Summary: The Council was not at fault for the action it took to meet Mrs X’s needs when she moved into its area. However, when she moved out of the Council’s area, it should have continued delivering her care until the new authority accepted responsibility. It did not do so, for which it was at fault. Mrs X suffered distress, which the Council has agreed to recognise with an apology and a symbolic payment. It will also take steps to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council refused to provide care and support to her after she moved into its area in May 2024, even though she has a number of medical conditions. She says it claimed the authority where she had moved from remained responsible for meeting her needs.
2. Mrs X also complains that the Council refused to provide care for a second time after she was discharged from hospital in June 2024.
3. Ms X says she went without personal care for a month, which caused her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant government guidance.
7. Mrs 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

Care and support statutory guidance

8. The council where someone is ‘ordinarily resident’ is responsible for delivering their care services. It is crucial that the council – following a needs assessment – establishes whether the person is ordinarily resident in its area, and whether, therefore, it is responsible for meeting their needs.
9. In most cases, establishing ordinary residence will be straightforward. But not always. When uncertainties arise, councils must consider each case on its own merits. They must have regard to Shah v London Borough of Barnet (1983), in which Lord Scarman said:

… unless … it can be shown that the statutory framework or the legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning I unhesitatingly subscribe to the view that ordinarily resident refers to a man’s abode in a particular place or country which he has adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of his life for the time being, whether of short or long duration.

10. A council must also meet someone’s needs if they are in its area but of no settled residence. People who have no settled residence, but are present in a council’s area, should be treated in the same way as those who are ordinarily resident.
11. The determination of ordinary residence must not delay the process of meeting someone’s needs. In cases where ordinary residence is not certain, the council should meet the person’s needs first and then resolve the question of ordinary residence later.
12. This is particularly the case where there may be a dispute between two or more councils. When such a dispute occurs, the councils must take all reasonable steps to resolve it between themselves. The person must not go without care, and the council that is meeting their needs on the date the dispute arises must continue to do so until the dispute is resolved.

What happened

13. Mrs X moved into the Council’s area in 2023. She was placed there, in temporary accommodation, by the authority where she had previously lived (which I refer to as ‘Authority Y’). Authority Y continued to meet her social care needs.
14. In March 2024, Authority Y decided Mrs X was now ordinarily resident in the Council’s area. It told the Council it was ending its delivery of her care.
15. The Council disagreed. It entered a dispute with Authority Y about who was responsible for meeting Mrs X’s needs. Authority Y continued to deliver her care during the dispute.
16. In mid-May, after some discussion both internally and with Authority Y, the Council agreed to deliver Mrs X’s care. It did so after agreeing that Mrs X was in its area but of no settled residence (rather than being ordinarily resident there).
17. There was no gap in services to Mrs X during the transfer from Authority Y to the Council.
18. The Council initially continued delivering the same support to Mrs X that she had received from Authority Y. This was:
• A daily 45-minute morning home care visit to help her with personal care and meal preparation.
• A daily 30-minute afternoon visit to help with meal preparation.
• A weekly one-hour visit to help her with domestic tasks, such as tidying.
• A weekly one-hour visit to help her with shopping.
19. In early June, the Council spoke to Mrs X, who confirmed that she received the Personal Independence Payment (which amounted to £732.20 per month). The Council decided this could pay for the weekly domestic and shopping visits she had been receiving. Mrs X agreed to arrange those visits herself, and the Council stopped paying for them (leaving her just with the daily morning and afternoon care visits).
20. Mrs X was then admitted to hospital after a fall. In hospital, she raised significant concerns about the standard of her housing. The Council told the hospital that this was Authority Y’s responsibility (as it had placed her there). But her care package, provided by the Council, remained in place.
21. Mrs X told the hospital that she had not received any home care for a month as the care agency “felt it to be unsafe to continue”. But the care provider says it did not cancel any visits during that period.
22. The hospital discharged Mrs X after ten days. But she immediately presented at A&E and was re-admitted.
23. Three days later, the hospital discharged Mrs X again. It spoke to her care provider beforehand, who agreed that it would deliver her afternoon care on the day she was discharged.
24. Around a week after being discharged, Mrs X told the Council she was moving to a different authority’s area. I refer to the new authority as ‘Authority Z’. She moved the same day.
25. The next day, the Council sent Mrs X’s documents to Authority Z and asked it to start delivering her care. But Authority Z refused to accept responsibility. It said this responsibility lay with Authority Y, which had placed her into her new accommodation.
26. At this point, Mrs X stopped receiving care.
27. Over the next two weeks, the Council was in a dispute with Authorities Y and Z about who was responsible for meeting Mrs X’s needs. The Council’s view was that, ultimately, Authority Y should be responsible.
28. However, there was some disagreement within the Council about who should be temporarily delivering Mrs X’s care while the dispute was ongoing. In the end, the Council decided this temporary duty was for Authority Z (as this was where Mrs X was physically located), although the Council would provide a four-week interim package during the transition.
29. Two weeks after Mrs X moved home, Authority Z accepted responsibility for her care and began delivering it. Mrs X did not receive any care during that two-week period.

My findings

30. When the Council found out that Mrs X had moved into its area and may have had care needs, it needed to establish whether it was responsible for meeting those needs.
31. Although the Council continues to be of the view that it should not have been responsible, it did decide to start delivering Mrs X’s care. It did so, not because she was ‘ordinarily resident’ in its area, but because she was of ‘no settled residence’ (which meant the responsibility for delivering her care fell on the council where she was physically present).
32. Ultimately – whatever the reasons the Council and Authority Y had for disagreeing about their respective duties to Mrs X – what matters is whether she got the care she needed. And she did. Authority Y continued to deliver her care for around nine months after she moved into the Council’s area, at which point the Council started to deliver it. There was no gap in provision.
33. This means Mrs X suffered no injustice, regardless of whether the Council may or may not have erred when considering its duties to her. I will, therefore, make no further comment on the period up to the end of June 2024. Any continued dispute about the financial responsibility for Mrs X’s care during that period is a matter for the Council and Authority Y to resolve between themselves.
34. From late June 2024, after Mrs X was discharged from hospital and had moved to Authority Z’s area, there was a period during which she received no care. Again, when she moved areas there was a dispute between councils. But this time, nobody took responsibility for two weeks.
35. The statutory guidance makes clear that the council which is meeting a person’s needs on the date a dispute about residency arises should continue to meet those needs until the dispute is resolved.
36. When Mrs X moved into Authority Z’s area the Council had been meeting her needs. It should have continued to do so until someone (whoever that was) had accepted responsibility for delivering her care.
37. The Council did not do this, for which it was at fault. And Mrs X suffered distress, because she was without the assistance she needed (some of which was with personal care) for two weeks.
38. The Council should take action to recognise Mrs X’s injustice and improve its service.

Back to top

Action

39. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mrs X for failing to deliver care to her for two weeks after she moved into Authority Z’s area. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council will consider this guidance when writing to Mrs X.
• Make a symbolic payment to Mrs X of £250. This will recognise that its failure to deliver her care caused her distress.
40. Within eight weeks, the Council has agreed to remind its social care officers and managers of its duty (under paragraph 19.77 of the statutory guidance) to continue delivering care to someone while a dispute about their ordinary residence is being resolved, if it was delivering care to them on the date the dispute arose.
41. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things.

Back to top

Decision

42. The Council was at fault, and this caused Mrs X an injustice, which the Council will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman