Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of her son, Mr C, about poor communications by the Council. These were when Mr C’s supported living placement ended and then around his personal budget on moving to another placement. We upheld the complaint, finding some fault by the Council in respect of its communications on both matters. This caused injustice to Mrs B and Mr C as distress, with unnecessary uncertainty and frustration. The Council offered to remedy this injustice in a way that we considered would provide for a fair outcome to the complaint, with details set out at the end of this statement.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mrs B’. She complains on behalf of her son, ‘Mr C’. Her complaint concerns arrangements made by the Council for Mr C at two supported living placements - ‘Property X’ and ‘Property Y’.
2. There are two parts to Mrs B’s complaint:

• first, there were poor communications by the Council and / or its contracted Care Provider when Mr C had a tenancy at Property X. In particular, surrounding the circumstances and timing of this tenancy ending in summer 2022;
• second, there was delay and poor communication in letting Mrs B and Mr C know the amount of the personal budget for Mr C’s care on him moving into Property Y. Also, to let them know what Mr C would have to pay towards that care.

3. Mrs B says trying to understand what was happening with Property X was time consuming and stressful, at a time when Mr C had significant anxiety. She considers the Council gave up on the prospect of Mr C returning to live at Property X. She says it also caused inconvenience chasing information about Mr C’s personal budget, needed to help Mr C make an informed choice about where he lives and how he receives his care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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. Before issuing this decision statement I considered Mrs B’s written complaint and any supporting information she provided. I also spoke to her about her complaint. Next, I gathered information from the Council, including relevant care records.
8. I gave Mrs B and the Council opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments they made, before finalising the statement.

Back to top

What I found

The complaint about the ending of Mr C’s tenancy at Property X

9. The background events to this complaint begin in 2019. Mr C, who is disabled, lived at Property X – a supported living placement. He returned to live at his family home, with Mrs B, for health reasons.
10. All parties expected Mr C’s move would be temporary. But he remained living with Mrs B into 2022. However, he maintained rent payments for Property X and he both wanted and expected to return to live there.
11. The first part of Mrs B’s complaint concerns the circumstances in which Mr C’s tenancy of Property X came to an end at the beginning of September 2022. I asked the Council to provide me with a copy of the most recent care needs assessment it had undertaken for Mr C before this date. It sent me a copy of an assessment dated December 2021.
12. This noted Mr C’s intent to return to live at Property X and explained steps being taken to support that. It commented that Mr C “needs support to maintain his tenancy and understand issues raised by the landlord”. Also, that he needed support to manage his finances and to “read, understand and respond to” correspondence. I note at this point the Care Provider did not own Property X, so was not Mr C’s landlord.
13. I also asked the Council to provide me with a copy of Mr C’s most recent care and support plan, pre-dating September 2022. It sent me a copy of a plan dated March 2020, which largely set out support Mrs B would provide Mr C while he lived at the family home. But it noted Mr C’s tenancy at Property X was still in place and that Mrs B would support him “should any issues occur” with this.
14. Next, I considered case notes from August 2021 onward detailing the day-to-day interactions between Mrs B, Mr C, his social worker (and other Council employees) and his Care Provider. I noted that as early as August 2021 Mrs B raised a concern the Care Provider did not forward post for Mr C from Property X. Mrs B also expressed concern around communications surrounding reintegration for Mr C at Property X. And she expressed concerns at the circumstances which led Mr C to move out of the property in 2019.
15. Mr C’s return to Property X moved slowly. From November 2021 he made occasional visits to the property but did not stay overnight.
16. Then, from March 2022 Property X lost residents, meaning only one person continued living there full time.
17. In May 2022 Mr C’s social worker told Mrs B the Council would not place anyone else in Property X. I noted this followed an earlier email they sent to Mrs B in April which advised “our Care Quality Team continue to monitor [the Care Provider / Property X] on a regular basis following up the concerns that you and parents of the other tenants have raised over the past twelve months”.
18. I asked the Council to explain the background to this comment. It sent me evidence that from July 2021 onward it had monitored the Care Provider’s performance in several areas. The papers say this was in part in response to a complaint made by a parent, but it does not provide details of this. In total the Council raised around 30 areas of concern with the Care Provider, of which it categorised 26 as minor and four as significant. The significant concerns were around the cleanliness of Property X and record keeping. The Council notes indicate that these concerns and the majority of minor concerns were addressed to its satisfaction. It has not provided any records suggesting quality monitoring continued into 2022.
19. Next, in June 2022 the Council told Mrs B that the Care Provider had decided it would not try and fill vacancies at Property X. In July it told Mrs B the Care Provider’s lease on the property would end the following month. When Mrs B later asked for the Care Provider’s reasons it said the landlord had failed to carry out certain repairs needed to the property.
20. Initially Mrs B asked the Council to reconsider the proposed course of action. She queried if a different Care Provider could take over the care provision and why the Council could not enforce improvements to the property. Mrs B explained her reluctance that Mr C should have to give up his tenancy. In correspondence Mrs B also reiterated her concern the Care Provider’s staff did not forward post for Mr C.
21. In mid-August 2022 Mrs B contacted the landlord of Property X. They told her they had tried to serve notice for Mr X to leave the property at the beginning of the month. But were told by staff that he no longer lived there. Subsequently the landlord sent a copy of the notice direct to Mrs B, with an end date of early September. Mrs B duly arranged to collect Mr C’s property and possessions from Property X.
22. Commenting generally on this part of the complaint, the Council has said that it accepts there was some confusion in communications. It attributes this to the number of services involved.

The complaint about the personal budget

23. Concurrent with discussions over Mr C’s tenancy at Property X, Mrs B discussed with the Council about Mr C moving to Property Y. I noted from June 2022 Mrs B set out her view that Mr C would need a transition plan to help him move in. Subsequently she asked for an updated support plan, wanting to know how Mr C would be supported if he moved into Property Y.
24. I saw the Council provided Mrs B with updates on support planning for Mr C. At the end of August 2022, it set out how many individual support hours it would fund. But the Council said it could not be clear on the amount of shared support Mr C would receive. This was because it depended on the number of occupants at Property Y when Mr C moved in – an unknown factor at that time.
25. In October 2022, in both a telephone call and email, Mrs B clearly set out her view that Mr C must have a support plan before he could sign a tenancy for Property Y. to make clear his personal budget, hours of support and so on. By November 2022 the Council had sent a draft support plan to Mrs B but not finalised it. When it did so, she queried why the Council had not completed the personal budget. At which point the Council sent details of the cost of Mr C’s placement at Property Y. This was just a few days before Mr Y had arranged to move into Property Y. When he did so his support plan still did not include a personal budget.
26. When Mrs B challenged the Council on why Mr C’s support plan did not contain his personal budget, it told her that this would only usually be included once it had reviewed the plan. And this would typically be around six weeks after care began.
27. I asked the Council to clarify its policy around personal budgets and financial assessments, used to decide what users of services should pay towards their care. It drew attention to its Fairer Contributions Policy which says that:

• people assessed as needing support will receive an estimated amount of money to meet their social care needs, known as an indicative budget. This will be in their care needs assessment;
• the actual amount of money needed will be finalised after the Council has carried out support planning. The support plan documents used by the Council should contain space to enter both the personal budget and client contribution.

28. To decide if someone needs to contribute to their personal budget the Council carries out a financial assessment. The Council says it aims to complete these at the same time as support planning but during 2023 it faced backlogs. So, in this instance it did not complete a financial assessment for Mr Y until May 2023, around six months after he moved into Property Y. The Council acknowledges this was an unacceptable delay.
29. The Council told me of measures it has taken to reduce backlogs, which it says have now reduced to between six and eight weeks. It has recruited several officers to carry out and support its financial assessments.

My findings

The complaint about the ending of Mr C’s tenancy at Property X

30. I do not find the Council at fault for Mr C’s tenancy at Property X ending. I can see more might have been done, sooner, to alert Mrs B to concerns the Council had around the Care Provider’s service, given its monitoring of performance since 2021. I have also commented above that I cannot see the Council has provided a clear audit trail showing the nature and extent of concerns it still had in April 2022, despite indicating it had such concerns to Mrs B. I do not find the records I have seen therefore fully explain the Council’s decision not to introduce new tenants to Property X in May 2022.
31. However, this is not to say I could fault that decision, given that by this date:

• it is clearly documented the Council had concerns about the Care Provider’s service in 2021;
• that Mrs B’s own interactions with the Council suggest she had concerns about the Care Provider also;
• that by then there was only one tenant living in the property full time;
• Mr C’s return to the property had to be in doubt given the slow pace of his reintegration.

32. Even if I came to a different view on whether the Council was at fault here, I note that shortly after it made this decision the Care Provider decided to end their interest in the property. There is no evidence the Council’s decision not to find new tenants influenced the Care Provider’s thinking. The record is clear the Care Provider wished to end the placement because of concerns the landlord did not adequately maintain the building.
33. I recognise Mrs B’s view the Council may have stepped in at this point to try and affect change. It could have sought to negotiate improvements to the property by the landlord. Or to try and source a new care provider. But I do not consider it was under any obligation to do so. The Council has a general duty to try and shape the market for care in its area to ensure supply meets demand. But this does not mean it should concern itself with individual market transactions between commercial providers.
34. That said, I consider more might have been done to improve communications between Mrs B, acting for Mr C, and the Council. During 2022 I found the Council generally maintained good communications with Mrs B. I am satisfied she knew beforehand that Mr C’s tenancy was anticipated to end in late August 2022. But I find she lacked specific knowledge about how it would formally end. I consider thought could have been given by either the Care Provider or the Council to how this would occur from June 2022 onwards when it became clear Property X would, to all intent, close by September. There was a gap here, in the support plan that Mr C had. Because while the needs assessment recognised Mr C’s need for support with his tenancy and post, the onus on the plan to do this, all fell on Mrs B. But she could not do that without clear communication from the Care Provider also.
35. In this context it was an omission, and therefore a fault, that the Care Provider did not inform her of the landlord wanting to serve formal ending of the tenancy at the beginning of August 2022. It appears it did not forward the landlord’s notice as on the landlord’s account given to Mrs B, the Care Provider declined to accept notice addressed to Mr C saying he had moved away. This shows a breakdown in internal communication by the Care Provider had occurred, as its staff should have known Mr C still maintained his tenancy.
36. I consider any injustice caused by this fault mitigated to a large extent by Mrs B’s general awareness of what was happening with Mr C’s tenancy. But she, and by consequence, Mr C, will have been caused some avoidable distress by this unnecessary confusion.

The complaint about the personal budget

37. The Care Act 2014 and associated guidance make clear that before individuals receive care, they should know the cost of that and any contributions they may have to make towards it. The only exception envisaged is where a Council arranges care in an emergency.
38. The cost of care is set out in a personal budget. Government guidance says that where someone has a care and support plan this must include details of their personal budget. In this case there was a delay in the Council updating Mr C’s support plan to include this information after he moved to Property Y. This did not arise because of any confusion around the cost of care, and the Council made Mrs B aware of before Mr C moved in. But instead, because there was some uncertainty around the exact hours of shared care Mr C would receive. This was in turn dependent on the number of residents in Property Y. I can see why this complicated the completion of the support plan. But while understandable, the omission was still a fault.
39. I am also concerned to note the suggestion made to Mrs B that the Council would only finalise the support plan once Mr C moved into Property Y. The Council appears to have confused two concepts here. Because while it is good practice to review a support plan within around six weeks of care beginning, there should be a final support plan including a personal budget from the inception of care.
40. There was also a lengthy delay here in the Council then completing its financial assessment, impacted by wider delays in this service.
41. The delays in finalising this information must lead to a finding of fault. These faults caused Mrs B and Mr C some injustice as uncertainty. Although I consider there were two factors which mitigated this injustice.
42. First, that the Council did provide some information on the cost of care to Mrs B and Mr C before Mr C moved to Property Y. Although I note at the same time this was only a few days before his move and I consider it likely the Council could have provided this information sooner. Second that experience allowed Mrs B to put money aside for Mr C’s client contributions, based on experience. I have taken account of these factors in deciding what remedy the Council should provide for this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. In paragraphs 36 and 41 I have set out where fault by the Council and / or the Care Provider caused Mrs B and Mr C injustice. During the investigation the Council recognised this and offered a symbolic payment of £350 given the injustice caused. I considered this fair and in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.
44. Consequently, to remedy Mrs B and Mr C’s injustice the Council has now agreed that within 20 working days of this final decision it will:
1. make the symbolic payment of £350 it has offered; and
2. apologise to both for the injustice identified above. The apology should take account of guidance at section 3.2 of our published guidance on remedies, which sets out our view of what an effective apology should contain.
45. The Council will provide us with evidence to show it has completed these actions in the agreed time.
46. I have not made any service improvement recommendations in this case, although the complaint has raised issues of wider concern. First, about the need for personal budget information to be included in support plans. Second, about the time taken by the Council to complete financial assessments. However, the evidence provided by the Council satisfies me that it has recognised these potential systemic failings and has taken action to address them.

Back to top

Final decision

47. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Mrs B and Mr C. The Council has agreed action that I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I have now completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman