Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Miss Y about the way the Council dealt with Miss Y’s transition from children’s services to adult social care. The Council was at fault for delaying in discussing care and funding options when the staying put arrangement was due to expire. This caused Ms X uncertainty. The Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise this.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of Miss Y about the way the Council dealt with Miss Y’s transition from children’s services to adult social care. She says the Council;
1. wrongly decided Miss Y would attend a day centre two days a week against her wishes;
2. provided an insufficient provision because the day centre failed to give her appropriate opportunities;
3. failed to communicate anything about charges for the day centre between July 2023 and February 2025;
4. failed to update her on Miss Y’s staying put arrangement when it was due to end; and
5. poorly communicated with her.
2. Ms X says this has caused her and Miss Y significant distress. She says this has caused a financial detriment of over £10,000 because the Council is asking for the payment to be made.

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. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
6. 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

7. Some of the events related to this complaint happened more than 12 months before Ms X complained to us, in October 2025.
8. However, I have exercised discretion to investigate the complaint that the Council failed to communicate anything about charges for the day centre between July 2023 and February 2025. This is because Ms X only became aware of this issue in April 2025, and to be able to make a sound decision, I had to refer to information dating back to 2021.
9. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly decided Miss Y would attend a day centre two days a week against her wishes. This is because Miss Y started to attend the day centre in 2023 and it would have been reasonable for Ms X to have complained about this matter sooner.
10. The remainder of my investigation will start from October 2024, which is 12 months before Ms X complained to us.
11. In addition to the issue with timeframes, the law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. I cannot see that Ms X complained to the Council that it provided insufficient provision because the day centre failed to give Miss Y appropriate opportunities. It would have been reasonable for Ms X to have complained about this matter before complaining to the Ombudsman and so I will not investigate this point.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Ms 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

Legislation and guidance

Staying put arrangements

14. Young people who were previously looked after children can remain with their former foster carers after their eighteenth birthday under a staying put arrangement. Councils have a duty to monitor these arrangements and to provide assistance and support, including financial support. These duties continue until the young person is 21. The Council’s policy says the scheme can be extended up until a young persons twenty fifth birthday at the discretion of the head of service.

Shared lives

15. Shared Lives is a regulated UK social care scheme matching adults who need support with approved local carers who share their family and community life. It offers long-term living arrangements, short breaks, or daytime support as an alternative to traditional care homes

Universal credit

16. Universal Credit is a monthly, means-tested social security payment in the United Kingdom designed to help with living costs for people on a low income, out of work, or unable to work. It is paid by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

DWP appointee

17. An official DWP appointee is a person or organization authorised by the Department for Work and Pensions to manage, claim, and spend state benefits on behalf of someone who lacks the mental capacity or physical ability to manage their own affairs

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman principles of good administrative practice

18. In 2018 the Ombudsman published a guidance document setting out the standards we expect from bodies in jurisdiction. This says we expect councils to keep to commitments and deal with people helpfully, promptly, and sensitively.

What happened?

19. I have detailed below some of the key events leading to Ms X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
20. Miss Y, who has significant additional needs, has been living with Ms X since she was a baby. Ms X was Miss Y’s foster carer. She continued to live with Miss Y after she turned 18 years old. Additionally, Ms X acts as Miss Y’s official appointee for the Department for Work and Pensions.
21. According to Council case records, as part of Miss Y’s transition from children’s to adult services, Ms X underwent an assessment by the shared lives programme in 2021 to become Miss Y’s shared lives carer, however, she was not approved.
22. In response to this, the Council approved Miss Y to continue living with Ms X under the staying put arrangement, which would remain in place until Miss Y turned 21 years of age in 2025. The Council acknowledged that upon Miss Y turning 21, it would need to explore alternative support plans, as there would be no mechanism to continue funding Miss Y’s support beyond that point.
23. In November 2021, the Council wrote to Ms X informing her that Miss Y would be responsible for covering the full cost of her community social care services, unless she qualified for financial assistance. The letter specifically mentioned that this obligation included day centre services. The Council enclosed a booklet outlining details about financial assessments and contributions.
24. In January 2022, Miss Y was awarded universal credit after Ms X supported her with her claim.
25. In July 2023, Ms X started attending a day centre twice per week.
26. The Council sent letters to Ms X in 2022, 2023, and 2024 noting that Miss Y’s contribution towards her services would be zero. The letters outlined details of Miss Y’s income, which did not include the universal credit she began receiving in 2022. The Council asked Ms X to review the document carefully and notify it of any changes or inaccuracies. The letters also included charges for the day centre and emphasised the requirement to inform the Council of any changes, warning that failure to do so could lead to charges being applied retrospectively.
27. In January 2025, the Council wrote to Ms X asking for financial information so that it could complete its annual financial assessment. As Ms X did not respond to this request, the Council sent further reminders in February and March.
28. At this point, Ms X told the Council that Miss Y had been receiving universal credit since 2022. Following a financial assessment, the Council wrote to Ms X in April April, advising that Miss Y’s weekly contribution towards the day centre would be £113.01. The Council backdated these contributions to Miss Y’s start date at the day centre in 2023 and issued Ms X with an invoice amounting to around £8,000.
29. In May, Ms X complained to the Council, expressing concern that no arrangements had yet been made to fund Miss Y’s ongoing care with her, despite the staying put arrangement due to expire within the next few months.
30. Ms X also complained that she shouldn’t have had to have completed a new financial assessment because Miss Y was only receiving care from her. She explained that the Council later informed her this assessment related to contributions for the day centre Miss Y had been attending, yet she had never been advised that this was a chargeable service, despite attendance over the previous 19 months. Ms X additionally stated that she had assumed the day centre mentioned in the correspondence was intended for older adults.
31. At the end of June, the Council met with Ms X to discuss possible arrangements for Miss Y for when the staying put arrangement ended the following month.
32. Ms X asked that the Council maintain payments to her under the staying put arrangement, noting the Council’s policy which allows the arrangement to be extended beyond a twenty first birthday if the individual is engaged in an agreed education or training programme - a condition Ms X stated applied to Miss Y.
33. The Council replied that, as Miss Y is now an adult, it must explore adult social care options. It stated that it was considering options to enable Miss Y to remain living with Ms X, which included:

• Ms X submitting a new application for the shared lives scheme.
• Ms X registering as an independent care provider with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
• Ms X becoming an unpaid carer, which would enable her to access support services for carers.

34. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in July. It did not uphold her complaint and explained:

• Council case notes detail conversations with Ms X from November 2021 about financial assessments;
• the Council posted a financial assessment booklet through Ms X’s letterbox which outlined the purpose of a financial assessment and how Miss Y’s contribution would be calculated; and
• it had sent several letters over the past four years, asking for updates on changes to Miss Y’s finances which would affect her contribution amount.

35. Ms X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two in early December. She complained that the Council did not tell her that Miss Y’s day centre was a chargeable service at the point it was arranged and she did not have the opportunity to make an informed decision about its affordability.
36. The Council responded to her complaint shortly, after deciding its position remained unchanged.
37. In November, the Council decided that the staying put arrangement would continue until it decided on long term funding for Miss Y, but it would review this every three months.
38. The staying put arrangement was still in place in March 2026.

Findings

The Council failed to communicate anything about charges for the day centre between July 2023 and February 2025

39. In 2021, the Council carried out a financial assessment and subsequently issued yearly letters in 2022, 2023 and 2024 confirming Miss Y was not required to contribute to the care costs. These letters included a detailed breakdown of the income considered in determining the nil charge but did not list universal credit, which Miss Y was evidently receiving.
40. Since Ms X did not notify the Council of the change in Miss Y’s income, the care charges were backdated to when the liability began in 2023. As Ms X acted as Miss Y’s financial appointee, the Council had no reason to doubt her capacity to manage the finances.
41. The letters specifically asked that Ms X verify the accuracy of the financial information held and warned that if she failed to inform the Council of any changes in Miss Y’s financial situation, resulting in an undercharge, the charges would be backdated to the date when the change occurred.
42. The letters also provided a clear breakdown of charges for all services, including those for the day centre.
43. There is no evidence that Ms X reported the change in Miss Y’s financial circumstances, which was a significant financial award of universal credit. I appreciate that Ms X was upset by the receipt of invoices. But, the care was delivered to Miss Y, and the Council was entitled to charge her for it, there was no fault in the Council asking for Miss Y’s contributions to be backdated.

The Council failed to update her on Miss Y’s staying put arrangement when it was due to end

44. When Miss Y transitioned to adult social care from children’s services on her approach to her eighteenth birthday, the Council followed the shared lives pathway for her to continue to live with and be supported by Ms X.
45. For reasons I have not investigated, the shared lives assessment for Ms X and Miss Y was negative and so Miss Y could not be part of that process. The Council told me that the only way to continue providing financial support to Ms X for caring for Miss Y was via the staying put arrangement. However, it acknowledged that this arrangement was unsuitable for Miss Y, as it is designed to help young people transition to independence, whereas Miss Y would need ongoing support due to her needs.
46. The staying put arrangement was set to continue until Miss Y reached 21 years of age, concluding in July 2025. Ms X was dissatisfied that, by May 2025, the Council had not provided an update about what would happen after the arrangement’s expiry. The Council then did not discuss alternative options until the end of June 2025.
47. We would expect a Council to deal with individuals helpfully, promptly, and sensitively, taking account of their circumstances. The Council did not do this here, as it only met with Ms X a few weeks before the staying put arrangement was due to end to discuss alternative options. This delay was fault which caused Ms X uncertainty about Miss Y’s future care and funding. The resulting injustice to Ms X and Miss Y appears limited to uncertainty, given that the staying put arrangement has remained in place.
48. I have also considered Ms X’s view that the Council should continue the staying put arrangement. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made their decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or not properly explained a decision it has made.
49. However, we do not make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf. If a council has made a decision without fault, then we cannot criticise it, no matter how strongly a complainant feels it is wrong. What that means in this particular case is that it is not for me to make my own judgement about whether the Council should extend the staying put arrangement.
50. The Council evidenced it considered relevant guidance and policies, met with Ms X and suggested options that will enable Miss Y to continue to live with Ms X. The Council has extended the staying put arrangement while it looks for alternative options and agreed to review this on a three-monthly basis.
51. There was no fault in the Council in making this decision and it has no duty to continue the staying put arrangement past Miss Y’s twenty first birthday.

Back to top

Action

52. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Ms X for the uncertainty caused by delaying in discussing care and funding options when the staying put arrangement was due to expire. 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 its apology; and
• make a symbolic payment of £150 to Ms X to recognise the uncertainty caused by delaying in discussing care and funding options when the staying put arrangement was due to expire.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman