Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s support for his Shared Lives placement and its attempt to recover money from him related to this placement. The Council took too long to allocate Mr X a social worker able to check on the placement and make long-term plans with Mr X about where he should live. It also took too long to respond to his complaint. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X and reduce the amount he owes by £500. These are appropriate to remedy injustice caused by its faults.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is not providing him with appropriate care, taking account of his autistic spectrum disorder. He says it has not supported him appropriately when his Shared Lives placement ended in 2018.
2. Mr X says the Council then placed him back in a location that caused him unnecessary stress, affecting his health and wellbeing. Although he has now moved elsewhere, he says this continues to affect him. He says the Council has tried to recover money from him inappropriately, causing him more stress.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I wrote to Mr X checking my understanding of his complaint.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its records and answers to my questions.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
9. I gave the Council and Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments from Mr X before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background to Shared Lives schemes

10. Under the Shared Lives scheme, people who would have difficulty living independently can live with a family, sharing their home and family life. The family agrees to support the adult and is paid for this.
11. Councils running Shared Lives schemes employ specialist workers to manage the relationship between families and the people who are placed to live with them. The council, carers and service user sign a contract and/or placement agreement explaining how the scheme will work. Matching is a key feature of Shared Lives arrangements, involving close consultation with the person, their family, care manager and other people who know the individual well.
12. Shared lives carers are paid a weekly fee to cover rent, household costs and care and support they offer the service user. There will be a financial agreement between the carer and council.
13. Where someone lives under the Shared Lives scheme, they usually pay for their accommodation themselves, often through housing benefit.
14. Social care needs are met by the Council and subject to a financial assessment of their ability to pay. There should be a written care and support plan setting out how the user’s needs will be met. Councils should review shared lives placements at least every year.
15. Councils should ensure, if necessary, the service user has access to someone independent of the scheme for support, advice and advocacy.

Background to Mr X’s situation

16. Mr X has autism, and a loss of certain senses. Having previously rented his own room, he moved into a shared lives home, living with a family.
17. A Council officer was working with Mr X to support this placement. The shared lives placement ended in May 2018 because the family Mr X was living with moved to a smaller house.
18. Before the move, an annual review of the placement recorded Mr X wanted to permanently move to a place where he could more easily find work in his chosen profession.

Mr X’s shared lives placement at Town 1

19. Mr X moved into a new temporary shared lives placement in a village near Town 1 in May 2018. The Council says Mr X understood this was only a temporary placement and agreed to it whilst it planned with him for longer-term arrangements. Mr X says he reluctantly agreed because it was the only option. The support plan it agreed with Mr X in May 2018 before the move said he wanted a review soon after he had moved.
20. Around this time Mr X’s benefits increased, and the Council calculated he should therefore pay an increased contribution towards the cost of the placement. Mr X says the benefits did not increase. There is no fault in how the Council considered this matter. It wrote to Mr X about this, giving him the option to ask for a review.
21. It carried out a care act assessment and issued new a care plan with Mr X in July 2018. This said Mr X wanted to move to a more accessible place for him to get work, use public transport and visit friends. It said the Council would look for more suitable alternatives including supported living while he stayed in Town 1.
22. The Council cancelled several planned visits to check on how Mr X’s placement was working out. The Council agreed to allocate Mr X a social worker as soon as possible. Mr X says he was not aware of these cancellations and told the Council many times that the placement was not suitable.
23. Mr X asked the Council several times about moving. In late July the Council wrote to say Mr X’s support worker had left and it was waiting to allocate him a social worker. Mr X contacted again in mid-August. The Council said it had no new information and was still waiting to allocate him a social worker.
24. Case notes from September show Mr X kept asking the Council about a move to a more suitable location. It had still not been able to allocate him a social worker. By early October case notes show the shared lives team had asked the social care team to urgently allocate a social worker to help Mr X plan for a move.
25. The Council allocated Mr X a new social worker in October. Also that month the family placement in Town 1 gave notice it wanted Mr X to leave. The social worker met with Mr X discuss where he wanted to move. He explained he wanted to move somewhere with better job opportunities. He said Town 1 had bad memories that caused him serious anxiety.
26. The Council carried out a Care Act assessment of Mr X in October 2018. This said the placement in Town 1 had broken down. The resultant care plan said he wanted to move away from Town 1 to somewhere he was more likely to find suitable volunteering and work opportunities. Mr X says he had been clear with the Council that he could not stay in Town 1 or in the placement.
27. During October Mr X also raised concerns that he was having to pay more towards care. The Council explained the increase was because his benefits had changed. It explained he had to pay an increased contribution towards his rent because of the increased benefits.
28. The Council discussed Mr X’s situation with a third sector organisation and made a referral. It also discussed his situation with a care agency who met with Mr X to discuss his care needs and identified a supported living placement in Town 2 where he wanted to live. In November 2018 it agreed to fund the supported living placement. Mr X’s shared lives placement at Town 1 ended on 9 December 2018.
29. Mr X then moved into a supported living placement in Town 2 in December 2018. The Council discussed costs of moving and what support would be available there. His care plan review in January 2019 records Mr X was much more settled there than he had been in Town 1. His placement was working well. It had helped improve his job prospects.
30. The Council sent Mr X two invoices covering outstanding charges for his time at the Town 1 placement. The first was for 19 November to 9 December 2018. The second covered 22 October – 18 November. It said this would normally have been paid by direct debit but Mr X had cancelled the arrangement with his bank before the transfer had been made.

Complaint to the Council

31. Mr X had complained to the Council at the end of January 2019. He was concerned about:
• his shared lives placement in Town 1;
• the money he owed for this placement
• whether he had been charged for time he was not living there
• the delay in allocating a social worker to help him move.
32. He said staying in Town 1 so long had damaged his mental health. He had not been supported there and had not had the care he had paid for. He had spent money on food that should have been provided for him as part of the placement.
33. The Council said it would reply to Mr X’s complaint at stage 1 once a key officer involved in the case returned to the office. For various reasons, it did not formally reply to Mr X until May 2019, although it met Mr X in February 2019 X to discuss the matter.
34. The Council:
• explained why Mr X needed to pay the money, even though he was unhappy with the quality of the care provided;
• confirmed he was only charged for the period he lived there;
• apologised for the time it had taken to allocate a social worker; and
• apologised for what seemed to be a breakdown in Mr X’s relationship with the placement in Town 1. It said it would speak with one of the family members to ensure this would not happen for future placements of others there.

It said there were outstanding fees of just over £1,000, which he could discuss further with his social worker if he wished.

35. Records provided by the Council show it considered Mr X had been given full board including food during his time at the Town 1 placement. It understood that Mr X had chosen to buy his own, additional, food but that the carers had provided what the fee had required them to do.
36. Council records show Mr X owed the money because an increase in his benefits was back-dated, which meant the increase in Mr X’s contribution was also back-dated. It said Mr X wrongly thought the extra money was for him to keep. Mr X says he did not think money was his to keep, he just did not understand why he had been given it.
37. The Council formally replied to Mr X’s complaint at in May 2019. It said it had allocated him a social worker as soon as it could during the period of his move. It had taken time because it had tried to find him appropriate support and a suitable home when the shared lives placement ended. It had to move him into a temporary placement in Town 2.
38. The Council said it had told him about the money he still owed and an officer had met him to discuss and explain the invoices. It had explained reasons for the charges and invoices. It apologised for the delay in its complaint response and referred Mr X to the Ombudsman.
39. Mr X complained to us, saying he did not want to be placed in Town 1 because it was a stressful environment. It made him anxious to be near the town. The Council had not properly considered his autistic spectrum disorder. It had not given him a support worker as it should have. It had made his health worse by how it handled the situation, contributing to permanent mental ill-health.

My findings

Placement of Mr X at Town 1

40. The Council discussed the shared lives placement in Town 1 with Mr X before he moved there. It knew this was not his preferred location but it agreed with him that it would only be temporary, whilst looking for more permanent options. Records show he accepted the placement on that basis. The Council’s care assessments and plans up to October 2018 record Mr X’s wish to move permanently to somewhere better suited to his career options. They also refer to how anxiety had affected him in the past. But they do not show the Mr X had told the Council that Town 1 was unsuitable because of its past associations although Mr X is sure he told the Council this several times.
41. There was no fault in how the Council made the decision to arrange Mr X’s temporary shared lives placement in Town 1 as it followed the required process, discussing it with Mr X. It agreed a plan to review the placement with him promptly, once it was in place, to look at longer term options. This was appropriate in the circumstances.

Support from the Council while Mr X was in the shared lives placement

42. The Council agreed with Mr X it would check on how his shared lives placement was working soon after he moved to Town 1 in May 2018.
43. It took the Council until October 2018 to allocate Mr X a social worker who could start working with him to look at alternatives that better met his needs. He had to repeatedly contact the Council during this time before an urgent, internal request was lodged, resulting in it allocating him a social worker.
44. Once in place, the social worker was able to deal with, by then, the breakdown with the placement and identify an alternative long term solution for Mr X.
45. This prolonged delay, is fault. It caused Mr X avoidable distress. I cannot say that, but for the delay, the placement would not have broken down. However, the Council had committed to keep the temporary placement at Town 1 under review, soon after it started and did not do so.
46. On the balance of probabilities, if the Council had given Mr X a social worker sooner, he would probably have been able to move to a more suitable long term placement more quickly. The Council also took too long to formally respond to Mr X’s complaint.
47. Mr X asserts these faults have led to permanent mental ill-health because of the impact of staying at Town 1. We cannot come to a balance of probability finding of cause and effect in this matter. However the Council’s fault did cause avoidable distress.
48. Until Mr X’s subsequent complaint, there are no written records to show the Council knew about the negative impact Mr X believed the placement in Town 1 had on his mental health and wellbeing. Nevertheless, it knew it was important to make progress on finding a more permanent solution for Mr X. As a remedy for injustice caused to Mr X by these faults the Council should therefore apologise again to Mr X for its delays and pay Mr X £500. It can take this sum off the outstanding amount he owes.

Council recovery of money

49. The Council explained, in writing, how it had calculated what Mr X needed to pay towards his placement whilst at Town 1. Since his complaint it has explained to him in person what he still owes and the reasons for this.
50. Mr X disagrees with this but there is no fault in how the Council has calculated what Mr X owes, or how it has explained it to him.

Agreed action

51. Within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for its delay allocating him a social worker.
• Reduce the amount Mr X owes by £500.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr X’s complaint as I have found fault causing injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed action to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman