Summary: There was fault by the Council because it failed to arrange care and support for two weeks when Mr X was in a hotel. The delay was not in line with the duty to meet Mr X’s needs and caused avoidable distress. The Council has apologised for the delay which is a partial remedy. It will issue a further apology and make Mr X a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with adequate care and support when he was facing homelessness. He said this caused avoidable distress and exacerbated his long-term health conditions.

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. 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant law and guidance

6. A council must carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support, applying national criteria to decide if a person is eligible for care. (Care Act 2014, section 9)
7. Where a council assesses a person and decides they have care and support needs which meet national eligibility criteria, it must issue them with a care and support plan which sets out their needs, explains which is an eligible need and says how much funding the person is entitled to. It should give a copy of the care and support plan to the person. (Care Act 2014, sections 13, 24 and 25)
8. Councils have the power to meet urgent needs before completing a social care assessment. (Care Act 2014, section 19(3)
9. Councils must meet a person’s eligible unmet care and support needs. (Care Act 2014, section 18)
10. Where a housing authority asks a social services authority to co-operate with it (for example, by providing information about a homeless person’s care needs) the social services authority must comply unless to do so would have a negative effect on it. (Care Act 2014, section 7(2))

What happened

11. The complaint is about the Council’s actions in June 2025 when Mr X was living in a care home. Another council initially arranged the care home placement before the Council took over funding responsibility. The care home gave the Council 28 days’ notice to end the placement in May. This meant Mr X would need to leave the care home by 18 June.
12. The Council carried out a social care assessment at the start of June. The outcome was he was eligible for care and support. A council officer and Mr X discussed his preferences for care and housing during the assessment. It was noted Mr X wanted to return to Shared Lives (a scheme where disabled adults live with or receive support from carers approved by the local authority) and his care needs varied because of health conditions which fluctuated. The officer recommended a further residential placement to resolve Mr X’s homelessness and to work on longer term options around Shared Lives. Shared Lives said a new referral for Mr X was needed.
13. The Council’s records indicate it intended to find alternative 24-hour placements for Mr X during the first two weeks of June. There was:
• a discussion between officers and one view was Mr X may not need to be in a care home and a different setting may be more appropriate for him.
• a request for placements, but those approached declined to offer Mr X a place.
14. A council officer sent an email to Mr X saying the Council felt his care needs could be met in his own property and passed on details of the Local Housing Authority (LHA’s) homeless services. The officer suggested Mr X could ask his private advocate to support him.
15. Mr X contacted the LHA and an officer from the LHA emailed the council officer asking for some information about Mr X’s care needs.
16. Mr X emailed the council officer saying he was leaving the care home on 15 June, three days before the notice period was up. The care home advised the Council that Mr X had been picked up by a friend and he advised he was going to stay with the friend over the weekend. Mr X told me this was not true and he moved straight to a hotel which he/his friend had arranged.
17. The Council’s brokerage team (which finds care home placements) noted there had been no expressions of interest for Mr X’s care. The council officer emailed

Mr X’s advocate as they could not get in touch with Mr X. Mr X left the council officer a voicemail message on the same day saying he had been in touch with the LHA.

18. The council officer gave the LHA basic information about Mr X’s care needs. The LHA told the officer that it had hotel accommodation available. The council officer said the Council could put in a care package if the LHA could provide level access housing.
19. Mr X called the council officer and said he was staying in a hotel which he had arranged himself and was waiting for the LHA to decide on his homeless application.
20. Mr X’s friend called raising concerns about Mr X in the hotel. The records indicate Mr X had been using take away delivery services, had sorted out his medicine and had contact from a friend. He confirmed he had not had any episodes of incontinence and had hired a wheelchair from a charity.
21. The Council approved funding for a care package for Mr X.
22. The LHA booked temporary accommodation in a hotel room for Mr X. Mr X then became sick and was too unwell to move.
23. Mr X emailed the Council with 17 points of dissatisfaction. He also asked for the council officer’s manager’s details. The officer emailed him a link to the complaints section of the Council’s website.
24. The records indicate Mr X started receiving care at the hotel he had arranged himself in the first week of July. He had not yet moved to the LHA funded hotel for the first few days, but he did move subsequently.
25. The care and support plan for Mr X said he was willing to try living on his own in a flat and he considered he needed daily care visits to support daily living and mobility. The care and support plan said the Council funded daily visits to provide care and support short-term while Mr X was in the LHA funded hotel. This started on 30 June.
26. The Council treated Mr X’s email (see paragraph 23) as a complaint and responded in August saying:
• Two care homes assessed Mr X at the start of June. Neither offered him a place. It updated him about this
• The officer liaised with the LHA to ask for housing for Mr X from 18 June
• The officer emailed him on 14 June to say the care home placement would be ending on 18 June and gave him advice about contacting the LHA
• He left the care home, supported by his friend and gave the Council an address where he would be staying. The emergency duty social work team could not get hold of him to check on him
• The officer spoke to him. Mr X said he was well and was staying in a hotel. The social worker provided advice and support to access medication after registering with a new GP. It was understood Mr X would be moving to housing in another local town
• Because he left the care home early without giving an address, the Council could not arrange a care package straight away
• The officer visited Mr X. He was managing, collecting medicine, getting to shops and take aways and using the room’s facilities. A temporary care provider started on 30 June and a home care agency on 7 July
• The Council thought he was moving to a local town and aimed to organise a provider which could work in both locations to ensure continuity of care
• It was sorry for the delay arranging care and support and for any impact on his wellbeing
• The LHA accepted responsibility to house him and he had since moved into accommodation.
27. Unhappy with the Council’s response to the complaint, Mr X complained to us. He told me the Council had not made any arrangements or plans for his housing or care, he was being evicted from the care home and this was very stressful; he is 95% bed bound and needed to know he was not going to be street homeless; his friend had offered to help him and was only available to support with transport on one date.

Findings

28. The Council was required to carry out a social care assessment, decide whether Mr X was eligible for care and support and if so, ensure Mr X’s eligible care and support needs were met. Needs and outcomes and services to meet needs should have been set out in a care and support plan. The records indicate the Council assessed Mr X as soon as it found out the care home had given notice. This was in line with the duty in Section 9 of the Care Act 2014. The Council also liaised with the LHA when it contacted the officer dealing with Mr X’s case in the social care team. This was in line with the co-operation duty in Section 7 of the Care Act. There was no fault in the Council’s actions at this point. The Council did not devise a care and support plan until the start of July. It is likely this was because it could not do so in June because it was unclear what accommodation Mr X was going to be in. I am not critical of the Council for the lack of a care and support plan in June. However, as set out in the following paragraph, there is fault by the Council.
29. Mr X did not tell the Council he was planning to leave the care home earlier than the final date of the notice period. I appreciate his reasons for not waiting till the very last minute and it is understandable for him to want some control and to make his own arrangements. However, he left without telling the Council in advance and this meant the Council could not arrange care and support for Mr X until it was made aware of where he was staying. Once the Council was aware Mr X was in a hotel, it should have considered exercising its powers to put in place an urgent care package while it moved to draw up an up-to-date care and support plan for him. The failure to do so was not in line with Sections 18 or 19(3) of the Care Act and was fault causing avoidable distress. The Council has apologised for the gap of about two weeks in meeting Mr X’s care and support needs. The records suggest Mr X was able to meet very basic needs with a little assistance from a friend. but he did not have laundry or nutritional assistance or assistance with personal care. The Council has apologised which is a partial remedy for the avoidable distress. It has agreed to take further action as I set out below.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. To reflect the avoidable distress caused by the two-week period when Mr X was without a council-arranged care package, the Council will issue, within one month of this statement:
• A further written apology. 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 the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• A symbolic payment of £250.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman