Summary: The Council is not at fault for failing to find alternative supported living accommodation for Ms X’s adult daughter, Ms D, or failing to provide Ms D with an advocate. The Council is at fault for delay reviewing Ms D’s Care Act Assessment, which has caused her distress. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms D. It also agreed to offer to reassess Ms D and refer her to the independent advocacy service.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council forced her disabled adult daughter, Ms D, to live in unsuitable supported living accommodation and failed to provide more suitable alternatives. She also complained the Council refused Ms D an advocate. Ms X said this has caused Ms D physical and emotional distress. Ms X would like the Council to find her daughter more suitable accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
4. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X, Ms D 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 legislation

8. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)

The Care Act Assessment and reviews

9. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
10. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.
11. 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. Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.

Mental Capacity Act

12. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so.

Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA)

13. The IMCAs are a legal safeguard for people who lack the capacity to make specific important decisions: including making decisions about where they live and about serious medical treatment options. IMCAs are mainly instructed to represent people where there is no one independent of services, such as a family member or friend, who is able to represent the person.

What happened

14. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
15. Ms D is an adult with disabilities. She lives in supported living accommodation which she shares with other residents. She has lived there 15 years.
16. The Occupational Therapist (OT) completed a Housing Needs Assessment in July 2024. They said the ‘…property does not meet her physical needs’. The OT said Ms D finds managing the stairs difficult and her bath transfers are challenging and ‘…do not appear to be safe.’ The report said a level access shower was essential for Ms D and one level living would be ideal.
17. The Council completed a Care Act Assessment in September 2024. The section headed ‘accommodation’ said Ms D struggled with the stairs because of her physical health problems. The property has one shared bathroom which has a bath with a shower over. Ms D struggled with bath transfers due to physical health problems and reduced balance. In the assessor’s analysis section of the Care Act Assessment, they said these issues have ‘made the placement unsuitable.’ It also said Ms D wished to stay in the local geographical area.
18. As the Care Act Assessment recognised the placement was no longer suitable for Ms D, the Council started to look for an alternative placement for her.
19. While the Council was searching for a new property, the OT put measures in place to keep Ms D safe in her current property. These included handrails on the bath and a second banister rail on the stairs. The OT offered a cushion to help Ms D in and out of the bath, but she declined.
20. In October 2024, a supported living accommodation agreed to assess Ms D. Following the assessment, it said it could not provide a wet room for Ms D at the local property. It could provide this in a facility in a different town. Ms X refused.
21. In December 2024, the Council referred Ms D to an independent provider of advocacy services. The advocacy service refused the referral. This was because it only takes instructions where a person lacks capacity and has no family members or friends to consult. In this case, Ms D had capacity and family who could help in the decision-making process.
22. Ms D went into hospital in January 2025.
23. The hospital social worker completed an Mental Capacity Assessment for Ms D in February 2025. They deemed Ms D did have capacity to make a decision on her accommodation.
24. The social worker arranged a hospital discharge meeting in February 2025 with Ms D and her family. Ms D said she wanted to move to a new placement in the same area. The Council explained there were no alternative placements within the area. The social worker explained the best option was for her to return to her placement while it looked for new accommodation for her. Ms D agreed and returned to her placement.

The complaint

25. Ms X complained to the Council in February 2025. She said her daughter did not wish to live in her current accommodation which was inadequate for her needs. She said the search for an alternative was taking too long. She also complained the Council had failed to provide Ms D with an advocate.
26. The Council responded in March 2025. It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint about her daughter’s current accommodation. It said it explained at the hospital discharge meeting there were no suitable alternative accommodation providers available within the area Ms D wished to live. The Council suggested the best option for Ms D was to return to her placement while the Council continued to search for an alternative. While Ms D expressed concern, she agreed to this.
27. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint about delay finding Ms D a new placement. It explained Ms D had specific needs requiring a ground floor room and a wet room and wished to stay in the local area which limited the search which is still active.
28. The Council’s complaint response also explained that it referred Ms D to the advocacy service as the family asked, but the service refused the referral. It partially upheld this part of Ms X’s complaint as the reasons for refusal were not explained at the time.
29. Ms X complained to us in May 2025. She said the Council failed to move her daughter to suitable accommodation and failed to provide her with an advocate.
30. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me it enquired with 15 providers of supported living accommodation from May 2024 to the present day. Many did not have vacancies. Four of these did not have ground floor rooms available. Two did not have wet rooms. Eight did not have a placement in the area Ms D wanted to live in. One did not respond. The Council offered Ms X four places which she declined. It explained it tried to find Ms D an alternative placement but this had not been successful as they were either not suitable, did not have vacancies or Ms D refused based on the location. The Council said it cannot confirm when a placement might become available as this depends on external factors which are outside its control.
31. The Council offered to do a full reassessment of Ms D and make a referral for an advocate as part of this process. It also confirmed it offered to meet with Ms D and Ms X to discuss finding an alternative placement for Ms D.
32. In July 2025, the Council told Ms D it was struggling to find her a new suitable placement within the area as there was limited supply. Ms D said she would consider accommodation in three other areas and agreed to widen the search for a new placement.

Analysis

Provision of accommodation

33. Ms X complained the Council made D live in unsuitable accommodation and failed to find her an alternative. The Housing Needs Assessment said the current ‘property does not meet her physical needs’ and the Care Act Assessment said ‘the placement is unsuitable.’ It is clear from both assessments that the property was not suitable for Ms D. The Council agreed with Ms X that the current property did not meet Ms D’s needs and agreed to look for a suitable alternative for her.
34. While the Council was searching for an alternative placement for Ms D, it sought to make the current placement safer for her. The OT installed handrails on the stairs and bath to help her movement around the property and transfers in the bathroom. It also offered transfer cushions to assist getting in and out of the bath which Ms D refused. While this was not an ideal placement for Ms D, the Council took steps to make it safer for her, while it searched for an alternative.
35. The Council was active in its search for a new placement for Ms D. It enquired with 15 different providers and continues with the search to the present day. The Council is limited because of Ms D’s specific needs. Many of the properties that had vacancies could not offer a ground floor bedroom. Similarly, some did not have a wet room. Both were essential requirements for Ms D. Where properties did have availability, they could not meet Ms D’s specific needs.
36. The Council did find four properties that could meet Ms D’s physical needs, they all had ground floor bedrooms and a wet room. Ms D rejected these properties as they were not in the geographical area she wanted to live. While Ms D had every right to reject these properties, the Council has actively sought and found accommodation which met Ms D’s physical needs.
37. While I understand Ms X and Ms D’s frustration because Ms D is still living in unsuitable accommodation, this is not because of anything the Council has failed to do, or done wrong. It has made alterations to the current property to improve its safety and offered further adaptations which Ms D has refused. The Council has searched for alternative accommodation for Ms D and has suggested alternatives which meets her needs, which she has refused. The Council is limited to the accommodation that is available, a factor which is outside its control.

Provision of an independent advocate

38. The Council referred Ms D to an independent advocate to help with decision making about where she wanted to live. The service refused the referral because Ms D had capacity to make her own decision about where she wanted to live and had family who could help her make that decision. The independent advocate said it would only be involved where a person did not have capacity to make a decision and had nobody to help make it for them.
39. The Council referred the matter to the advocacy service as Ms X asked, followed the service’s guidance and accepted its decision. There is nothing further it could do. The Council is not at fault.
40. The Council has offered to refer Ms D to the independent advocate service again during the next Care Act Assessment.

Review of the Care Act Assessment

41. The Council should review the Care Act Assessment every year. The Council completed the last Assessment in September 2024, this means it should have reviewed it by September 2025. The Council has not completed a review; there has been a delay of four months. This is fault. This has caused Ms D distress as she does not know how her needs might have changed and what her new care plan might look like.
42. The Council said it will complete a reassessment of Ms D which limits any further injustice.

Summary of fault causing injustice

43. The Council is at fault for delay reviewing the Care Act Assessment. It said it will complete a review and refer Ms D to an independent advocate. This limits any further injustice.

Back to top

Action

44. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Ms D for the distress caused by the delay completing the Care Act Assessment review.
• Write to Ms X and Ms D and offer to complete a Care Act Assessment for D promptly and refer her to the independent advocacy service.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman