Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his care and support needs. The Council was at fault for giving incorrect information about Mr X’s future rent payments. This caused Mr X uncertainty. The Council will apologise for this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his adult social care needs, he says the Council:
1. failed to proactively search and find for new accommodation for him;
2. failed to provide him with a tenancy agreement;
3. failed to tell him that his landlord would be evicting him;
4. failed to listen to his views about moving to new accommodation and provide an advocate;
5. failed to correctly tell him how much new accommodation would cost and incorrectly calculated his benefits in financial assessments; and
6. placed him in unsafe accommodation.
2. Mr X says these issues have caused him significant distress and impacted his access to support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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)
5. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated matters relating to this complaint from April 2024 to April 2025 when Mr X complained to us.
8. I have not investigated any matters relating to this complaint before April 2024 including Mr X’s complaints that the Council failed to tell him his landlord would be evicting him and that the Council placed him in unsafe accommodation. This is because we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. I see no good reasons why Mr X could not have complained to us about any of these matters sooner.
9. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to give him a copy of his tenancy agreement. This is because this tenancy was with a private landlord, and not the Council and so there was no duty for the Council to provide such documentation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. 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

Legislation and guidance

Assessment

12. 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.

Care Plan

13. 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.

Mental capacity assessment

14. A person aged 16 or over must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. A person should not be treated as unable to make a decision:

• because they make an unwise decision;
• based simply on: their age; their appearance; assumptions about their condition, or any aspect of their behaviour; or
• before all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.

15. The council must assess someone’s ability to make a decision when that person’s capacity is in doubt. How it assesses capacity may vary depending on the complexity of the decision.

Advocacy

16. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance 7.4 says a council must arrange an independent advocate to facilitate the involvement of a person in their assessment, in the preparation of their care and support plan and in the review of their care plan if 2 conditions are met. That if an independent advocate were not provided then the person would have substantial difficulty in being fully involved in these processes and second, there is no appropriate individual available to support and represent the person’s wishes who is not paid or professionally engaged in providing care or treatment to the person or their carer.

Cooperation with partners

17. Section 7 of the Care Act 2014 says a council has a duty to cooperate with partners, including housing authorities when carrying out its functions under the Care Act 2014.

Background information

18. Mr X’s finances are managed by an appointee at the Council because a mental capacity assessment concluded he did not have capacity to make decisions and manage his own finances.
19. In November 2023, the Council decided that Mr X had the capacity to decide where he wanted to live.
20. The Council completed a needs assessment with Mr X in early February 2024 because he was served an eviction notice for his accommodation. This was to determine his needs and accommodation requirements.
21. Shortly after this, the Council’s brokerage team updated about two housing options Mr X had visited with his mother. One of these I will refer to as Provider 1.

What happened?

22. Mr X is an adult with care and support needs.
23. In early April 2024, the Council received an email from another local Council (Council 2) about an application it had made for social housing on Mr X’s behalf. Council 2 confirmed Mr X would need to bid for properties he was interested in.
24. In mid-April the Council’s finance team completed a financial assessment for Mr X. It sent the outcome of this to Mr X’s appointee.
25. In early April, Mr X noted he had not decided where he wanted to live, but he wanted to visit Provider 1 again and then decide.
26. In mid-April, the Council noted it made daily phone calls to Mr X to see if he had decided about future accommodation, but he did not answer nor respond to the calls.
27. Mr X returned the Council’s calls a few days later. Mr X said he had visited Provider 1, but he had not decided where he would like to live.
28. Mr X contacted the Council at the end of April to say that he didn’t think shared accommodation was suitable for him because he was used to having his own space.
29. In mid-May, Mr X’s mother contacted the Council. She said that she understood Provider 1 needed to be told about the delays in Mr X deciding where he wanted to live. She said she was happy for the Council to see if it still had a vacancy. The Council noted that options would become more limited if Mr X continued to delay deciding.
30. Mr X contacted the Council shortly after this to say he felt his social worker was impatient with him about the two properties he could not decide on. The Council noted that Mr X had not realised that the social worker could have been concerned about him becoming homeless if the present landlord evicted him.
31. At the beginning of June, Mr X told the Council he was interested in a property being advertised with Council 2. The Council encouraged Mr X to make a bid on this.
32. Mr X’s mother called the Council in mid-July. She said that Mr X visited a property which was managed by his current provider (Provider 2) and felt it was suitable. The Council told her that Mr X’s care funding would remain the same but would be reviewed when he moved and that rent would be covered by housing benefit.
33. A social worker telephoned Mr X two days later, offering to visit Provider 2’s accommodation with him. They noted they did not mean to put pressure on him but that it was a good offer. It asked if they could set a date to help him plan for a move.
34. The Council tried to contact Mr X again several times over the coming weeks but was unsuccessful. It also contacted Mr X’s mother to try to engage with Mr X.
35. The Council received a possession order from Mr X’s landlord in early August.
36. Shortly after this, the Council’s finance team completed a financial assessment for Mr X. It sent the outcome of this to Mr X’s appointee.
37. In mid-September, another provider, Provider 3 said they would assess Mr X’s suitability to live with them. It confirmed the following week that Mr X declined to engage with the assessment.
38. At the start of October, Provider 2 offered Mr X temporary accommodation, but he declined this.
39. In early November, a social worker arranged to meet with Mr X to discuss housing options, but Mr X declined this meeting.
40. In mid-November, Mr X’s mother called the Council. They discussed a new offer from Provider 3 and that Mr X had visited three times. The Council confirmed that they had been negotiating with this provider as the package of care they offer is far more than Mr X needs. Mr X’s mother said the family were keen for Mr X to be supported by Provider 3.
41. Towards the end of December, the Council confirmed that Provider 3 was unsuitable for Mr X as it was for people with higher needs.
42. At the start of January 2025, a social worker contacted Mr X’s parents to say that two other options had become available. One of these included Provider 1.
43. A few weeks later, the Council’s finance team completed another financial assessment for Mr X. It sent the outcome of this to Mr X’s appointee.
44. In mid-January, Mr X was evicted and he moved into his parents’ home because there was no other accommodation options arranged.
45. Shortly after, the Council completed a needs assessment. This noted it was undertaken with Mr X’s mother on behalf of Mr X who attended the meeting for a short period before leaving. It also noted that Mr X was happy for his mother to support with the assessment on his behalf.
46. The assessment concluded that Mr X had eligible needs which would require support at home. It also noted he needed support with making decisions and his parents support him with this.
47. A few days later, Mr X visited Provider 2. He noted he liked the property and was interested in moving in. Shortly after this the Council agreed a placement with Provider 2.
48. Mr X complained to the Council at the start of February, he said:

• the Council failed to find him suitable new accommodation to move into before he was evicted;
• the Council failed to explain how it decided how much potential accommodation would cost;
• the Council referred him to Provider 3 but after several visits, said he could not move in because it was unsuitable for his needs; and
• his social worker was insensitive and dismissive of his concerns about his accommodation.

49. The Council replied in mid-March. It said:

• it had not identified any irregularities into benefits checks and the calculations completed;
• the breakdown of Mr X’s benefits he had provided, did not match his actual income. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint about incorrect benefit calculations or incorrect rent calculations.
• the Council could not identify any evidence that the social worker had been insensitive or dismissive. It noted that they had communicated actively with Mr X and his family, but there were times when Mr X did not engage. It did not uphold this complaint.
• Provider 3 responded to an advert the Council put out to find Mr X new accommodation. It said it told Provider 3 about his level of needs before it conducted its assessment, but it was only later in the process that it shared it supported people that needed higher levels of support. The Council said it maintained regular communication with Mr X and his family when he did not engage. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.

50. Mr X moved to Provider 1 at the end of March.

Findings

The Council failed to proactively search and find for new accommodation for Mr X

51. There was no duty on the Council to provide Mr X with accommodation. Mr X’s care and support plan notes eligible needs, but these could have been met in any accommodation with home care, which the Council did have a duty to provide. The Council isn’t a housing authority and so it does not have a duty to house anyone that is threatened with homelessness or becomes homeless. The Council did however regularly liaise with Council 2 which would have been responsible for homelessness duties. There is no fault in the actions of the Council here.
52. Despite this, when the Council became aware that Mr X would be evicted in early 2024, it proactively started to look for new accommodation for Mr X. This included searches with several providers, supporting Mr X to make a housing application to Council 2 and encouraging him and his family to look for private rented accommodation. There was no fault in the Council’s actions here because it acted in line with duties under Section 7 Care Act 2014.
53. The Council decided in 2023 that Mr X had capacity to decide where he wanted to live. In line with this, the Council gave Mr X and his parents the several different options it had found and advice about other private or social housing options. There is evidence that Mr X failed to engage with the Council about these options, despite it trying to engage with him and his parents to support him to make this decision on several occasions. Mr X eventually moved into accommodation provided by Provider 1 in March 2025, which was originally an option in 2024. For this reason, I find no fault in the actions of the Council.
54. Mr X also complained the Council raised his expectations about Provider 3 as he visited several times before the Provider decided it was unsuitable for him because his needs were not high enough. All providers assess potential new clients before agreeing to support. Provider 3 responded to a generic request for support based on Mr X’s needs. The Council cannot guarantee that all Providers that respond to such adverts will be suitable. This is why there is an assessment process in place. And so there was no fault on the Council for Provider 3 being unsuitable for Mr X.

The Council failed to listen to Mr X’s views about moving to new accommodation and provide an advocate

55. There is evidence the Council tried to contact Mr X and his parents on many occasions between April 2024 and April 2025 to gain his views on accommodation. It did this via telephone calls, emails and offered visits. It also offered to accompany him on visits and meet with him to discuss accommodation options, but Mr X declined these offers. I find no fault in the Council failing to listen to Mr X’s views. Mr X was given opportunities to share his views, in different ways, including via his parents, but he declined to do so.
56. There is no evidence that Mr X asked the Council for an advocate during my investigation period of April 2024 to April 2025. When the Council completed Mr X’s needs assessment in January 2025, his mother advocated on his behalf with his permission, which the Council considered appropriate. There is evidence that Mr X’s parents advocated on behalf of Mr X several times during this time period. Mr X actively encouraged them to be part of his care planning. There is no fault in the actions of the Council in failing to provide an advocate. I am satisfied Mr X could take part in the care and support planning process with the assistance and support of his parents and so the Council did not need to appoint an independent advocate.

The Council failed to correctly tell Mr X how much new accommodation would cost and incorrectly calculated his benefits in financial assessments

57. The Council completed several financial assessments between April 2024 and April 2025. I see no evidence of fault in the way in which these were completed. Mr X complained the Council failed to share specific information about his care costs and benefits with him. The outcome of these assessments including any changes in his finances were sent to Mr X’s appointee in line with Mr X’s care and support plan. So, there was no fault in the actions of the Council here.
58. The Council appointee is responsible for ensuring that Mr X had applied for any benefits he may be entitled to. Mr X complained that the Council incorrectly calculated his care costs and benefits since 2017. I have not investigated this point, because I see no good reason why Mr X could not have complained about this matter before now.
59. But, I note that in July 2024 the Council told Mr X’s mother that future rent would be covered by housing benefit. This was not the case. A council could only give general information about costs, until accommodation is confirmed, because there is a wide variation in costs, depending on the vacancy or scheme. The Council telling Mr X’s mother that future rent would be covered by housing benefit was misleading and so fault, which caused Mr X and his mother uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

60. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:

• apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty caused by incorrectly telling Mr X’s mother that future rent would be covered by housing benefit. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology.

61. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

62. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman