Summary: Ms B complains that the Council was wrong to seek to transfer her sensory support to the borough where she had been placed in temporary accommodation. The Ombudsman has not found fault in the Council seeking to transfer her care to the second borough. But the Council should not have closed her case before confirming that the second borough had agreed to provide care. It should have communicated its decision more clearly, and there was also delay in responding to her complaint. However, the Ombudsman does not consider that this has caused Ms B injustice that warrants a remedy beyond the apology already made, and the Council taking steps to ensure that officers are reminded of the Council’s duties when transferring care.

The complaint

1. Ms B, who has severe sight impairment, complains that the Council’s Sensory Team, which had been providing rehabilitation and ongoing support to her:
• wrongly sought to refer her to another borough’s Sensory Team when she should have remained under the Council’s care; and then
• wrongly discharged her from its service.
2. She says that, as a result, she did not receive the support she needed for two months, and this contributed towards her experiencing falls while outside the borough.
3. Although the Council reinstated her support, she considers that it should compensate her for the injustice that this has caused her, and take steps to ensure that other vulnerable people are not placed in the same situation

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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)
6. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered Ms B’s written complaint, comments and supporting papers provided by Ms B’s advisor, and spoken with her advisor. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I have also sent Ms B, her advisor and the Council a draft decision and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance provides guidance on providing continuing care when moving between one local authority area and another.
9. Section 19.6 states:

“… For adults with care and support needs, the local authority in which the adult is ordinarily resident will be responsible for meeting their eligible needs.”

10. Section 19.15 states:

“…ordinary residence is the place the person has voluntarily adopted for a settled purpose, whether for a short or long duration… There is no minimum period in which a person has to be living in a particular place for them to be considered ordinarily resident there, because it depends on the nature and quality of the connection with the new place.”

11. The exception to this is where an adult’s care and support needs can only be met if they are living in a specified type of accommodation (a nursing / care home, supported living / extra care housing or shared lives scheme). In such cases, the adult is treated as remaining ordinarily resident in the previous area.
12. Section 19.77 states:

“…When a dispute between 2 or more local authorities occurs, local authorities must take all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute between themselves. It is critical that the person does not go without the care they need, should local authorities be in dispute. The local authority that is meeting the needs of the adult or the carer on the date that the dispute arises, must continue to do so until the dispute is resolved.”

13. Section 19.78 states:

“The lead authority must identify all the authorities involved in the dispute and co-ordinate an ongoing dialogue between all parties involved… The lead authority must also keep the person, or their carer if appropriate, fully informed of dispute in question and of progress regarding any resolution.”

14. Section 20.15 states:

“The person may request assistance from either the first or second authority in helping them understand the implications of their move on their care and support, and the authority should ensure that they have access to all relevant information and advice. This should include consideration of the need for an independent advocate in helping the person to weigh up their options…”

What happened

15. Ms B was living with her young child in a woman’s refuge within the Council’s area. She has severe sight impairment which makes it difficult for her to judge topography, including depth, steps and the speed of moving vehicles. This restricts her independence outdoors.
16. In late 2017, Ms B contacted the Council seeking assistance with rehousing and support due to her visual impairment. The Council undertook an assessment of her visual impairment in December 2017 and made referrals to several organisations. It also arranged outreach support from a Visual Impairment Rehabilitation Officer (support worker) who provided support for Ms B with her housing application.
17. While it considered her housing application, the Council provided temporary accommodation to Ms B in another borough (Borough 2) in mid-February 2018. Ms B called her support worker and explained that she had been placed in Borough 2. The support worker contacted the housing team and asked them to reconsider the placement as she could no longer provide support due to the location, and it was not possible for Ms B to access her child’s nursery.
18. The housing team confirmed that they were seeking to move Ms B back to the borough but could provide no timescale for this. The support worker discussed this with the senior support worker, who advised her to make a referral to Borough 2. The support worker telephoned Borough 2 and made a referral. She then emailed Borough 2 with a copy of Ms B’s Certificate of Vision Impairment and explained that Ms B would need orientation and familiarisation with the immediate area.
19. The case notes record that both the senior support workers and the support worker left messages for Ms B advising that her case had been referred to the rapid response service in Borough 2. However, Ms B says she did not receive a call from the Council, but only a short call from Borough 2 saying that she was not eligible for support.
20. Ms B complained to the Council about the accommodation in Borough 2, and was moved to another borough (Borough 3) in early March. Shortly after, she contacted the Council’s support worker. The case notes record that Ms B:
• told the support worker she had received a message about the closure of her case and a message from Borough 2 saying that they would not accept the Council’s referral;
• said she had also received a message from the senior support worker to confirm the closure of her case (and the support worker provided the senior support worker’s telephone number);
• was planning to make a further complaint about her accommodation;
• questioned whether long cane training might benefit her PIP claim;
• said she was managing with a symbol cane and buggy, felt safe outdoors and did not require mobility training at present, though this might change as her child gets older and she relies less on the buggy.
21. Ms B disputes the accuracy of this case note entry. She says she continued to need the support of the service and would have objected to its withdrawal. She also says there was no conversation about her PIP claim and this was an attempt to smear her.
22. The case records state that the two officers discussed the case further the same day and agreed that the support worker was to provide contact details for Ms B to access support in Borough 3. There is no record of whether this was followed up. The same day, Ms B submitted a complaint to the Council’s Chief Executive.
23. In early April, the Council accepted Ms B as homeless under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) and accepted a housing duty to provide appropriate long-term accommodation.
24. Ms B followed up her complaint by email in mid-April. This was forwarded to the senior support worker, who contacted Ms B and explained that the decision to close her case was based on the conversation that she had no ongoing needs. She explained that care would normally transfer to the new borough, but agreed to send the support worker to conduct a new assessment to determine her needs.
25. The service manager then responded to Ms B’s complaint:
• He found that, although the Council had contacted Borough 2 about her care, it had agreed to continue providing care if required.
• He found that there was no intention to deprive Ms B of a service, if required, but the closure should not have been made by telephone message as a conversation would have allowed a fuller discussion of the issues.
• He apologised for any resulting confusion.
26. Since then, the Council has assessed Ms B’s needs and is providing ongoing support. Ms B is now in temporary accommodation in Wandsworth.

My assessment

27. I consider that it was reasonable for the Council to seek to make a referral to Borough 2. The statutory guidance makes it clear that it is normally the second borough’s duty to provide support, and Ms B was not staying in specialist accommodation as defined by the legislation. I appreciate that Ms B feels that she should not have been considered as ordinarily resident in Borough 2 because she was in temporary accommodation, but the service had checked with the housing team, and it was unclear how long she might remain there. I see no fault here.
28. However, the Council should not have discharged Ms B from its service without establishing that Borough 2 was willing to take over her support. This was fault.
29. Once Ms B contacted her support worker and explained that Borough 2 would not accept the referral, the case notes state that the support worker discussed Ms B’s ongoing needs, but none were identified. I understand that Ms B disputes the content of the case notes, but these are contemporaneous and, on balance, I see no reason to conclude that they are inaccurate.
30. On the basis that no ongoing needs were identified, I do not consider that the Council was at fault in then closing Ms B’s case. However, I do not consider that the Council made it clear to Ms B that it was willing to continue to provide support, if required, or how she could continue to access services if she wanted to question the Council’s decision or if her needs had changed. It is also not clear whether the support worker contacted her to advise about contacting Borough 3. The Council should ensure that such matters are made clear to service users.
31. When Ms B submitted a written complaint to the Council, it took the Council seven weeks to respond. I note that, in the meantime, no action appears to have been taken to alert the service area that Ms B considered that she had ongoing needs. The Council should ensure that, when it receives complaints, the service area is made aware if the service user considers that they have ongoing service needs so that this may also be considered at the same time as the service complaint.
32. However, once the complaint was passed to the senior support worker, the Council reassessed Ms B’s needs and put a care package in place based on that assessment. I see no fault in the Council actions in this regard.
33. I have gone on to consider what injustice this has caused Ms B. Ms B has explained that she suffered falls due to the ending of support. However, I have seen no independent evidence to corroborate this, and note that this was not raised in the original complaint to the Ombudsman. Moreover, when the support worker contacted Ms B at the beginning of May to discuss her needs, the case notes state that Ms B advised that she did not have any urgent sensory needs. Given the above, I am not able to conclude that the suspension of the service contributed to any falls.
34. I consider that the closure of Ms B’s case without confirming that Borough 2 would provide services, the lack of clarity in the information provided to Ms B, and the delay responding to her complaint have caused Ms B frustration and distress. However, the Council has already apologised to Ms B, and I do not consider that the level of injustice is such as to warrant a further remedy aside from the Council taking steps to ensure that transfers of care are handled better in future.

Agreed action

35. The Council has agreed that, within one month of my final decision, it will take steps to ensure that complaints received outside the service area are passed on to the service area, so that it can take appropriate action in respect of any service requests while the complaint is considered.
36. The Council should also, where there is a disagreement between authorities over where a service user is ordinarily resident:
• remind officers of the Council’s statutory duty to continue to provide support where the receiving authority does not agree to provide care;
• remind officers not to close such cases until the dispute is resolved; and
• when closing or transferring a case, remind officers of the need to make appropriate contact to ensure that the service user clearly understands what decision has been made and on what basis, and what steps are open to them to challenge the decision or to continue to access services.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have closed my investigation into Ms B’s complaint because I consider that the apology already provided and the agreed service recommendations represent a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman