Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in assessing Mr Y’s needs and in progressing his move to supported living. It also communicated poorly with Mr X, Mr Y’s father, about the move and associated costs. The Council has already refunded Mr X for payments he made. The Council will also apologise, pay Mr X a symbolic payment and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council poorly communicated the costs of a supported living placement for his son, Mr Y, which meant he had to pay a rent shortfall contribution for Mr Y’s accommodation between May 2025 and February 2026. Mr X also said the Council did not provide support, there was poor record keeping, there was a breach of personal data, a lack of understanding of procedures by staff and poor council complaints handling. Mr X was also concerned about future year top ups for Mr Y’s accommodation. Mr X said this added to his carer stress and caused a financial burden. He said the Council later agreed to fund the top-up but had not done so when Mr X complained to us in September 2025.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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).
3. 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)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. As explained in paragraph three above we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Mr X complained to us in September 2025 about events starting in June 2023. The period between June 2023 and August 2024 is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate this period because Mr X could have reasonably complained to us earlier.
7. I have investigated between September 2024, a year before Mr X complained to us and late summer 2025 when the Council sent Mr X its final complaint response.
8. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

9. Mr X wanted assurance from the Council it would pay any future increases in Mr Y’s rent for an indefinite period, so Mr X did not need to pay any top up payment. I have not investigated this issue. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by fault. Mr X’s concern about what may happen in the future is speculative injustice which has not yet happened. The Council has said it could not commit to this and it would be considered through Mr Y’s annual review and it will provide support through meetings, which is appropriate.
10. Mr X also complained about a potential data breach. He was concerned personal family information was shared with a third party. As explained in paragraph four above the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information and is best placed to consider this matter so I have not investigated this point.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered:
• the information Mr X provided and spoke to him about the complaint on the telephone;
• the information the Council provided;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, published on our website.
12. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Care Plan and Assessment

13. 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. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
14. The Care Act 2014 does not specify timeframes for when an assessment should be undertaken but Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. We would expect the assessment to be completed within a timescale proportionate to the complexity of the issues, and normally within around eight weeks from referral. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.

What happened

15. Mr Y is an adult and lived with his family. Mr Y has learning difficulties and autism.

Background

16. In late June 2023 a trusted assessor, Assessor 1, who worked for a charity carried out an assessment and discussed supported living with Mr Y and Mr Y’s father, Mr X. A week later, Assessor 1, made a referral on Mr Y’s behalf to the Council’s Complex Care Team for a supported living assessment. In late September 2023 Assessor 1, visited Mr Y and Mr X and explained the Council’s Complex Care Team had not contacted them about Mr Y’s supported living assessment.

Initial Assessment

17. In October 2024, Assessor 1 carried out Mr Y’s review. Assessor 1 asked the Council for an update on the supported living referral. In late November 2024 Mr X, emailed the Council about Mr Y’s assessment asking for the referral to be considered.
18. In mid-December 2024 a Council duty officer contacted Mr X and asked what assessment they were waiting for and explained an officer would be allocated. Two days later a social worker, Officer 1, rang Mr X. Mr X said the social worker was unsure why they were calling. Officer 1 made an appointment to undertake Mr Y’s needs assessment for housing options in January 2025. Mr X was concerned the assessment meeting was very short.
19. In mid and late February 2025 Mr X chased Officer 1 for Mr Y’s assessment. He received a draft copy in early March 2025. Mr X was concerned the assessment included incorrect information and missed important information. He recommended changes to Officer 1. Officer 1 updated Mr Y’s assessment and included Mr X’s supporting information and suggested changes. Mr Y’s assessment was considered at a Council panel in mid-March 2025 and shortly afterwards Mr Y’s support plan was finalised.
20. Mr Y’s support plan said he needed support with maintaining his home, managing his finances, support with cooking, shopping and using household appliances, support and prompts with personal hygiene, support with making a choice of weather appropriate clothes, encouragement with maintaining personal relationships, support with work and learning opportunities and being part of the community.
21. Mr X complained to the Council in early July 2025. He said there was no acknowledgement of Mr Y’s needs and supported living referral and poor subsequent Council communication with Mr X.
22. The Council’s complaint response sent in mid-July 2025 apologised for the lack of acknowledgement of the referral and subsequent communication to determine the urgency for Mr Y’s needs assessment and also the impact on Mr X’s carer role. The Council said it had taken learning from this case and it had a more robust process in place to monitor and manage waiting lists in line with the ‘Waiting Well Approach’. This is an approach designed to support patients on waiting lists for specialist care. The Council said line management feedback, supervision and training was provided to relevant Council officers to ensure staff were pre-prepared, courteous and well informed. The Council said Mr Y’s assessment included information provided by Mr X.

My findings

23. The Council was at fault. The Council delayed communicating with Assessor 1 and Mr X about Mr Y’s referral and when it did the officer did not have a clear idea of why they were ringing Mr X. It did not carry out Mr Y’s supported living assessment in a timely manner, and it took well over eight weeks to complete the assessment from the first referral (as explained in paragraph six above I have not investigated that period) and over eight weeks from the second referral made in October 2024. The delay and poor Council communication caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty over whether Mr Y would have been offered a supported living placement sooner. Mr Y was not caused a significant injustice because he received the care and support needed at his home. The Council partly remedied the injustice by its apology, putting in place a new approach to waiting lists and providing feedback and training to relevant officers.
24. Mr X considered the initial assessment meeting was very short. However, Officer 1 asked Mr X for his comments on Mr Y’s assessment and included the relevant comments made by Mr X in the finalised assessment. There was no evidence of fault.

Supported living placement

25. Between late March 2025 and mid-April 2025 a Council care broker, Broker 1 arranged for several care providers to meet Mr X and Mr Y and discuss his needs. Mr X complained about retracted housing offers and possible flats suddenly becoming unavailable. In mid-April 2025 an independent living provider, Provider 1 offered Mr Y a flat, Flat 1, which Mr X and Mr Y then visited and considered suitable. Mr X said Broker 1 went on annual leave for several weeks and another broker, Broker 2 did not progress the flat for Mr Y.
26. Mr X complained to the Council in early July 2025. He queried why flats were available and then quickly became unavailable and if the flats were a suitable living space. Mr X also asked the Council for more information around Broker 1’s annual leave and subsequent poor communication.
27. The Council’s mid-July 2025 complaint response said checks were made on a flat which was initially vacant but then in a short-time was no longer available and gave information on its accreditation process. The Council said a handover was provided by Broker 1 but the Council apologised for any delayed responses and for any lack of support needed when Broker 1 was on annual leave. It said it was grateful for feedback on missed opportunities and how it could improve its communication, and discussions had taken place with a relevant service manager to mitigate any further similar situations.

My findings

28. The records show there were several supported living options available to Mr Y some of which quickly became unavailable and there was poor communication from Broker 2 with Mr X which caused him frustration. This was over a short-time period and the Council has already apologised. It also said Mr X’s feedback would improve its communication, and discussions had taken place with a relevant manager to help stop the same issue happening again. This remedied the injustice caused to Mr X between late March and mid-April 2025.

Supported living, Flat 1 costs

29. In early May 2025 Broker 1 told Mr X that Mr Y could not move to Flat 1 because the costings had been declined by a Council panel. Mr X emailed senior managers at the Council to appeal the decision but Mr X said he did not initially receive a response. In mid-May 2025 revised costings for Flat 1 were agreed by the Council. Mr X said he could provide some care for Mr Y to keep the care costs down. Broker 1 said Provider 1 would provide the care package information to Mr X, which Mr X received in summer 2025. Mr X said in late May 2025 he was given unclear information about how to pay for Mr Y’s rent at Flat 1. Mr X made a housing benefit application for Mr Y.
30. In late May 2025 Mr Y moved into Flat 1 and Mr X started to pay a contribution to cover the shortfall in Mr Y’s rent at Flat 1.
31. In early June 2025 Mr X spoke to the Council’s Housing Benefit Team who advised Mr X that Mr Y’s Housing Benefit application had been declined because Flat 1 was supported accommodation and not supported living. Mr X was told to ring Universal Credit (UC) who told him to ring the Housing Benefits Team and Citizens Advice. Mr X said due to the confusion he emailed two Council managers and his local MP to ask for advice and guidance. Three days later a Council manager, Manager 1 told Mr X that Flat 1 was a private landlord and Mr X needed to apply for UC. Mr X applied for UC and a Job Centre employee told Mr X because Flat 1 was owned by a private landlord and it was not classed as supported living the UC payment would be capped at £1047 a month based on the local housing allowance rate. Flat 1’s monthly rent was initially £1,300.
32. In mid-June 2025 Manager 1 emailed Mr X and said Mr X had chosen Flat 1 and it had not been recommended by the Council. Mr X disagreed with Manager 1 and said Broker 1 had identified Flat 1. Mr X asked Manager 1 for a meeting which Manager 1 agreed to and they met online in early July 2025. Mr X said Manager 1 continued to state Flat 1 was identified by the family and not the Council and offered for Mr Y to move to a cheaper flat. Mr X said it caused uncertainty over whether Mr Y could stay in Flat 1.
33. In early July 2025 a second Council manager, Manager 2 emailed Mr X’s local MP and said the family had negotiated Flat 1 without informing the Council. Mr X said Manager 2 had not been honest and caused him stress and frustration. Mr X provided an email to his MP to show the Council had identified Flat 1.
34. In early July 2025 a Council record showed Mr Y’s Flat 1 rent was lowered to £1,100 per month with Universal credit covering £1,049 and the Council contributing the remaining £51. The same day Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about Mr Y’s rent payments.
35. The Council’s complaint response from mid July 2025 accepted the mis-information and advice given about payments for Mr Y’s rent at Flat 1 caused Mr X confusion. The Council said it had learnt from this case to ensure when UC was required advice was given accordingly. The Council said Provider 1 had agreed to lower the cost of the rent to £1,100 per month with UC covering £1,049 per month and the Council contributing the shortfall of £51.
36. In mid-July 2025 Mr X asked the Council for clarity on how the shortfall between UC and monthly rent would be paid. Mr X also clarified the shortfall was £50 per month not £51 per month as the UC was £1050. Mr X raised his concern again that it was Broker 1 that identified Flat 1 not the family.
37. In early August 2025 Manager 1 responded to Mr X and accepted the Council offered Flat 1 to Mr Y and that it should have established the cost of Flat 1 before any agreement was made. Manager 1 said Mr X’s previous complaints made in email’s Mr X sent Council manager’s in May and June 2025 were considered and they tried to support and resolve Mr X’s initial complaints by case management at first. Manager 1 confirmed UC would pay £1050 per month for Mr Y’s housing, the Council would contribute the shortfall of £50 (updated from the previous figure of £51) directly to Provider 1.
38. In response to my enquiries, Mr X told me he stopped paying the rent shortfall in February 2026 which he had been paying since May 2025. Council records showed in February 2026 the Council started to pay the shortfall to Provider 1 and back dated this to late May 2025. The Council said Provider 1 would apologise to Mr X. Provider 1 sent Mr X a letter stating it would reimburse any shortfall payments made by him and thanked him for his patience. Mr X said he had now been refunded the money he was owed.

My findings

39. The Council was at fault. It provided Mr X with unclear information about who would pay for Mr Y’s rent at Flat 1. It failed to clearly establish and explain that Mr X needed to make a UC claim for Mr Y’s rent. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty. The Council in its complaint response accepted the confusion caused to Mr X and it said it had learnt from this case and the Council has agreed to take action for relevant UC advice to be provided.
40. The Council failed to acknowledge that it had offered Flat 1 to Mr Y. In June and July 2025 the Council said the family identified Flat 1 for Mr Y and also said this to a local MP despite evidence to the contrary provided by Mr X. In August 2025 Manager 1 did accept the Council sourced Flat 1. However, the Council’s delay in doing so was fault which caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty over whether the placement may be at risk.
41. The Council failed to establish the cost of Flat 1 before any agreement was made. This was fault and meant Mr X had to pay for a shortfall in Mr Y’s rent between May 2025 and February 2026. This has now been rectified and Mr X has been refunded the top up money owed. However, the refund took longer than agreed. The Council said it would start paying for the shortfall in summer 2025 but did not do so until February 2026. This caused Mr X a continued injustice because he paid the shortfall when the Council should have done so.
42. The Council explained the delay in responding to Mr X’s initial complaints he emailed managers in May and June 2025 in its complaint response in August 2025. The evidence shows it kept Mr X updated in that period and initially tried to resolve Mr X’s concerns by way of case management and meetings. Mr X was not caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Action

43. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
1. apologise and pay Mr X £500 to acknowledge the frustration, confusion and uncertainty caused by the faults in this case. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology; and
2. provide evidence it has carried out the following service improvements set out in its July 2025 complaint response:
1. introduced a more robust process to monitor and manage waiting lists in line with the ‘Waiting Well Approach’.
2. the line management feedback, supervision and training provided to relevant Council officers to ensure staff were pre-prepared, courteous and well informed before making telephone calls with people requesting needs assessments.
3. the action it has taken to ensure when universal credit is required to pay rent, staff give appropriate advice.
44. Within three months of the final decision the Council will:
1. investigate why the shortfall payment was not actioned in summer 2025 in line with its complaint response and identify any actions to stop any agreed payment delays happening in future.
45. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I have completed my investigation finding fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused and prevent reoccurrence of the faults.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman