Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions when her relative, Mr Y, left supported living accommodation. We found fault because the Council did not make it clear when the search for new accommodation would begin or communicate effectively with Mrs X overall. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty and meant Mr Y was unsure when the search for accommodation would begin. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council will apologise to Mrs X and Mr Y and make a symbolic payment to her.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s actions relating to her relative, Mr Y’s, care and support. Specifically, she complains:
• it was too slow to act when she raised concerns regarding Mr Y’s placement at a supported living provider (Accommodation A);
• it was too slow to organise appropriate replacement care and support when Mr Y left Accommodation A;
• it did not act appropriately or in a timely manner when sourcing new accommodation for Mr Y;
• its overall communication was poor; and
• it made the decision to ask Mrs X to limit contact with it to once per week.
2. Mrs X says this has caused her significant and avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. She says matters have also affected her finances and well-being. She says Mr Y’s quality of life and wellbeing were affected.

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 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)
5. 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

6. My investigation begins when Mrs X made a safeguarding referral to the Council in February 2025.
7. My investigation ends when the Council issued its stage two response to Mrs X on 3 July 2025.
8. I have not investigated the historic care offered at Accommodation A as this was the subject of a safeguarding enquiry which partially substantiated the allegations made.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered all the information Mrs X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
10. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Care Plan

11. 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. 

Direct payments

12. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs.

What happened

13. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
14. Mrs X is representing her relative, Mr Y, in this complaint. Mr Y has additional needs and various diagnoses as well as some health concerns. He had been living at Accommodation A, a supported living provider, for a number of years. Mr Y had a care and support plan in place. This listed 14 hours of one-to-one support to be delivered by staff at Accommodation A and a number of overnight support hours split between Mr Y and other residents.

2025

15. Mrs X visited Mr Y at Accommodation A on 15 February 2025. Concerned at the condition of Mr Y’s room and living arrangements, she made a safeguarding referral to the Council. The Council later finalised the report and shared a copy with her in mid-May.
16. On 19 February, Mrs X, the Council and others involved in the case held a meeting to discuss matters regarding Accommodation A and Mr Y’s case. On the same day, the Council contacted Accommodation A about Mrs X’s safeguarding referral. Evidence shows the Council had recently issued a three month ‘rectification notice’ for Accommodation A to improve its services.
17. After contact with Mr Y on 23 February, Mrs X emailed the Council. Mr Y had told her he no longer wished to live at Accommodation A. Mrs X emailed the Council to advise Mr Y would stay at her house overnight and she hoped to speak to social workers the next day. Mrs X offered to have Mr Y stay with her temporarily so suitable alternative accommodation could be found.
18. Mr Y’s social worker called Mrs X the next morning. Mrs X said the placement (Accommodation A) was unsuitable for Mr Y and the Council needed to find emergency accommodation for him or that he could stay with her until new accommodation was found. Mrs X asked that a care provider be organised for Mr Y as she could not care for him on her own. She said she would also be unavailable for a period late in March and Mr X would need 24-hour care.
19. Because of the safeguarding referral and the fact Accommodation A was on notice to improve, the Council said it supported the idea of a temporary placement. The Council agreed to go to panel to look for a respite care provider.
20. On 25 February, Mr Y’s social worker, Officer J, advised Mrs X she would be going to panel to seek agreement for a package of 18 hours one-to-one support per week whilst Mr Y was living with her. Officer J said she was looking at short term respite placements for Mr Y whilst his permanent accommodation was decided upon. Officer J said the Council would hold a best interest meeting to determine what Mr Y’s accommodation should be as he lacked capacity to make such decisions.
21. Mrs X contacted the Council on 28 February. She was unhappy there was no support immediately in place for Mr Y and that he could not be left alone without support. Mrs X said that Officer J’s more recent suggestion of 10 hours support per week was inadequate and requested this be increased. Mrs X said she was being left to care for Mr Y when she had commitments of her own and was not trained as a carer.

Search for interim support and respite care

22. Between 24 February and 5 March, the Council made enquiries with five providers about respite provision for Mr Y. It also made enquiries regarding a shared lives placement. The Council made further enquiries with four other providers about live in care and packages of care to support Mr Y. It made one referral to a provider Mrs X had suggested.
23. After further discussions with Mrs X, on 5 March the Council agreed a package of care of 38.5 hours per week for Mr Y. This would be delivered via direct payments and Mrs X would source carers for Mr Y. Payments started on 10 March.
24. On 18 March, the Council agreed to pay for live-in care for Mr Y when Mrs X was unavailable at the end of the month.
25. The 38.5-hour package was formally agreed at the Council’s funding panel on 28 March along with two days per week at a day centre.
26. In early April, the Council agreed to pay for the same live-in care for Mr Y when Mrs X was unavailable at the beginning of May.
27. The direct payment package for 38.5 hours of care per week was in place until Mr Y moved into new accommodation early in August 2025. Unused direct payment monies were later returned to the Council.

Sourcing new permanent accommodation

28. Mrs X and Officer J discussed the search for a new permanent placement for Mr Y on 7 March. Mrs X requested a list of suggested providers. Officer J explained the request to look for a new placement would have to go to its sourcing team and she would then send any viable suggestions to Mrs X. Mrs X expressed her unhappiness the search had not yet begun. Officer J said she would be prioritising the search but could not give Mrs X a timescale for it especially as she had other (unrelated) work which was also a high priority. Officer J advised that even if the search for a new placement started straight away, it may still take some time to find a suitable placement.
29. The Council’s funding panel agreed to look at new supported living options on 27 March and sent the request to its sourcing team on 31 March.
30. It is unclear when the Council sent requests to relevant accommodation providers. Evidence shows the Council received three responses from providers between 14 and 24 April 2025.
31. Late in April, Mrs X and the Council communicated about her preference for a residential placement for Mr Y. Mrs X believed supported living would not offer Mr Y enough assistance. Mrs X also asked the Council to consider a permanent live-in carer for Mr Y in accommodation of his own.
32. By 7 May, the Council had approached a total of seven providers to see if they could meet Mr Y’s needs.
33. On 9 May, the Council called Mrs X and discussed the situation. Mrs X repeated that she did not believe supported living was appropriate and preferred residential accommodation for Mr Y even if this was temporary. The Council confirmed its recent Care Act assessment stated that residential care would be too restrictive for Mr Y. The Council decided to continue the search for supported living accommodation.
34. The Council discussed a shared lives placement with Mrs X and Mr Y, which they declined as they thought it would be unsuitable. Mr Y visited two potential accommodation providers, one in mid-May and one in early-June. Mr Y rejected both of these as he thought they were unsuitable.
35. By the beginning of July, Mrs X had contacted a supported living provider she had identified, Accommodation B. Accommodation B emailed the Council on 2 July to say Mrs X and Mr Y had visited, Mr Y had spent a trial night there and they had accepted a flat for him there. Accommodation B explained there was also care provision available on site and it expected Mr Y’s flat would be ready to move into by the end of the month.
36. The Council agreed funding for Accommodation B on 23 July. Mr Y moved there in early August. He was then supported by the care agency who worked on site.

Mrs X’s complaints to the Council

37. On 28 February 2025, Mrs X made a complaint to the Council. She said no support or care was in place for Mr Y now that he was living with her temporarily.
38. The Council sent its stage one complaint response on 20 May. This said:
• Officer J had attempted to source an emergency placement for Mr Y;
• Mr Y had been assessed as having eligible needs for supported living accommodation;
• Mrs X and Mr Y had declined the offers of accommodation made so far; and
• it suggested a meeting the following week to discuss matters.
39. After the meeting and still unhappy, Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s process. Mrs X:
• commented on the lack of care she felt had been taken in the case, including Officer J’s actions and the care and support planning;
• explained why various offers of accommodation were not suitable for Mr Y’s individual needs; and
• explained the effects of the situation on her and Mr Y.
40. The Council sent its final response on 3 July. This said:
• it had reviewed the actions taken on the case and was satisfied the decisions made regarding Mr Y’s support needs were appropriate;
• it still viewed Mr Y as suitable for supported living arrangements;
• it acknowledged the service had not always responded to all emails and they were not always able to meet her expectations in terms of timescales for communication and action;
• the service had found the level of correspondence unmanageable and asked that Mrs X email Officer J only once per week; and
• it did not uphold her complaint.
41. The Council signposted Mrs X to us.

Analysis

The Council’s actions when Mrs X raised concerns about Accommodation A

42. By the time Mrs X made her safeguarding referral to the Council about Accommodation A, the Council had already put the provider on notice that it needed to improve the quality of its services. The improvement notice was not linked to Mr Y’s case or Mrs X’s safeguarding referral.
43. Evidence shows that when Mrs X raised her safeguarding referral, the Council took immediate action to open a case and begin an investigation.
44. Because of the safeguarding concern and the quality improvement notice, the Council made the decision to support efforts to try and temporarily find other accommodation for Mr Y when he decided he did not wish to return there.
45. The Council completed the safeguarding investigation as required and decided the allegations were partially substantiated.
46. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied the Council took appropriate and swift action to consider Mrs X’s concerns and acted swiftly to look at what other options could be put in place for Mr Y. I find no fault in its immediate actions when Mrs X raised safeguarding concerns about Accommodation A.

Replacement care and support when Mr Y decided to leave Accommodation A

47. At the Council’s funding panel on 27 February 2025, Officer J presented a package of 20 hours of interim support per week for Mr Y. This was four days after Mr Y began his stay with Mrs X. The panel did not agree the package believing it to be too many hours.
48. Officer J continued to work on the package in the next days. By 5 March, she had made enquiries with ten possible providers. This was a mixture of respite placements, shared lives, live in care and also support packages to be delivered at Mrs X’s home.
49. With nothing in place, the Council then agreed on 5 March to an interim support package of 38.5 hours per week to be delivered in Mrs X’s home. Funding for this began on 10 March and was formally agreed at the end of the month.
50. I acknowledge Mrs X’s frustration at needing to step in to offer support to Mr Y when he left Accommodation A and she offered to accommodate him at her home. I also acknowledge she is not a trained carer and could not have anticipated the level of support she felt Mr Y required.
51. However, in considering the timeliness of the Council’s actions and in the circumstances of this complaint, I am satisfied it took appropriately swift action in investigating possible interim care and support options to replace the hours Accommodation A was scheduled to offer. I am satisfied the Council acted appropriately and in a timely manner in agreeing a direct payment package to offer interim support to Mr Y. This package remained in place until Mr Y moved into Accommodation B. I am satisfied there was no fault in the Council’s actions here.

Sourcing new accommodation

52. I acknowledge that finding new accommodation for Mr Y took much longer than Mrs X had anticipated and that she found the situation stressful and intrusive. This in turn meant that Mr Y was away from settled accommodation from late February to the beginning of August 2025.
53. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with it.
54. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council what efforts it had made to source new accommodation for Mr Y. In response, the Council said that between 5 and 25 March 2025, it focussed its efforts on finding respite or live-in care for the time Mrs X was unavailable at the end of March. The Council said there were also ongoing financial discussions with Accommodation A, Mr Y’s advocate and Mrs X.
55. However, when considering the evidence on file, searches for interim accommodation and support took place between 24 February and 5 March, not later. Cover for whilst Mrs X was unavailable was agreed 18 March.
56. The Council’s stance here is contradictory. On 7 March, it told Mrs X it was prioritising finding new accommodation. Its response to me suggests it did not begin its search until after 25 March. Evidence shows searching for new accommodation was not discussed at panel until 27 March.
57. I am satisfied the Council should have acted more decisively to begin the search for new accommodation which Officer J had said was being prioritised or have explained to Mrs X more clearly when she could expect action to be taken. This was fault. The lack of decisive action and communication caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty. The delay in beginning also caused Mr Y avoidable uncertainty as to where he might next be housed. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
58. I acknowledge Mrs X wanted residential care or full time one-to-one live in care for Mr Y. However, the Council’s assessment considered that he was eligible for supported living. A difference of opinion is not evidence of fault. It was for the Council to determine which type of accommodation suited the needs it had established were eligible. I find no fault in the Council’s actions here.
59. After the end of March 2025, the Council took decisive action to begin the search and made approaches to a variety of potential providers. The Council had already advised at the beginning of March that even if it started the search immediately it may take some time to find the right accommodation.
60. I acknowledge Mrs X and the Council had very different opinions on what type of shared accommodation was suitable for Mr Y. I also note that Mrs X did not think an interim move before permanent accommodation was sourced would be good for Mr Y.
61. Mrs X said the Council paused its brokerage tool meaning there was no way for potential providers to access Mr Y’s details and decide whether they might be able to offer him accommodation. Evidence shows the status of the Council’s sourcing list had been changed when there was a possibility that Mr Y had secured accommodation but that he had not been removed from any lists. Mrs X was advised of this late in June 2025 and that if potential options did not work out the sourcing team would continue its search. I have seen no evidence of fault in relation to this matter.
62. Mrs X also said the Council had withheld offers of accommodation which were not shared with the family. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it could find no evidence of this. In considering the evidence on file, I have also seen nothing to support the idea that offers which the Council considered suitable were not shared with the family.
63. Overall, I am satisfied the Council took timely and decisive action to try and source Mr Y new accommodation from late March 2025 onwards. It made enquiries and responded to placements where necessary. The Council had already advised Mrs X early in March that the search could take some time. In terms of trying to source new accommodation, I find no fault in the Council’s actions from the end of March onwards.

Communication

64. I acknowledge there was frequent communication between Mrs X and the Council during the period of my investigation. However, the Council did not respond to a specific question about poor communication in my enquiries.
65. The Council’s stage two complaint response does confirm that the social work team acknowledged it had not responded to all emails and were not always able to meet Mrs X’s expectations of timescales for communication and action. This is supported by chase emails from Mrs X to the Council saying that she had not been responded to at various points about different issues and by different officers.
66. When Officer J was on leave in April 2025, she assured Mrs X any accommodation updates would be shared with her during the period of absence. However, evidence shows Mrs X had no such updates despite responses coming back from providers during the period.
67. Considering this and the Council’s stage two comments, I am satisfied this is sufficient to come to a finding of fault regarding the Council’s communications with Mrs X. I am satisfied that if the Council was unable to manage the amount of communication from Mrs X, it should have made this clear to her in a timely manner rather than ignore contacts she had made and wait until its stage two response to deal with the issue. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Limiting contact

68. The Council’s stage two complaint response also suggested that it limit Mrs X’s communications with Officer J to one email per week. It said this was so that any issues could be consolidated and responded to comprehensively.
69. The Council has a policy about managing communication and what it considers unacceptable or unreasonably persistent communication from customers.
70. The first step is to try and informally set boundaries and expectations. If this step is unsuccessful, the Council will take more formal action to limit contact.
71. I note Mrs X’s frustration at the Council’s suggestion of weekly contact. However, I am satisfied the Council was acting within the scope of its policy and this was a decision for it to take. I find no fault in its actions here.

Back to top

Agreed action

72. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed that within four weeks of the date of my final decision it will apologise to Mrs X and Mr Y and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X of £150 to recognise the identified injustice.
73. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
74. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
75. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

76. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman