Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly respond to his child’s, Y’s concerns about their Shared Lives carer. He also complained the Council did not ensure the carer allowed Y to meet their partner during a COVID-19 lockdown. The Council failed to consider if issues in the placement should have triggered a safeguarding response. It also delayed in ending the placement. This caused Y uncertainty and distress. The Council will apologise and pay Y £300.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly respond to Y’s concerns about their Shared Lives carer. He also complained the Council did not ensure the carer allowed Y to meet their partner during the second COVID-19 lockdown. Mr X says this caused Y significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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:
• the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the Council’s policies, relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
5. Mr 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

Relevant law and guidance

Shared Lives schemes

6. Under Shared Lives schemes carers share their home and family life with an adult who needs care or support to help them live well.
7. Councils should ensure, if necessary, the service user has access to someone independent of the scheme for support, advice and advocacy.

Safeguarding

8. Councils have a duty to make safeguarding enquiries if they suspect an adult who has care or support needs is at risk of being abused or neglected and cannot protect themselves.
9. The main purpose of a safeguarding enquiry is to decide whether or not the council, or another organisation, or person, should do something to help protect the adult from harm or risk of harm.
10. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance sets out what a safeguarding enquiry should look like. This could range from a conversation with the adult or their representative, through to a formal multi-agency plan or course of action.

What happened

11. Mr X is Y’s parent. Y moved into the Shared Lives placement in mid-January 2020. Y’s social worker held a 28-day review in mid-February.
12. At the end of March 2020, the Council reallocated Y’s social worker to another department due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council held a further review in mid-April, as Y’s case was moving departments. The review noted Y said they were feeling positive about the placement and felt at home. The carer felt Y had settled into the placement well although the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic was making things difficult in general.
13. The Council spoke to Y again in early May. Y said they were settled in the placement. It contacted Y again in late May to check on their welfare. Y said they were fine and talked about the effect of the COVID-19 lockdown.
14. In late May, a manager from the Shared Lives scheme contacted the Council to ask if it was aware Y needed a social worker as Mr X had raised concerns about how Y was feeling about the placement. The Council responded to say it was not aware as it had not received a referral but would allocate one as soon as possible.
15. A few days later, Mr X contacted the Council to pass on messages Y had sent him. It included Y’s concerns that the Shared Lives carer was not allowing them to leave the house, accused them of lying, shouted, talked rudely about them and misgendered them. Y stated they would leave the placement as soon as possible. Mr X said the Council had not spoken to Y about the placement and was relying on information from the carer.
16. Council records show it acknowledged the placement was not ideal but felt it was nonetheless a good environment for Y. It felt Y’s statement about the carer accusing him of lying was because Y would say he had washed when he had not.
17. The Council then held a further review. Y said they had initially coped well with lockdown but was managing less well now and wanted to see their family. Mr X expressed his concerns for Y’s emotional well being and the impact on the placement. The Council also contacted Mr X separately. It said it was taking his concerns about the placement seriously and would allocate a social worker to investigate them.
18. Mr X forwarded a manager in the adult social care department an email from Y detailing their concerns about the carer and placement. Y said they had been blamed for something they did not do, felt the carer would tell them off unfairly and did not appreciate the impact of their mental health conditions. Y said they felt stressed and worried and wanted to end the placement. Mr X asked the manager not to share the email with anyone else at the Council because Y feared repercussions from the carer.
19. The Council allocated a social worker at the end of May. The social worker carried out a review of Y’s care plan in early June, attended by Y, Mr X and the carer. The review noted there had been conflict between Y and the carer on his personal hygiene and that an advocate would be useful. The social worker made the advocacy referral the same day.
20. The social worker spoke to Y again in late July. Y detailed some recent issues in the placement, including a confrontation with the carer’s partner. The social worker chased the advocacy referral because the placement was at risk of breaking down.
21. In mid-September 2020, the carer contacted the Council to report an incident with Y. She said Y had sworn repeatedly and said they wanted to leave the placement. The carer asked the social worker to contact Y about their personal hygiene or arrange a session with an advocate. A Council social worker spoke to Y about the incident, who said the carer had also locked them in the house and ‘half-shoved’ them out when they unlocked the door themselves. The social worker agreed to speak to Y’s social worker about the incident.
22. In mid-October, the carer contacted the Council to say Y had been lying about what they had eaten. The Council held a meeting with Y and Mr X the same day. Y said they wanted to move as soon as possible.
23. Mr X complained in late October 2020. He said:
• the Council did not allocate a social worker until June 2020, so Y did not feel they had a voice in the placement. Y felt bullied by the carer and wanted to leave;
• the Council delayed in arranging an advocate; and
• the Council had not taken suitable action to end the placement.
24. In early November, the Council held a meeting with Y and Mr X. Y confirmed they wanted to leave the placement. In response, the Council reallocated Y’s case to another social worker to arrange the move to a new placement.
25. From 5 November 2020 to 2 December 2020, the government introduced a national lockdown to control the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. People were required to stay at home except in certain circumstances. One of the exemptions was that one person could visit an outdoor public place with one person from another household.
26. Mr X contacted Y’s carer to say he had spoken to the Council about meeting up with Y. He said the Council agreed that Y should be allowed to meet up outside with their partner as well as Mr X. He suggested Y could catch a bus to meet their partner in town, or that he would drive Y there.
27. Throughout November, Mr X and the carer repeatedly contacted the Council and each other about Y meeting up with their partner. The carer was not comfortable with Mr X’s suggestions and did not want Y to go. Members of her family were particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 and she did not feel it was safe. Records show Y’s partner’s parents did not want them to meet outside of college. Records also suggest Y told the carer they were happy only seeing Mr X, but gave a different view to Mr X.
28. The Council gave both Mr X and the carer advice on the government guidance and mediated between them. It was not able to find a resolution by the end of the lockdown, after which Y was able to meet their partner.
29. In late November, Y’s carer gave notice on the placement to end by the end of the year.
30. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint in mid-December 2020. It said:
• it accepted there had been a delay in ‘work with [Y] progressing’;
• the delay in arranging advocacy was out of its control; and
• it was sorry for the delay in arranging Y’s move. It was now working to arrange a new placement.
31. Mr X remained unhappy and asked for a stage two response.
32. Y moved into a new placement in mid-December 2020.
33. In early February 2021, the Council sent its stage two complaint response. It said:
• it had not dealt with Y’s concerns in late May 2020 as a safeguarding issue because Y had asked it not to share the email that detailed their concerns. The Council had instead put extra monitoring and support in place for the carer;
• it had spoken to Y about the verbal altercation in mid September 2020, who confirmed they wanted to move on and felt fine. However, it apologised for not investigating the incident more or considering formal action;
• after Y had disclosed the carer locked them in, it had not properly considered whether the incident was a safeguarding issue. The Council had raised the issue with the member of staff responsible and put training on safeguarding in place. It apologised to Y for the mistake;
• in response to Mr X’s complaint it would ensure it properly monitored cases using its framework and would ensure staff would learn from the complaint, focusing on making sure it properly records incidents and follows up on welfare concerns.
34. In response to my enquiries, the Council acknowledged Y’s social worker had placed too much emphasis on arranging an advocate and that had delayed action to move Y to a new placement. It has put a training plan in place for the social worker as a result.

Findings

Concerns about the placement

35. Both Y and the carer raised concerns about the placement starting in May 2020 and continuing to the end of the placement in December. The Council took some suitable action to address the concerns and maintain the placement including holding reviews, speaking to Y and the carer and making an advocacy referral.
36. However, in late May 2020, Mr X sent the Council an email from Y which set out Y’s concerns and stated that they did not want the email to be shared for fear of repercussions from the carer. The Council's February 2021 complaint response said it did not deal with the issue was a safeguarding matter because Y had asked it not to share the email. I am not persuaded by this argument. The Council has a duty to investigate where it suspects an adult with care or support needs is at risk of neglect or abuse and cannot protect themselves. Y’s statement that they feared repercussions should have triggered consideration of whether a safeguarding response was required. The Council was at fault for failing to do this. This caused Y uncertainty as to whether the Council would have taken different action had it acted without fault.
37. Further, in mid-September, the carer reported a verbal altercation with Y. The Council acted appropriately in contacting Y to discuss the incident. Y then disclosed the carer had locked them in the house and ‘half-shoved’ them. The Council has acknowledged it was at fault for not properly considering if the incident should have been dealt using the safeguarding process. This caused Y further uncertainty. The Council has made suitable improvements to ensure it responds appropriately to welfare and safeguarding concerns in the future.

Ending the placement

38. Y’s reports of concerns about the carer and unhappiness with the placement coincided with them stating they wanted to move. This began in late May 2020. The Council did not act on this until early November, after Mr X’s complaint. The Council has acknowledged it failed to act on Y’s wish to end the placement as it was waiting for the advocate. While an advocate would have helped communication between Y and the Council and clarified his wishes on other matters, Y was clear they wanted to move. The advocacy delay should not have prevented the Council moving Y to a new placement in the meantime. This drift was fault and caused Y distress and frustration. The Council has taken action to prevent the fault occurring again by offering training for the social worker responsible.
39. Once the Council began arranging to more Y to a new placement, it acted promptly. Y moved in around six weeks. There was no unnecessary delay in moving Y; the Council was not at fault.

Social worker and advocacy

40. Y had a social worker from the start of his placement in mid-January to the end of March. At that time, the Council reallocated the social worker due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council did not allocate replacement because the placement was working well. When the Council became aware Y was unhappy in the placement, it allocated a social worker in around two weeks. The Council acted promptly once it became aware Y would benefit from a social worker; it was not at fault.
41. Mr X feels the lack of a social worker meant Y was not able to share their views about the placement. Records show that in the two-month period Y was without a social worker, the Council held two reviews and spoke to them about the placement. Y was also able to send their views to Mr X who advocated on their behalf. I am satisfied Y was able to communicate their views on the placement to the Council while waiting for a social worker.
42. Y’s social worker made a referral for an independent advocate in early June, the day Y agreed they would like one. There was a significant waiting list for the advocate and it was not possible to arrange an appointment before the placement ended. The Council was not at fault.

Lockdown

43. Mr X and the carer had opposing views on whether Y should be allowed to meet their partner during the November 2020 lockdown. The Council had to balance the wishes and safety of Y with those of the carer and others in her household. This was complicated by the fact Y sometimes gave different views of what they wanted to Mr X and the carer. The Council took suitable actions to try to resolve the conflict and maintain the placement throughout November 2020. It was not at fault. In any event, Y’s partner’s parents were unwilling to let the two meet. It is therefore unlikely Y would been able to meet with their partner, even if the carer had felt comfortable with it.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. The Council has apologised to Y for failing to consider if the incident in mid-September 2020 warranted a safeguarding response. However, it should also apologise for the uncertainty and distress caused by its failure to consider if Y’s concerns in May 2020 should have triggered a safeguarding response and for the delay in arranging to move them to a new placement. The Council will do this within one month of my final decision.
45. Mr X manages Y’s finances. As such, I have recommended the Council pay Y, care of Mr X, £300 within one month of the date of my final decision. This is a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice the Council's fault caused Y. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. I have found evidence of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman