Summary: There was delay by the Council in responding to changes to a shared lives care arrangement and a failure to consider Mr Y’s need to apply for housing benefit for over a year. As a result, Mr Y owes unpaid rent to Mr X, his shared lives carer. The Council has agreed to reimburse Mr X and make a symbolic payment for time, trouble and inconvenience caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X, a shared lives homeowner and carer, complains on his own behalf and on behalf of Mr Y, who he supports. Mr X complains about issues related to the shared lives arrangement and payments.
2. Mr X complains:
• The Council delayed agreeing an increase in the Shared Lives payment after this was recommended in October 2023. The Council did not approve the increase until Summer 2024; it then refused to fully backdate the higher payment beyond April 2024. This led to a shortfall in money to Mr X for the level of care he had provided. Mr X told me this issue has subsequently been resolved with both the rate and banding uplift now backdated to October 2023; however, he says there was a two-year delay in him receiving the enhanced payments.
• There was delay in the issuing of a new licence agreement, which in turn meant Mr Y could not apply for housing benefit when his savings fell below the level when he could claim. Mr X says due to the Council’s fault and delay Mr Y owes rent of £8712.44 from 8 April 2024 to 29 December 2024 which remains outstanding because Mr Y’s housing benefit was not backdated to cover the period of delay.

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 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. 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. Shared Lives care may include long term accommodation and support, short breaks, or daytime support.
8. Shared Lives accommodation should be arranged in line with the Care Act 2014. 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. As with residential care, local authorities should also review Shared Lives placements at least annually.
9. Shared Lives carers are paid a weekly fee to cover the rent, household costs and care and support they offer to service users. There will be a financial agreement between the Shared Lives carer and the local authority. Shared Lives carers are not employed by the local authority, and they will have to register as self-employed with HM Revenue & Customs.

Key events

10. Mr Y has lived with Mr X for over thirty years on a Shared Lives basis. Mr X is the appointee for Mr Y’s state benefits.
11. An unsigned licence agreement was issued on 17 April 2023 for Mr Y detailing an accommodation charge (rent) and separate food and utilities charge. This is separate to the payment made for Mr X to provide care and support to Mr Y.
12. Documents provided show the Shared Lives Manager carried out a review in Autumn 2023. The Shared Lives Manager advised Mr Y’s needs now fell into a higher band than the current shared care arrangement and recommended an increase in needs and banding for care and support be agreed by the Council.
13. The Shared Lives Manager provided a full set of paperwork from their review and asked for email confirmation of the increase in weekly payment rate so they could change the placement cost from the date of the review. They noted ‘a social worker needs to be present to discuss the licence agreement and the payment of rent which he [Mr Y] will have to pay as he’s [sic] savings are over the threshold for benefits’. However, a separate email a day later indicated Mr Y would need support to apply for housing benefit to pay for the room he occupied. This email said the Council would need to complete the work on the licence agreement to support the application for housing benefit.
14. The review document shows that in October 2023 Mr Y had just under £16,000 in his accounts but owed £10,000 in care contributions as the Council had failed to bill him for several months.
15. Mr Y’s care records show professional social worker involvement in November 2023, which will have been when the review paperwork was received.
16. The Council’s complaint document refers to a joint assessment starting in February 2024 between the Shared Lives Manager, Mr Y, Mr X and the social worker. The Council decided a referral was needed to the Council’s Appointeeship and Court of Protection (APPCOP) team for a best interest decision to be made because Mr Y lacked capacity to sign a new licence agreement. The Council also decided the APPCOP team should take over management of Mr Y’s finances as it considered there was a potential conflict of interest with Mr X doing so. The referral was made on 5 April 2024. I understand the intention was for the APPCOP team to apply to the Court of Protection for a single order to sign the licence agreement.
17. Mr X raised concerns about this decision as he had managed Mr Y’s benefits without concern up to now. The Council said Mr X could not both manage the benefits and audit Mr Y’s finances.
18. The Shared Lives Manager queried whether anyone other than APPCOP could sign the licence agreement, but the social worker said the referral to APPCOP was essential so the licence agreement and finances could be managed in accordance with Council regulations and procedures.
19. My understanding is that applications to the Court of Protection would lead to a significant delay before approval to sign a new licence would be provided. A new licence was needed from 8 April 2024.
20. A Resource Allocation meeting (RAM) took place in late July 2024. The notes of the RAM said the finance team was working to resolve the weekly contribution debt issue and noted the recommendation from the Autumn 2023 review to move Mr Y to the higher band for the shared care payment for care and support.
21. The Shared Lives Manager chased the social worker in August 2024 for the outcome of the banding decision. The social worker confirmed the Council’s panel had agreed the higher band but said it would only backdate this to April 2024, the start of the new financial year. The Shared Lives Manager raised concerns the funding had not been backdated to October 2023, and provided evidence to show the review had been requested back in July 2023, the paperwork submitted in the previous financial year, and it was the social worker that had taken many months to complete their assessment. The Shared Lives Manager also pressed to discuss the outstanding licence agreement.
22. The Shared Lives Manager emailed the social worker again in September 2024, after taking further advice, proposing two options for the licence:
• Put a case to APPCOP again for the single order for the court to sign the licence.
• The licence agreement for 2023 to be reissued without signatures but with written consent the council agreed with the licence being in situ and Mr Y to pay rent or supported to claim benefits to cover the rent once his savings are depleted.
23. The Shared Lives Carer noted their recommendation had only ever been for the Council to help with the licence and rent / housing benefit situation and not for APPCOP to take over all management of Mr Y’s finances.
24. Mr X complained to the Council in early 2025 the delay in resolving matters for himself and Mr Y was unacceptable. Initially the Council maintained its position on backdating the higher band and that Mr X could not continue to manage Mr Y's finances. The Council said Mr X had caused delay by failing to sign forms for APPCOP.
25. Mr X then brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
26. Subsequently the Council relented on the backdating and Mr X says he has now been paid both the higher band and annual uplift in full back to October 2023. However, Mr X had to wait until Autumn 2025 for this to be paid.
27. In September 2025 the Council told us after further consideration it had agreed for the ‘time being’ Mr X could continue to manage Mr Y’s benefits but there would be biannual audits by the Shared Lives Manager pending completion of the APPCOP form so the Council could take over financial management.
28. Mr X told me another unsigned licence agreement is in place following a mental capacity assessment which was attached to the licence agreement so housing benefit could be paid. Mr X however says that he remains out of pocket because there was a gap when rent was owed but not paid from 8 April 2024 (the date of the new licence) until 29 December 2024, as he has been told housing benefit cannot be backdated to cover this period. Mr X says the unpaid rent amounts to £8712.44.

Analysis

Care and Support

29. There was delay between October 2023 and July 2024 in the higher band being approved, with the back-payment not made until Autumn 2025. I cannot see any reason why it should have taken from October 2023 to July 2024 for the Shared Lives Manager’s review recommendation to have been considered and a decision made. This delay was fault.
30. The Council has belatedly agreed to refund Mr X in full to October 2023, but I find it could and should have made this decision much sooner. The Shared Lives Manager raised this with the Council in Summer 2024, but it took a further year before payment was made.
31. Mr X was disadvantaged as he was providing higher levels of care without the appropriate level of payment for a two-year period and had the uncertainty of whether the payment would be made.

Licence

32. The Council was asked to help Mr Y with his rent and, if appropriate, housing benefit in October 2023. It did not do so. This was fault. Mr X says without a licence agreement in place, Mr Y could not apply for housing benefit.
33. Ultimately the Council decided an application for housing benefit could be made by issuing an unsigned licence and attaching this to the application for housing benefit. This led to housing benefit being paid even though there was no signed licence or Court of Protection order. I can see no reason why this same action could not have been taken in October 2023, when the Council was asked to support Mr Y and consider his need to pay rent including the need to make an application for housing benefit.
34. I find the Council, in deciding to intervene to take over the management of Mr Y’s finances, failed to consider the impact that intervention and delay would have on his application for benefits. On the evidence I have seen there was no consideration of Mr Y’s benefits eligibility by the Council despite this being specifically flagged as an issue for the Council to consider in October 2023. The situation was ultimately resolved because the Shared Lives Manager researched a ‘work around’, and not because of any action by the Council. This was fault. The Council should have ensured Mr Y’s position to pay rent and apply for housing benefit was secured.
35. The injustice caused by the Council’s failure to ensure an earlier housing benefit application was made was not to Mr Y, who continued to live in the same accommodation, but to Mr X who has been denied rent for this period.

Back to top

Action

Within four weeks of my final decision:

36. The Council will pay Mr X £150 to acknowledge the time, trouble and inconvenience from its delay in both elements of the complaint.
37. The Council will pay Mr X the amount Mr Y would have received in housing benefit between 8 April and 29 December 2024, had a timely application been made.
38. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

39. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman