Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her role as Shared Lives carer. She said this has affected her financially. We have not found the Council to be at fault as it followed correct procedure and kept Ms X informed. We have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
• Did not pay her for 5 years when she worked as a Shared Lives carer;
• Would not pay her for the respite care she provided on holiday with a service user; and
• Reduced the service user’s care hours meaning that she received less pay.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Ms X’s complaint about the recent matter of respite care on holiday and the reduction of the service user’s care hours.
3. Paragraph 29 and 30 explain why I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint about the Council not paying her for being a Shared Lives carer over a period of 5 years.

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. 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)
6. 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

7. I have considered Ms X’s complaint and have spoken to her about it.
8. I have also considered the Council’s response to Ms X and to my enquiries.
9. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Shared Lives

10. Shared Lives schemes support adults with learning difficulties, mental health problems or other needs that make it harder for them to live on their own. The schemes match someone who needs care with an approved carer. The carer shares their family and community life and gives care and support to the person with care needs.
11. Some people move in with their shared lives carer, while others are regular daytime visitors. Some combine daytime and overnight visits.
12. The carer signs an agreement with the Shared Lives service which sets out their role and responsibilities.

What happened

Ms X’s role as a Shared Lives carer for Ms Z

13. In her role as a Shared Lives carer, Ms X had a service user, Ms Z, living with her between November 2012 and March 2018. In February 2018, the Council held a Care and Support Plan meeting to identify the daily support Ms Z would require when she eventually moved into her own flat. The Council acknowledged that Ms Z was reluctant about this move but that this was more in concern of the unknown. This move was supported by professionals who agreed that Ms Z should develop greater independence to such a degree she would require support in the future.
14. The Council said Ms X was fully aware of the plan for Ms Z. It explained that the Council seeks to ensure that Shared Lives carers have regular and consistent employment. However, it is acknowledged that as the needs of the individual service user change, then the support they require from their Shared Lives carer is likely to change. This means there is potential for the volume of support and therefore the paid hours to go up or down. The Council said it has a strategic aim to grow its Shared Lives offer and recognises that consistency of income and employment for Shared Lives carers is crucial to this. As such, when packages reduce or cease, there will always be a proactive attempt to allocate the Shared Lives worker alternative work.

Ms Z moves into her own flat

15. In March 2018, the Council assisted Ms Z to move into her own flat. The Council said, at this time, Ms Z received 30 hours a week support from the Shared Lives carers. It said this comprised of five four-hour sessions and two five-hour sessions, provided by three carers over 7 days. In addition to this, the Council’s regaining independence service provided additional support, to enable Ms Z to further develop the skills and confidence necessary to maintain a successful tenancy.
16. The Council reviewed Ms Z’s care plan at the end of March. This showed Ms Z was achieving the outcomes of the care and support plan and she was settling into her new tenancy. The review said that with support from Shared Lives carers and the regaining independence service, Ms Z would be capable of developing her skills towards independence and would be unlikely to need as much support in the future.

Holiday request

17. In July 2018, Ms Z requested to go on holiday with Ms X in her caravan. The Council explained that Ms X would not be paid as a respite carer. Its reasons were that Ms Z lived independently, could travel independently, she knows the caravan and site well so would not need emotional support and did not need personal care. Ms X said she just wanted to be paid her usual hours. The Council explained that Ms X would not be paid her usual weekly hours as she would be on holiday. I have seen the Council’s agreement that Ms Z could go on holiday with Ms X, as a friend.
18. Ms X said it was the Council’s decision for her to take Ms Z on holiday ‘as a friend’ that led to the Council accusing her of blurring boundaries which subsequently led to her losing her care hours with Ms Z.

Blurred boundaries

19. I have considered the notes from a meeting held between Ms X and the Council in February 2019. I have also considered a letter that Ms X wrote to the Council after this meeting. The Council said it held the meeting to share concerns identified around Ms X’s carer relationship with Ms Z.
20. At the meeting, the Council identified several examples of recent situations where it considered Ms X had blurred the boundaries of carer and friend with Ms Z. This included a date in August 2019 where Ms X was to accompany and support Ms Z to a medical appointment. Ms X left Ms Z at the appointment and returned later.
21. Ms X then increased her hours at the end of the day to make up for the time lost. The Council said this replacement of paid hours with informal hours was confusing to Ms Z and effectively blurred the boundaries between carer and friend. The Council also explained that Ms X had breached her shared lives contract by not complying with the duties and responsibilities contained in Ms Z’s care and support plan.
22. The meeting concluded by the Council saying it expected Ms X to cease her paid hours with Ms Z. Ms X argued that she thought she was doing right by welcoming Ms Z into her home, cooking her meals, giving her lifts etc. The Council explained that Ms Z’s outcomes are to receive minimal support from the Shared Lives service and that by doing more than her paid hours, Ms X was discouraging Ms Z’s independence.

Ms Z’s care hours reduced

23. In February 2019, the Council visited Ms Z to discuss the specific outcomes in the care and support plan since moving into her own flat, and the support she had received from Ms X as a flexible hours carer. The Council concluded that Ms Z had developed friendships and links in the community and she no longer needed the level of support she had been receiving. At this stage, the Council reduced Ms Z’s hours of support from the Shared Lives carers to 16 hours a week. This comprised of 4x4 hour sessions and as a consequence, the hours commissioned from Ms X for Ms Z were ended. This was with the expectation that Ms X’s capacity would be redirected elsewhere.
24. The evidence I have seen shows the Council offered Ms X alternative service user matches once Ms Z’s hours were reduced. The Council said that Ms X declined the offered matches as she could not commit to regular hours. Ms X said this was because the service user was not suitable to live with the lady that currently lives with her. She also added that it would mean she would be working all weekends.

My findings

25. The Care and Support Plan reviews determined Ms Z’s level of support. I cannot question the outcome of these reviews if they have been carried out properly, in line with procedure. I have seen no evidence that causes me to believe they have not.
26. Ms X’s complained the Council blurred the boundaries by telling her to take Ms Z on holiday as a friend. The Council was clear why it would not pay for her to take Ms Z on holiday It also confirmed she would not be recognised as a carer for Ms Z by the Shared Lives service for that period. The Council was not at fault here.
27. The Council did not use the holiday as an example as a time when Ms X blurred the boundaries. It did however list several other situations where it was concerned this had happened. The Council was clear why it was no longer appropriate for Ms X to work as a carer for Ms Z. This coincided with the Council’s decision to reduce Ms Z’s overall hours in line with her care and support plan review.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation. I have not upheld Ms Z’s complaint and have found the Council to have acted appropriately and in line with its policy and procedure.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

29. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint that the Council did not pay her for five years whilst she worked as a Shared Lives carer. This is because this relates to the period between 2011 and 2016. This is well beyond the Ombudsman’s 12 month deadline and there appears to be no good reasons to explain why Ms X did not raise the matters sooner. Therefore, I cannot investigate this now.
30. I have not identified any exceptional circumstances why Ms X’s complaint should be exempt from this. Ms X said she is dyslexic and did not know about the Ombudsman. Dyslexia involves difficulty reading rather than knowledge and general understanding. This is not considered to be a reasonable reason for not knowing about the Ombudsman service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman