms X was a current unpaid carer and had been offered and sent a carer’s assessment.
• He was eligible for care and support.
• The proposed support was four and a half hours a day for prompting with personal care, cooking, housework, appointments, shopping.
• His personal budget (the cost of his care package) was £543 a week.
18. The Council drew up a care and support plan, also in December. It set out Mr Y’s eligible care and support needs, outcomes and described how to meet them. The agreed care and support was to be delivered by an agency for two weeks. And then by a care provider at his supported living placement

Findings

19. The Council carried out a social care assessment in March 2024. Although I have not been provided with a copy, the case records indicate the Council had decided Mr Y was eligible for adult care and support. The Council was therefore under a duty to meet his eligible unmet needs. The Council failed to draw up a care and support plan after it decided Mr Y was eligible for care and support. This was not in line with sections 24 and 25 of the Care Act 2014 and was fault. The Council relied on Ms X to meet Mr Y’s care and support needs between March and December 2024. This placed her under unacceptable pressure and was fault causing avoidable and prolonged distress as she was clearly reluctant, had little choice in the matter and would not see her brother homeless.
20. The Council’s failure to secure a temporary domiciliary care package for Mr Y while it took the necessary steps to identify and secure suitable supported housing was not in line with the duty to meet his eligible needs in Section 18 of the Care Act 2014. This was fault causing Ms X avoidable distress and meaning she had to provide care and support and housing against her wishes. It also caused Mr Y avoidable distress in that he was relying on a reluctant relative for housing and support. It likely caused tension between Ms X and Mr Y.
21. The Council failed to follow up a referral to the mental health team made by the GP in June 2024. This was poor communication and liaison between the NHS and Council and was fault. The available evidence indicates Mr Y was placed on a waiting list for more specialist mental health services so on balance, I do not conclude he missed out on receiving mental health support.
22. The records refer to the potential offer of a property in April 2024. The records do not show why this was not pursued. This is poor record keeping and is fault. This leaves uncertainty about whether the Council could have secured suitable supported living sooner than was the case.

Back to top

Agreed Action

23. Within eight weeks the Council will issue:
• A written apology to Ms X and Mr Y. 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.
• A payment of £500 to Mr Y to reflect the avoidable distress caused by the delay in meeting his eligible care and support needs
• A payment of £1000 to Ms X to reflect the sustained and avoidable distress caused by the lack of care and support for Mr X between March and December 2024.
• A written reminder to relevant staff in the social care team to ensure they document reasons for not pursuing vacancies and to ensure current addresses are provided when referring clients to other services.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman