Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to de-register him as a Shared Lives host. Mr X said the panel process which led to his de-registration was unfair and flawed. The Council was at fault. It failed to administer the panel and appeal process in line with relevant policy and the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice. It caused Mr X uncertainty about whether the outcome could have been different. The Council agreed to review and ask a fresh panel to consider Mr X’s case.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to de-register him as a Shared Lives host. Mr X said the panel process which led to his de-registration was unfair and flawed.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him significant distress, time and trouble and will lead to financial loss.

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. 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

5. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Shared Lives service

8. The Council’s website says Shared Lives hosts get paid to open their homes to support eligible people over the age of 16, including those with learning difficulties, mental health issues, older people and those living with dementia.
9. A host can offer three different types of service and these are:
• Long term – where someone would move in with a host and their family.
• Short breaks – where someone would stay for a night or two, weekend or week.
• Day support – sessions lasting up to 5 hours based at the host’s home and/or out in the community.
10. Shared Lives hosts are classed as self-employed and paid by the Council depending on the support needs of the person they support.
11. The Council’s ‘Shared Lives handbook’ states the Council’s Shared Lives service is to support and enable the hosts to provide high quality care and support to the person placed with them. The Shared Lives team allocates an officer to each host who is responsible for their ongoing support and for the monitoring of their work. It states the Shared Lives officer is responsible for investigating any concerns or complaints about the hosts or alleged breaches of the host agreement. The officer will carry out monitoring visits and one annual review.
12. Hosts enter into a service agreement with the Council when they become Shared Lives hosts. The agreement sets out the basis of the contract, the nature of the service which the hosts will carry out and other terms and conditions.
13. The agreement says the Council may terminate the agreement with immediate effect if the host commits a serious breach of the agreement. It does not however explain what process it will use if this is the case or explain the process of de-registration of hosts.

The Shared Lives Panel

14. The Council has a Shared Lives panel which is responsible for approving and de-registering Shared Lives hosts. The Council has a policy which sets out how it approves panel members and how the panel operates. The policy does not explain how the panel considers removal and de-registration of hosts. It says the panel chair will be a senior member of staff who is completely independent of Shared Lives.
15. The policy says notes from the panel will be retained by Shared Lives as a record and minutes will be taken of any discussion held during panel consideration.
16. The Council did not have a specific policy or procedure which explained the process of how the panel considers de-registration of Shared Lives Hosts.

The Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice

17. The Ombudsman has published guidance on ‘Good Administrative Practice’ and we use this a benchmark for the standards we expect when we investigate the actions of bodies in our jurisdiction. This includes:
• Being open and clear about polices and procedures and ensuring information, and any advice provided, is clear, accurate and complete.
• Stating the criteria for decision making and giving reasons for decisions.
• Keeping proper and appropriate records
• Ensuring decisions and actions are proportionate, appropriate and fair.

What happened

18. Mr X and Mrs Y provided care and support to people for several years. Mr X said he has been a Shared Lives host for over 20 years. Records show the most recent agreement he signed with the Council was in 2016 when the Council requested all Shared Lives hosts sign new host agreements. Mr X said he provided care and support to three people who lived with him and Mrs Y. He said the three people had lived with him since he set up his care business in the 1990s.
19. The Council said its Shared Lives Officer (the officer) had raised concerns about Mr X’s suitability as a host for some time. The Council said Mr X and Mrs Y consistently failed to adhere to the requirements set out in the Shared Lives agreement. The Council said it dealt with these informally and had no formal records to support the action it took or the alleged breaches of the agreement.
20. Towards the end of 2019 concerns were raised by the family of one of the individuals who Mr X and Mrs Y cared for. This included:
• Privacy related issues around the use of social media.
• Failing to complete hospital passport paperwork.
• Mr X registering himself as next of kin for one of his residents.
21. In response to these concerns, the officer put Mr X and Mrs Y on an action plan at the start of 2020 to address the issues raised.
22. Following the action plan the officer reported that Mr X had further breached the service agreement after one of the residents fell and ended up in hospital. The breaches included:
• Mr X did not report the hospital admission to the officer as required and then failed to disclose the full details around the reason for the admission.
• Mr X left the resident in hospital without support.
• Mr X left a resident at home without support following their discharge from hospital.
23. Records show that in May 2020 the officer referred Mr X and Mrs Y to the Shared Lives Panel with a recommendation that they were de-registered as Shared Lives hosts. The Council said this was because Mr X further breached the agreement and showed a reluctance to address the concerns outlined above.
24. The officer completed a report for the Shared Lives Panel which outlined their concerns and listed Mr X and Mrs Y’s alleged breaches of the service agreement. The report said the officer had attempted to help and support Mr X and Mrs Y following the action plan, but this had been unsuccessful. The officer provided Mr X with a copy of the report.
25. Prior to sending the report to the Shared Lives panel the officer spoke to Mr X about a further concern. The officer said a social worker had reported that Mr X had declined to follow guidance and recommendations from an Occupational Therapist (OT) in relation to one of the residents. The officer recorded this in the report to panel as a further breach.
26. Mr X clarified that this was not true as no OT assessment had taken place. He provided a full statement confirming this which included confirmation from the OT that Mr X had not refused to implement any recommendations.
27. Records show the officer send the panel paperwork to their manager for checking. The manager sent the report to the Shared Lives panel and a copy to Mr X. However, the manager mistakenly sent Mr X copies of internal emails which confirmed the officer was aware the OT confirmed that Mr X had not in fact refused to implement OT recommendations. The emails also included inappropriate comments made by the officer about Mr X. The paperwork sent to the Shared Lives panel however still this information and said Mr X had declined OT recommendations.
28. The Shared Lives panel met to consider Mr X and Mrs Y’s case in June 2020 and decided to de-register them as Shared Lives hosts. Records show the panel chair was not independent of Shared Lives. The Council wrote to Mr X and Mrs Y informing them of the panel’s decision. The letter said the panel’s decision was based on breaches of the Shared Lives agreement which were:
• Failing to report incidents and hospital admissions in a timely manner.
• Setting up a social media account for individuals who did not have capacity to give consent.
• Leaving a resident at home alone without appropriate care and support.

The letter said Mr X and Mrs Y had the right to appeal the panel’s decision.

29. Mr X and Mrs Y appealed the panel’s decision. The appeal panel met in August 2020 and did not uphold it. The appeal panel decided the decision to de-register Mr X and Mrs Y stood.
30. Mr X complained to the Council. He complained the officer submitted untrue and misleading evidence to the panel about the OT. Mr X also said much of the information in the panel report was inaccurate. He said the inappropriate emails he was copied into showed the officer was unprofessional and showed collusion between them and their manager. Mr X also complained about the appeals process which he said was unfair. He said the same person sat on both the original panel and the appeal panel.
31. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. The Council said although the officer included the concern about the OT recommendation, they also included an addendum note for the panel on the matter. The Council said that note clarified the matter for the panel. The Council apologised for the inappropriate emails sent by the officer but said there was no evidence of collusion between them and their manager.
32. Since this matter the Council has now developed a policy for de-registration of Shared Lives hosts and carried out a review of how it will address concerns with Shared Lives hosts going forward.
33. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response to his complaint and the handling of his de-registration as a Shared Lives host, so he complained to us.

My findings

34. The records show the Shared Lives officer raised concerns with Mr X and Mrs Y at the end of 2019 and start of 2020. They decided the concerns were substantial enough to ask the Shared Lives panel to consider de-registering Mr X and Mrs Y as Shared Lives hosts. This decision was in line with the relevant policy and was made without fault.
35. Prior to this matter the Council did not have a policy and procedure for how it should manage de-registration of Shared Lives hosts. There was also no policy or guidance which explained how the Council should carry out de-registration appeals. I have therefore considered whether the Council carried out the process in line with its Shared Lives Panel policy and the Ombudsman’s Principles of Goods Administrative Practice.
36. I do not consider the Council carried out the panel and appeal process fairly and transparently. The officer knew prior to sending the panel report that Mr X did not in fact ignore or refuse to implement OT recommendations. The officer has not recorded a rationale for keeping this information in the panel report. The officer’s decision to keep inaccurate information in the panel report was fault. It meant the panel report was inaccurate and misleading.
37. There are no minutes, records or contemporaneous notes of the panel’s deliberations. Therefore, there is no evidence which shows how the panel considered both the Council’s evidence and any mitigation from Mr X and Mrs Y. It is also not clear without proper records whether the Council gave any weight to the officer’s inaccurate statement about the OT. This was not in line with the Council’s Shared Lives panel policy or our principles of good administrative practice and is fault.
38. There are also no contemporaneous notes or minutes to show how the officers considered and deliberated Mr X's appeal. That is fault. The same officer who chaired the first panel also considered Mr X’s appeal. Without appropriate records I cannot say that the Council carried out the appeal fairly and independently.
39. 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. The Council did not administer Mr X and Mrs Y’s de-registration in line with our Principles of Good Administrative Practice. The identified faults mean I cannot say with any certainty that the Council carried out the panel and appeal process fairly, independently and transparently. It has caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration about whether the outcome could have been different.

Agreed action

40. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to review Mr X’s panel report to ensure it contains accurate information and ask a fresh Shared Lives panel chaired by an officer independent from Shared Lives to consider the matter. It must ensure it keeps appropriate records, minutes and notes of all decisions and deliberations.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. I found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendation to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman