Summary: Mrs A complained that delays by the Council lost the opportunity for her disabled daughter Ms X to attend the placement which would have best met her needs. There were delays which caused injustice to Mrs A and Ms X but the Council’s decision not to fund the preferred placement was not fault. Ms X is now settled in a suitable placement.

The complaint

1. Mrs A (the complaint) says the Council delayed in proper transition planning for her daughter Ms X. As a result, there was no suitable placement available when she left college. Mrs A say the Council subsequently delayed too long in agreeing a preferred placement which was then offered elsewhere.

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 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)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs A and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs A and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

6. The Care and Support guidance says:

Everyone must receive a personal budget as part of the care and support plan if the local authority is meeting their needs, either because the needs are eligible needs or because it has chosen to meet them. The budget must be allocated “in a timely manner, proportionate to the needs to be met”.

7. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months
8. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs.
9. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says (Annex A, 12): “The local authority therefore must ensure that at least one option is available that is affordable within a person’s personal budget and should ensure that there is more than one. If no preference has been expressed and no suitable accommodation is available at the amount identified in a personal budget, the local authority must arrange care in a more expensive setting and adjust the budget accordingly to ensure that needs are met.”

What happened - background

10. Ms X has a learning disability and other complex needs, including hyper-sensitivity to noise. From 2021 she attended a residential college but when her Education Health Care Plan ended in July 2024, suitable accommodation was not available for her intended supported living and so she returned home to her parents.
11. The Council funded Direct Payments over the summer holiday and in September 2024 Ms X returned to the college on a weekday basis until an appropriate placement could be found. Mrs A wanted a fulltime placement at college to continue for Ms X until a suitable next placement could be found but the College was unable to provide fulltime care. Instead it provided weekday care and the Council continued to provide Direct Payments for weekend support at home.

The complaint

12. Mrs A complained to the Council in September 2024. She said officers had failed to comply with the statutory guidance, had put funding before Ms X’s needs, and created a personal budget for Ms X before a placement had been found (so making assumptions about affordable placements).
13. The team manager responded. She said several tenancies had been considered for Ms X earlier that year, but they were deemed unsuitable because of concerns around compatibility with other residents and the noisy environments. She said the continuance of funding a fulltime placement at the college, at a cost of £3800 a week, had been authorised until more suitable arrangements could be made but the college was unable to provide this. She mentioned other options which were becoming available and said the social worker would discuss these further with Mrs A, as well as suggesting some respite or domiciliary services which would provide extra support at weekends.
14. In November a complaints agency made a further complaint to the Council on Mrs A’s behalf. It said the Council had delayed in undertaking an assessment of Ms X since 2021. It said although the college had offered a fulltime placement as a temporary solution in July 2024, at that time the Council had refused it as too expensive, when – as it was the only suitable placement offered – it should have funded it in full. Instead, and as a result, Mrs A had had to provide a significant amount of care in addition to her own job, and Ms X had been shuttled between college and home instead of being settled.
15. The complaints agency also pointed out that a suitable placement had come available in September 2024 but the Council had failed to respond until it was too late and the place had been offered elsewhere. The agency said this was because the Council considered the placement too expensive although, in accordance with the Care Act, the Council had a duty to agree the placement in the absence of any other suitable place. It also said the Council had failed to consider options outside the local area although Mrs A would accept these.
16. A team manager responded. She said the placement which had been offered in September was a ‘high cost’ option which was not proportionate to Ms X’s needs. She said possible places outside the area were considered but the aim was to try and find somewhere locally unless there were particular reasons not to do so. She said a suitable option had now been identified, and discussed with Mrs A, which would be available from February 2025 onwards.
17. The team manager also noted the existence in Ms X’s Direct Payment budget of a large amount of funds which she urged Mrs A to use to pay for support for Ms X at weekends. She also offered £500 each to Mrs A and Ms X in recognition of the distress caused by the wait for accommodation.
18. Mrs A complained to the Ombudsman. She said the Council had failed to reassess Ms X over a long period of time. She said they had lost the opportunity for Ms X to attend a suitable placement because the Council had delayed in responding and then said it was too expensive.
19. The Council says between 2021 and 2023 Ms X’s needs and circumstances remained the same and so there was no need to reassess. It accepts there should have been a review in 2022. The Council says there was a discussion in October 2023 “to complete a review of (Ms X’s) social care needs in anticipation of her finishing college in July 2024. It is apparent from [the] records that the information gathered was not recorded on a social care review form and it is accepted that it should have been”.
20. The Council gives details of 16 separate placements (both supported living and residential) which were considered from January 2024 onwards as options for Ms X but rejected, either by Mrs A or because they were unsuitable on account of the noisy environments or the age of other occupants.
21. In respect of the placement offered in September 2024, the Council says the care provider said “they could offer an out of area residential placement for (Ms X) and provided a specification with associated costs. The specification identified costs and levels of support which were disproportionate to (Ms X)'s assessed needs.” The cost of the placement was significantly more than the equivalent placement at the college would have been.
22. The Council says that it entered negotiations with the care provider about the scale of the specification and the cost (at £5,300 a week) but the care provider withdrew its offer during that time. The Council says that Ms X’s needs continued to be met through the combination of the weekday attendance at college and the Direct Payments provided for the weekend, as well as attendance at a daycentre on Saturdays.
23. Ms X moved into an agreed placement in April 2025. The Council says the placement (at a weekly cost of £2200) meets Ms X’s needs, is local to her family home and she had been able to maintain her regular routine and activities as a result.

Analysis

24. The Council accepts there were delays and errors in reviewing Ms X’s care needs in 2022 and 2023. That was fault on the Council’s part and it says it has addressed this issue with relevant staff and those in the wider team. I do not see that in this instance it caused injustice of itself, however.
25. The Council has demonstrated the efforts made to find a suitable placement from January 2024 onwards. When that was not possible, for a variety of reasons, it met Ms X’s needs by a combination of weekly attendance at college and weekend provision of Direct Payments. That placed a particular burden on Mrs X who was now providing care as well as holding down a job. So while Ms X’s needs were met, there was injustice caused to Mrs A which should be recognised.
26. There was some delay in September 2024 when the high-cost placement was offered but I am not convinced there was fault by the Council in seeking to negotiate those figures or that it caused injustice to Ms X. The Council says the provision being offered was beyond Ms X’s needs and in those circumstances, while her needs were already being met, it is not appropriate to say the Council should have funded the more costly alternative. The Council has already offered £500 each to Mrs A and Ms X for the lost opportunity at that time.

Back to top

Action

27. Within one month of my final decision the Council will review the additional stress placed on Mrs A between July 2024 and April 2025 when Ms X moved into her new accommodation, and consider a further payment of £1000 in recognition that its inability to source a suitable placement for Ms X over that time caused her significant extra anxiety and work.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I have completed this investigation on the basis that I find fault causing injustice. Completion of the recommendation at paragraph 27 will remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman