Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to act in line with the Shared Lives agreement following a serious incident involving the service user, Y. We found fault in the Council’s planning and communication with Ms X. This caused Ms X significant distress, and she felt she lost autonomy in her own home. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and review its procedures to remedy the injustice Ms X experienced.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s actions following a serious incident involving Y, an adult placed with her under a Shared Lives arrangement. Ms X says the Council failed to act in line with the Shared Lives agreement after she told it she no longer felt safe supporting Y and asked for the placement to end. She complains the Council failed to adequately remedy the injustice she experienced. This caused her significant distress, loss of autonomy in her own home, and long-lasting emotional impact.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have not investigated any injustice caused to Y in this matter as we do not have Y’s consent and Ms X is not acting as Y’s representative. We have limited our investigation to any injustice caused to Ms X because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Policy and guidance

7. Shared Lives is a council-arranged scheme where approved self-employed carers support adults with care needs by sharing their home and everyday life with them. Arrangements are intended to be family-based alternatives to residential care and are governed by agreements setting out how placements should operate and end.
8. Paragraph 48 of the Council’s Shared Lives Arrangement Agreement says carers must agree:

“To end a Shared Lives arrangement by giving written notice to the Islington Shared Lives service. This notice will not be less than 4 weeks (ideally up to 3 months) except in an emergency, where the arrangement has broken down, or where alternatives have mutually been agreed. Islington Council reserves the right to terminate the arrangement immediately, if necessary, when an arrangement has broken down or if the person is at risk. If considering ending a Shared Lives arrangement, the Shared Lives carer should start the conversation as soon as possible with the Islington Shared Lives scheme so there is adequate notice to support the person into a new environment in a positive way.”

9. The agreement also says the Council should work with others to end the arrangement if the safety or wellbeing of the person or Shared Lives carer(s) or others in their household is felt to be at risk by the arrangement continuing.

Background

10. Ms X is an experienced Shared Lives carer. Y was placed with her as an emergency Shared Lives placement.
11. A serious incident occurred in Ms X’s home in August 2024, involving Y, during which the police attended. Ms X told the Council she no longer felt safe supporting Y and asked for the placement to end following the incident.
12. The Council explored alternative placements but was unable to secure one immediately. The Council also said that decisions about Y’s accommodation were subject to Court of Protection involvement, which meant it had to take account of legal considerations when arranging any move. It arranged for Y to remain in Ms X’s home with 24-hour care support provided by external carers to mitigate risk and to ensure Ms X was not left on her own with Y. There were no further reported incidents during this period. This arrangement continued for almost four weeks.
13. Ms X submitted a formal complaint to the Council in February 2025. The Council accepted the incident was triggered by poor planning and communication. It said Y was given too much distressing information at once, including changes to education and family contact. The social worker involved acknowledged this was too much for Y to process at one time. The Council accepted there was risk following the incident and that the relationship between Ms X and Y had broken down.
14. The Council says it believed this was in Y’s best interests while it sought a longer-term placement. It partially upheld Ms X’s complaint, accepting fault for poor planning and communication and for not better supporting Ms X and Y. However, it did not uphold the complaint about not ending the placement and did not offer a clear apology or remedy.

Analysis

15. Ms X says she was not fully informed of Y’s needs before the placement. Much of this element of the complaint relates to alleged injustice to Y and the suitability of the placement for Y which is out of the scope of our investigation. But the Council accepted that planning and communication were poor and that not all relevant information was known or shared at the time of placement. Where a carer is not given all relevant information the Council holds, this limits their ability to make an informed decision about whether they can meet a person’s needs safely in their home. This acceptance of fault is relevant context when considering what happened after this.
16. The Shared Lives agreement and associated documentation allow for a placement to end immediately, without notice, where an arrangement has broken down or where there is risk.
17. In this case, a serious incident occurred involving risk. The Council accepted the relationship between Ms X and Y had broken down. Ms X clearly requested the placement end and said she no longer felt safe. The Council decided Y should remain in Ms X’s home for around four weeks despite her request.
18. The Council says this decision was taken in Y’s best interests and that it had to take account of Court of Protection involvement when arranging any move. It also said it could not immediately secure an alternative placement due to the lack of options. The Council put 24-hour care in place to reduce risks and to support Ms X. This was an appropriate response to Ms X’s concerns and wellbeing while it searched for a move.
19. While the Council has duties to Y, it must also act in line with the contractual framework it has put in place for Shared Lives carers. It is accepted an immediate move may not have been possible, and that the Council could not ignore legal constraints. But the Council has not shown it properly explained to Ms X how its decision-making worked in practice in these circumstances, including what weight it gave to the agreement terms, what options were considered, and what timescales Ms X could expect. The Council’s complaint responses also did not clearly acknowledge the impact on Ms X of continuing the placement with 24-hour carers in her home for several weeks. This lack of clear decision-making and communication was fault. It caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty at a difficult time and failed to give appropriate weight to Ms X’s position and wellbeing. This is fault.

Injustice

20. Ms X experienced distress and uncertainty following the incident and during the period Y remained in her home with 24-hour care support. While the additional carers were intended to reduce risks and support Ms X as well as Y, Ms X says this arrangement had a significant negative impact on her enjoyment of her home and her sense of privacy and control for several weeks.
21. The Council accepted some fault but did not offer a clear apology or a suitable remedy that reflected the distress caused to Ms X. There is unremedied injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Action

22. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X for the faults mentioned above. 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.
• Pay £300 to Ms X for the distress and risk of harm caused by the Council’s actions. This amount reflects the impact on Ms X over a period of several weeks, while also recognising the Council did put 24-hour care in place to mitigate risk and there were no further reported incidents.
23. Within twelve weeks of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Review its Shared Lives policy/procedures to ensure clear decision-making and communication when carers request placements to end due to risk or breakdown of relationship or perceived risk, including how the service will operate where legal constraints (such as Court of Protection involvement) affect the timing of any move.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman