Summary: There was no fault by the Council. It completed a social care assessment within an acceptable timeframe and revised Ms Y’s care and support plan in response to additional information Mrs X provided. The Council involved them both in the assessment and support planning process and Ms Y also had an independent advocate. The Council’s decision that Ms Y did not require residential care was taken without fault and so we have no grounds to criticise it.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained for her relative Ms Y. She said the Council:
1. Took too long to assess Ms Y and devise a care and support plan
2. Failed to involve them
3. Refused to consider their preferred care provider
4. Failed to provide an adequate complaint response.
2. Mrs X said this caused them avoidable distress and a loss of trust in the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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

Relevant law and guidance

7. Supported living is housing and care for adults with disabilities enabling them to live more independently in the community. Residential care is 24-hour care where an adult has their own bedroom and may have their own bathroom and has shared living and eating arrangements. Supported living offers housing with a tenancy, sometimes shared accommodation and sometimes individual flats. There is usually support at night available, for example a support worker may sleep in.
8. The Council has contracted with providers of supported living to adults with different needs. It has a supported living framework. This sets out the specifications for core hours (which are shared between more than one resident) and one to one hours.
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. The Care Act spells out the duty to meet eligible needs (needs which meet the eligibility criteria). (Care Act 2014, section 18)
11. An adult’s needs meet the eligibility criteria if they arise from or are related to a physical or mental impairment or illness and as a result the adult cannot achieve two or more of the following outcomes and as a result there is or is likely to be a significant impact on well-being:
• Managing and maintaining nutrition
• Maintaining personal hygiene
• Managing toilet needs
• Being appropriately clothed
• Making use of the home safely
• Maintaining a habitable home environment
• Accessing work, training, education
• Developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships
• Making use of facilities or services in the community including public transport and recreational facilities or services
• Carrying out caring responsibilities the adult has for a child.

(Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2014, regulation 2)

12. 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)
13. Statutory Guidance explains a council should review a care and support plan at least every year, on request or in response to a change in circumstances. The purpose of a review is to see how a care and support plan has been working and to decide if any revisions need to be made to it. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Paragraphs 13.19-21 and 13.32)
14. Direct payments are cash payments a council gives to an adult or their agreed representative to enable them to arrange care and support themselves.
15. The court decided:
• A council’s duty is not to achieve the person’s desired outcomes but to assess whether the provision of care and support would contribute to those outcomes
• The wishes of the person may be a primary factor, but they are not an overriding consideration

(R (Davey v Oxfordshire CC)

What happened

2024

16. Ms Y has learning disabilities and health conditions and is eligible for adult social care and support. Ms Y lives with her mother Mrs X who manages her daughter’s direct payment. Mrs X uses the direct payment to fund respite care in a residential care home with Provider A and to fund day services and a personal assistant.
17. In August 2024, Mrs X emailed the Council asking for an urgent review. She said Ms Y had been enjoying respite at Provider A and wanted to work towards Ms Y moving out of home in a planned way. She also said she wanted additional funding for respite care meantime. A duty social worker spoke with Mrs X. Mrs X had just been diagnosed with serious health conditions. Mrs X said she would like Ms Y to move to Provider A.
18. Mrs X chased the Council in September as she had become unwell. The Council allocated a social worker who rang Mrs X and apologised for the delay. The social worker visited them the following week and started a review of the existing care and support plan and also completed a new needs assessment. Mrs X and Ms Y told the social worker about their preferred placement. Ms Y was eligible for care and support. Her indicative budget (an estimate of the cost of care and support) was just under £1500 a week. The social worker noted Ms Y required full-time supported living.
19. The social worker spoke to a member of staff from Provider A at the start of October. Provider A’s staff member said that Mrs X had a ‘plan for Ms Y’s full transition by the end of December’. The social worker said this may not be possible as the Council’s framework providers would also need to be considered.
20. The social worker and Mrs X spoke. The social worker told Mrs X that Provider A was not on the Council’s framework. Mrs X said Provider A was working well, Ms Y had settled in well and found it difficult to form new relationships, so it was unreasonable to ask her to consider a different provider. Mrs X threatened legal action. Mrs X also had a similar discussion with a manager who said they would need to discuss the matter with senior management.
21. Mrs X asked for an independent advocate for Ms Y. She also asked how much the Council was willing to pay for Ms Y’s care.
22. The social worker agreed to refer Ms Y for advocacy. She also explained Provider A, while an excellent provider of respite care, was a residential care home and not a supported living provider, which was what Ms Y had been assessed as needing.
23. The social worker noted the Council had agreed respite provision at Provider A because there were no placements available on the framework.
24. Mrs X sent an email with questions. The social worker replied saying:
• The brokerage team was responsible for identifying placements
• The term ‘framework’ meant a group of care providers who had contracts with the Council. If there was no suitable provider on the framework, the Council would look at others. At the time, there was no framework provider for Ms Y’s respite care available and so Provider A had been agreed.
• They were sorry Mrs X felt she had been misled, but there was never any agreement for Ms Y to transition to Provider A long-term
25. Mrs X gave several sets of comments on the care and support plan between October and December 2024. The plan was amended to include her comments.
26. The Council’s management team agreed an indicative budget (estimated cost of care) for Ms Y:
• Two-bedroom property with one support worker and a sleep-in (‘core hours’ which are shared with the other resident)
• 21 hours a week of support
• Day care

Cost: £1550 a week

27. There was a Care Act advocate assigned to assist Ms Y in the middle of October. The social worker sent Mrs X an updated care and support plan.
28. Mrs X refused one supported living provider saying the property was not suitable for Ms Y. The Council identified a second provider.
29. The social worker and Ms Y’s advocate exchanged emails. The social worker said the Council was looking at a two-bedroom supporting living setting for Ms Y and the brokerage team was sourcing potential providers. Ms Y’s care and support plan would be updated once a provider had been identified.
30. The advocate told the social worker Ms Y did not want to live with another person and queried why the Council was considering two-bedroom supported living placements. The social worker said Ms Y had told her that she wanted to live with a few women.
31. Mrs X met with a second provider and told the social worker it was not suitable as both properties on offer had male residents or were too big, did not have suitable bathing facilities or had male staff. Mrs X said Ms Y was finding the process very stressful. The social worker apologised for the stress and arranged a meeting with Mrs X and the advocate.
32. The second provider told the Council about a two-bedroom property with a bath that could accommodate one or two adults and would be an option for Ms Y. Mrs X told us she was not informed about the two-bedroom property.
33. There was a meeting between professionals, Ms Y and Mrs X at the start of December. This included Ms Y’s advocate. Ms Y said she would like to live at Provider A, wanted no male carers and preferred to live on her own.

2025

34. In February 2025, an internal case note indicates officers were comparing the costs of Provider A with the providers under consideration by the brokerage team. Provider A’s daily respite care rate was £377. The social worker told Mrs X that her the brokerage team would be making enquiries about costs with Provider A.
35. The Council’s brokerage team identified a residential placement at a cost of £1250 a week. They asked Provider A if it was willing to accept this amount for a long-term placement for Ms Y.
36. The Council’s management panel considered Ms Y’s case at the end of February. They recommended the social worker find three suitable providers and present them to Mrs X.
37. Mrs X emailed the social worker. She was upset and concerned about how long it was taking to sort out Ms Y’s long-term care provision. The social worker apologised and explained supported living was the preferred option as it was least restrictive and offered more independence than residential care. The social worker explained that Provider A was not on the Council’s framework and its contractual arrangements required it to consider framework providers first.
38. The brokerage team and Provider A spoke at the end of February. Provider A said the daily cost of £377 could not be reduced for a long-term placement.
39. The advocate asked the social worker for an update. The social worker said:
• Provider A was approached for a cost comparison and would not be pursued
• Ms Y had only been assessed by one provider before Mrs X decided to stop further assessments
• The Council acknowledged Ms Y’s preference, but there may be other providers she would be happy with if given the option
• The Council had to ensure the best use of funds.
40. Mrs X went to look at a residential care home with a vacancy (that had been suggested as an option for Ms Y). She reported inappropriate conduct by a member of staff at the care home while she was visiting. She emailed the social worker after and said she was refusing to look at any other providers. The social worker made a safeguarding referral regarding the incident Mrs X had witnessed.
41. In March, the brokerage team continued to contact supported living and residential providers about vacancies.
42. In April, Mrs X, Ms Y’s advocate and three officers met to discuss the process of finding a permanent placement for Ms Y. Mrs X had recently made a complaint to the Council about this. A manager told Mrs X that Ms Y did not require residential care and this would be considered too restrictive. He said decisions were based on a person’s assessed needs and not solely on the family’s preferences. The manager said there were placements that could meet Ms Y’s needs and public funds needed to be appropriately allocated. Mrs X said she did not want to view more providers at present and noted it was stressful for Ms Y.
43. At the end of March, Ms Y’s advocate raised several queries with the social worker about Ms Y’s assessment. She asked why the Council had been contacting residential care providers when the advocacy referral said residential care was not suitable for Ms Y.
44. The social worker told Ms Y’s advocate that there had been errors on the assessment including:
• Ms Y did not require 24-hour care
• The date was wrong (due to a system error)
• She had not sent a finalised version and was sorry for that
• Ms Y was supported by her mother during the assessment, and the form would be amended to reflect that.
45. The social worker also informed the advocate that Mrs X was not open to the idea of considering any other provider than Provider A; and it took time to identify suitable supported living providers.
46. In April, the Council’s managers noted only supported living providers needed to be explored going forward. Also in April, the advocate and Ms Y’s social worker met. The agreed actions included:
• The assessment would be amended and sent to Ms Y
• The social worker would provide Mrs X with costing information related to supported living so she could explore a direct payment and topping up.
47. The social worker sent a copy of the amended assessment to Mrs X in the middle of April.
48. The current care and support plan had five weeks a year of respite provision. Mrs X used all but four days by April. Mrs X asked if she could have eight days a month until her complaint was resolved. The Council agreed extra respite provision going forward.
49. In May, the Council identified a possible supported living vacancy for Ms Y but decided it was not suitable.
50. In June, Mrs X gave some more information she wanted adding to the care and support plan. The social worker told Mrs X the Council was working with 20 new supported living providers. Mrs X said she was not happy for Ms Y’s details to be passed to the new providers.
51. The Council’s final response to Ms X’s complaint at the end of June said:
• The care and support plan had been updated several times and this had delayed completion and agreement of the plan which would delay sourcing of the placement
• An indicative budget was sent with the draft assessment
• Ms Y had been supported by an advocate to facilitate her involvement in the process
• Ms Y’s views were important. Provider A was for respite care and she now needs a long-term placement
52. Mrs X complained to the LGSCO shortly after getting the Council’s final response

Events since the complaint to the LGSCO

53. In December council officers met with Provider A and agreed to fund a placement for Ms Y based on the Provider’s cost. The Council told me Provider A then reviewed and increased its pricing and so negotiations were ongoing at the time of writing this statement.

Findings

Took too long to assess Ms Y and devise a care and support plan

54. The Council completed a needs assessment in September 2024 a month after Mrs X’s request for an urgent review. This was within an acceptable timeframe and there is no fault. Many versions of the care and support plan were shared with Mrs X between October 2024 and June 2025, but this was because she wanted to add information. There is no evidence of any significant delay by the Council.

Failed to involve them

55. I do not uphold this complaint. The records demonstrate Ms Y and Mrs X have been involved at every stage. Mrs X made comments on several versions of the care and support plan, Ms Y has had an advocate to assist her and there have been meetings to discuss the matters Mrs X raised in her complaint. This is good practice and is not fault. I consider the Council has taken all reasonable steps to agree the care and support plan.

Refused to consider their preferred care provider

56. It is not the LGSCO’s role to determine which placement is for Ms Y. That is for the Council. The duty on the Council is to meet eligible unmet needs and its view is that Ms Y does not need residential care which would be unnecessarily restrictive. I have no grounds to criticise that assessment, even though Ms Y and Mrs X do not agree with it. I note Ms Y’s strong preference for Provider A, but the law has confirmed that needs are not the same as preferences. The legal duty in the Care Act is to meet eligible needs. This means there is no fault in the Council considering supported living placements.

Failed to provide an adequate complaint response

57. The complaint response addressed the matters raised with appropriate detail and explanation. It was in line with our expected standards and there was no fault.

Back to top

Decision

58. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman