Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of herself and her son, Mr C, that there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision on payment banding for the Shared Lives placement and that the Council’s communication has been poor. We have found no fault in the way the Council reached its decision on payment banding. The Council was at fault in failing to keep Mrs B informed, but its apology represents a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused by this.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains on behalf of herself and Mr C that there has been fault in the way the Council reached its decision on payment banding for the shared lives placement and that the Council's communication has been poor.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mrs B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
5. Mrs B 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

Legal and administrative background

6. Shared Lives schemes provide an alternative to traditional social care accommodation and support for adults. Under Shared Lives schemes service users who cannot live independently receive care and support from ordinary family households called Shared Lives carers. Shared Lives carers share their home and family life with an adult who needs care or support to help them live well. Schemes are often managed by local authorities but they can also be managed by independent providers or health trusts.
7. The local authority has a responsibility to assess the needs of the Shared Lives service user as set out in the Care Act 2014. There should be a written support/care plan which shows how the service users’ needs will be met in the placement.
8. Shared Lives carers are paid a weekly fee to cover the rent, household costs and care and support they offer to service users. Some local authorities pay carers using a banding system which is based on the needs of the service user and/or the Shared Lives carer’s experience or level of training. However, this is not always the case and is dependent on the local authority’s policy. Shared Lives carers are not employed by the local authority and will have to register as self-employed with HM Revenue & Customs.
9. The Council uses a matrix to identify the level of payment Shared Lives carers receive based on the service user’s needs.

Key facts

10. Mr C has complex needs and requires constant support and supervision. He had lived with Mr and Mrs B since he was six years old under a foster care arrangement. In June 2017 Mr C’s social worker completed a Shared Lives costing model in preparation for the transfer of Mr C’s case to adult services. She found the placement funding to be Band 4.
11. When Mr C turned 18 in July 2018, he ceased to be legally ‘in care’ so his fostering arrangement ended. He remained living with Mr and Mrs B but, although his placement was planned to come under the Shared Lives scheme, a change in the criteria disrupted the transfer process.
12. Mr C’s case was transferred to the Disabled Young People’s team in November 2018. He was allocated a worker, Officer X, who visited to discuss Mr C’s care needs. She completed a care needs assessment in January 2019 and submitted a costing model for consideration at panel. Her view was that Mr C fell within Band 4.
13. The panel agreed to a Shared Lives placement at Band 4 and backdated funding to Mr C’s 18th birthday subject to a positive assessment by Shared Lives. A Shared Lives officer, Officer Y, then began an assessment for Mr and Mrs B to become Shared Lives hosts for Mr C.
14. Mrs B completed a Shared Lives costing model on 14 February 2019. She assessed the costing as Band 5.
15. On 30 April 2019 a senior practitioner and Officer Y visited Mr C and Mrs B. Mrs B said she disputed the level of funding awarded. She said Officer X completed the assessment without Mr C present and did not have all the correct information.
16. In May 2019 Mr and Mrs B were approved as Shared Lives hosts.
17. In view of Mrs B’s concerns, Mr C’s case was discussed at the decision-making panel meeting in July 2019. The panel considered the costing models, including that completed by Mrs B. They did not agree an increase in funding to Band 5 but, because of the different views on Mr C’s level of need and corresponding Shared Lives matrix banding, asked for a different worker to update the assessment and bring the case back for further consideration.
18. Officer Z, a senior practitioner not previously involved with the case, visited Mr C and Mrs B together with Officer Y and completed a new costing model assessment. She assessed Mr B as Band 4. The Council says she discussed the costings model at length with Officer Y and Mrs B. But Mrs B says the meeting lasted less than an hour and the officer briefly discussed the points on the matrix which she had disputed. She says Officer Z’s laptop was not working so she was unable to complete the matrix together with Mrs B and Mr C so she took notes.
19. Officer Y sent an email to Officer Z disputing the Band 4 assessment on several points. Officer Z responded explaining the reasoning behind her assessment in respect of each of the disputed points.
20. In September 2019 the case was again presented to the decision-making panel. The three banding assessments were attached for the panel’s consideration and the panel was informed that Mrs B continued to dispute the assessment. The panel requested that Officer Z consider the following documents that may not have been looked at and write an addendum to her assessment stating whether these documents affect her decision: speech and language report; education health and care plan and a letter from Mr C’s paediatrician. Officer Z should also obtain feedback from Mr C’s school.
21. In October 2019 Mrs B complained to the Council. The assistant director of adult social care and health responded apologising for communication issues and for failing to share panel decisions with Mrs B in a timely manner. He agreed, in view of the communication issues and to be completely impartial, that a new senior social worker would take over responsibility for Mr C and would review the previous matrix assessments and background information relating to the banding.
22. In December 2019 the new allocated worker, Officer V, visited to discuss Mr C’s needs. Mrs B provided documents for the assessment. A few days later Officer V visited Mr C at college. She then completed the care needs review.
23. In February 2020 Officer V visited Mr C at home again. In March 2020 she completed a new Shared Lives costing model and eligibility criteria decision form. The form stated that Officer V had considered information including: Mr C’s education and health care plan; information from Mr C’s school; a letter from Mr C’s ADHD specialist nurse; information ascertained at a recent home visit and pathway review meeting; and information provided by Officer Y. She assessed Mr C as Band 4. She sent a copy of the costing model and eligibility determination form to Mrs B.
24. Mrs B disputed the costing model assessment in a telephone conversation with Officer V. She followed up the conversation with an email explaining the points she and Mr C disagreed with. Officer V responded to each of the points raised by Mrs B and further explained how they had been assessed.

Analysis

Payment banding for the Shared Lives placement

25. Mrs B says that the complexity of Mr C’s needs is not reflected in the banding assessments completed by the Council. She says that, although officers have all reach the conclusion that the placement should be in Band 4, they have given different reasons for this.
26. I am satisfied there was no fault in the assessment process. Two different officers completed an assessment and reached the view that Mr C should be placed in Band 4. The panel considered their views and relevant information before making its decision on banding. A third officer then completed an assessment and also concluded Mr C should be in Band 4. In reaching this view, she: considered all relevant information, including medical evidence and information about Mr C’s educational needs; met with Mr C and Mrs B and took account of their views; and considered the views of the Shared Lives officer.
27. In the absence of administrative fault in the decision-making process, there are no grounds for us to challenge the merits of the decision.
28. Although each worker had different views on how each of the points were rated, this is a matter for their professional judgement and does not undermine the fact that they all reached the view that Mr B should be placed in Band 4.
29. I appreciate Mrs B disagrees with officer’s views, particularly in relation to Mr C’s emotional well-being and his employment and/or education and leisure needs. However, I am satisfied they took her views into account when reaching their decision.

Communication

30. Mrs B says communication from the young people’s team was inconsistent, matters were not dealt with and her emails were ignored.
31. In response to Mrs B’s complaint, the Assistant Director of Adult Social Care and Health accepted that communication was not as good as it should have been and apologised for this. He also accepted Mrs B should have been notified of panel decisions shortly after they were made and apologised that this did not happen.
32. I consider the Council’s apology to be a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs B by the Council’s poor communication.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I do not uphold Mrs B’s complaint that there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision on payment banding for the Shared Lives placement.
34. I uphold Mrs B’s complaint that the Council’s communication with her was poor. I consider the Council’s apology represents a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused by this.
35. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman