Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in its handling of a proposed move for the complainant to a residential care facility in Wales. The Council was entitled to decide it would not fund the proposed placement because it involved more support than the complainant needed, and although there was a significant delay in resolving the matter, the evidence shows this was because of disagreements between the Council and the complainant’s family, and not because it allowed the matter to drift. The Council was also entitled to decide the complainant could safely be placed in a mixed-sex facility. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Miss F. Ms F is represented in her complaint by her sister, Mrs H.
2. Mrs H complains about the Council’s handling of a proposed move for Miss F to a new residential care facility in Wales. Specifically, she says the Council initially implied it had agreed a move to the care facility, but then, after a delay of several months, decided it was too expensive. Mrs H says the Council later provided different reasons for not agreeing the move. She also complains the Council did not agree Miss F needed to be housed in a single-sex facility, despite what she feels to be strong supporting evidence.

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. 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 s34H(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. As I have noted above, the law says a person should approach us within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue they wish to complain about. This is called the ‘permitted period’. We will not generally accept complaints received outside the permitted period.
7. Mrs H complained to the Ombudsman in June 2025, but in doing so raised complaints about several matters which it is evident she was aware of before June 2024. These matters are late. Although the law gives us flexibility to disapply this time restriction, we must first be satisfied there are good reasons for a person’s delay in approaching us. I have seen no evidence to suggest that is the case here, and so I have not investigated any late matters.
8. In her complaint to the Ombudsman Mrs H also raised several new matters, which did not form part of her complaint to the Council. Again, as I have noted, the law says we may only accept a matter for investigation if we are satisfied a council has had a reasonable opportunity to investigate it under its own complaints process. These matters are therefore premature for investigation by the Ombudsman.
9. For this reason, my investigation will cover only the points described at paragraph 2.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mrs H and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

12. For simplicity, the following chronology will only describe the elements of the complaint I have investigated.
13. Miss F has significant disabilities. For several years she lived in a supported living facility in the Council’s area. Mrs H lives in Wales, and Miss F was a frequent visitor to her home during this time.
14. In 2023, Mrs H and the rest of her family decided it would be beneficial for Miss F to move to a residential facility nearer to Mrs H’s home. In November, Mrs H identified a suitable facility and informed the Council of this. I will refer to this property as ‘Facility 1’.
15. In April 2025 Mrs H submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. She said that, in August 2024, the Council had completed an assessment of Facility 1 and agreed it was the best option for Miss F. Preparations for Miss F’s move had then begun, with staff members from Facility 1 travelling to visit and assess her, and Mrs H researching local groups and activities for Miss F to join.
16. However, in December the Council informed Mrs H it could not agree the move because Facility 1’s quoted fees were too high. Mrs H said this had come as a shock, as she believed the move had been confirmed. She said she decided not to tell Miss F the news to avoid upsetting her.
17. In January 2025, Mrs H had a meeting with the Council. Mrs H said the Council informed her they needed to explore other options, and that the previous case officer had not done so adequately. The Council identified four other options, which Mrs H then visited, but she said only one was suitable for Miss F, and this was still inferior to Facility 1. Mrs H said the Council then changed its reason for refusing to fund the placement, now saying it was because the regime there was too restrictive. She denied this.
18. Mrs H said the second-choice facility was “quickly overlooked”, which she believed was again due to cost, and the Council now wished her to consider a third option, which she said was unsuitable because it was a mixed-sex facility and too far from her home. Mrs H said she had provided evidence to show Miss F needed to be in a single-sex environment, and believed the Council was denying this to reduce costs.
19. Mrs H said Miss F was still unaware she was not moving to Facility 1, and that she lacked the capacity to understand it. Mrs H acknowledged the Council’s administrative and financial hurdles, but questioned how it could take so long to arrange Miss F’s move. She asked the Council to urgently review Miss F’s case.
20. The Council responded in May. It explained high staff turnover and demand had caused delays, and that it had first needed to resolve whether the Council or the relevant local authority in Wales would be responsible for Miss F’s care after her move.
21. The Council, having accepted this responsibility, said it was required to balance meeting Miss F’s needs with proper use of public funds. It explained Facility 1 had quoted a fee of more than £1700 per week, compared to the approximately £1000 per week charged by Miss F’s current home in England.
22. The Council said its assessment did not show Miss F needed a single-sex environment, and noted two facilities which could meet her needs, which it said it had asked to carry out an assessment of Miss F. The Council said it was also looking for other options for Miss F, although it cautioned Mrs H there was a limited supply.
23. Mrs H wrote again to the Council a few days later. She asked the Council to give a breakdown of Facility 1’s quote. Mrs H noted again the Council had decided this was the best option for Miss F in August 2024, and reiterated her dissatisfaction at the length of time it was taking to find a placement for her.
24. Mrs H asked the Council to provide a copy of the assessment which showed a mixed-sex environment was suitable for Miss F. She questioned how and when this assessment could have been carried out, and listed several reasons why she felt Miss F should not be in a mixed-sex environment, including incidents of inappropriate behaviour by her in the past.
25. Mrs H noted again she recognised the Council’s need to balance its priorities, but suggested it was not meeting its duty of care towards Miss F, given how long the process had now gone on for.
26. Mrs H has confirmed she did not receive a response to this letter, and in June she referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.
27. After further consideration, the Council agreed to support a move for Miss F to Facility 1, which was completed in October.

Back to top

Analysis

28. Mrs H complains that, despite initially agreeing Facility 1 was “the best option” for Miss F in August 2024, it then refused to commission a placement for her there. Mrs H says she believes this was simply because of the quoted cost, which is not a legitimate reason for the Council to refuse the placement.
29. I consider this a misinterpretation. In the Council’s records there is a note documenting a meeting between the case officer and Mrs H in August 2024. The case officer’s note says:

“I advised that the balance tables show that it is in [Miss F’s] best interests to move to Wales to [Facility 1].”

30. Saying it was in Miss F’s best interests to move to Facility 1 is not the same as saying Facility 1 was the best option for her. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 says that any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of, a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests. The decision-maker also has to consider if there is a less restrictive choice available that can achieve the same outcome. Given, especially, it had not considered any other options at the time, the Council’s comment does not mean it had agreed to commission a placement for Miss F at Facility 1.
31. I am conscious it took a further four months for the Council to decide it would not fund a placement at Facility 1. This is unfortunate, but I am satisfied it was not due to fault by the Council. Rather, it appears the principal reason for the delay was that it took until the end of October for staff from Facility 1 to visit Miss F and complete its own assessment. The facility could not give the Council a quote before it had completed its assessment; in turn, the Council could not make a decision about funding without the quote.
32. I note Mrs H also disputed the merits of the Council’s decision about funding. In particular, she says the cost is not a legitimate reason for the Council to refuse to commission a placement.
33. However, the Council has explained it is not simply about the cost, but because some of the quoted cost arose from the regime proposed by the facility, which the Council did not agree was necessary for Miss F, given her level of need.
34. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way a council has made its decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or unduly delayed making a decision. We call this ‘fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
35. However, we do not make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a right of appeal against its decisions. If we find a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if the complainant feels strongly it has made the wrong decision. We do not uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with something a council has done.
36. In this case, I am satisfied the Council gave proper consideration to the question of funding and came to a decision it was entitled to make. There was no fault here.
37. On a related note, Mrs H has also commented the Council changed the rationale for its decision not to provide funding, initially saying it was because it was too expensive, and then because of its concerns about the regime at Facility 1. I cannot know exactly what was said in every conversation between the Council and Mrs H. However, the Council’s records include a note of its decision from 5 December, which says:

“The funding request for [Miss F’s] move to Wales has been rejected due to senior management feeling this is disproportionate to her needs.”

38. And, in an email to Mrs H of 19 December, the case officer wrote:

“The care package they have suggested is considerably more support than [Miss F] is currently receiving and, whilst I had anticipated that some additional support hours would be required, I am not fully in agreement with what they are suggesting. The total costs they have quoted are more than what they had initially provided us with some months ago, and is significantly higher than [Miss F's] existing care costs.”

39. Both of which demonstrate the Council’s concern was that the regime proposed by Facility 1 was excessive for Miss F’s needs, not simply that it was too expensive.
40. After the Council decided to refuse funding for Facility 1, it began the process of looking for an alternative placement for her in Wales. The Council identified several potential facilities, which Mrs H visited. Unfortunately, due to ongoing disagreements over what was most suitable, this matter had not been resolved by the time Mrs H made her formal complaint (at which point I must conclude my investigation).
41. I acknowledge Mrs H’s dissatisfaction with this, and I appreciate the effect this delay had on Miss F, who had limited capacity to understand it. However, the Council was not bound by any statutory deadline here, and the evidence demonstrates clearly the delay did not arise because the Council had allowed the matter to drift.
42. A significant part of the disagreement between Mrs H and the Council was the question whether Miss F needed to be housed in a single-sex environment.
43. Mrs H raised several examples of problems she said occurred when Mrs H was in contact with men, and for this reason believed it was important for Miss F to be housed only with other women. But the Council said there was nothing in its assessment to support this, and explained that, contrary to Mrs H’s belief, Miss F’s home in England was not a single-sex facility. It also explained any challenging behaviour by Miss F, which came about because of her exposure to male residents, could be managed with the appropriate support.
44. I appreciate Mrs H’s reasons for being concerned about the environment Miss F was to be placed into. Again though, it is not for me to make my own judgement about what was suitable for her. On balance I consider the Council provided an adequate rationale for its decision, and this being so, I have no grounds to criticise it. It is unfortunate this disagreement contributed to the delay in agreeing a placement for Miss F, but I cannot say this was the result of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman