Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed her daughter’s move by considering housing options for her which were unsuitable and contrary to her support plan. Mrs X said this caused her and her daughter significant unnecessary distress. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that after six years of transition planning to move her daughter, Miss D, into her own property with a personal budget, the Council caused unnecessary delays when it decided to explore other types of placement before it would give its approval.
2. Mrs X said these delays caused Miss D, who is vulnerable, significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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

5. I spoke to Mrs X and considered her view of her complaint.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included copies of Miss D’s support plans from when she was both a child and an adult.
7. I visited the Council and spoke to Miss D’s social worker.
8. I considered the Care Act 2014 and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014.
9. I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and statutory guidance

10. The relevant legislation is the Care Act 2014 and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014.
11. The Care Act 2014 says councils must assess someone’s care and support needs where they appear to need support. Where a council is satisfied that an adult has eligible needs for care and support, it must meet those needs.
12. If a council decides it must meet the needs, it must write a care and support plan. The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do with or without support and what support is available. It should set out the person’s eligible needs and outcomes.
13. In determining how to meet needs, the council may take into reasonable consideration its own finances and budgetary position. The council may reasonably consider how to balance that requirement with the duty to meet the eligible needs of an individual in determining how an individual’s needs should be met.

What happened

14. Miss D is in her 20s and has a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Until 2019, Miss D lived with her mother, Mrs X. Miss D needs 1:1 support at all times during the day and cannot be left on her own at any time.
15. Since Miss D was 16 years old, her support plans have recorded that the ultimate goal was for Miss D to move out of the family home with support from carers. Miss D’s plan for 2017 stated she wished “to move to a supported living property in future either shared or on her own with a staff team of people she knows well”. Support plans since that date have recorded Miss D’s goal to move into supported living but have not specified whether this should be shared or on her own. Miss D’s social worker said the plan was for any transition for Miss D to be gradual in order to enable her to get used to living away from home and Mrs X.
16. On 21 January 2019, the Council carried out a reassessment. Miss D’s support plan following this stated “Mum feels that [Miss D] is not ready yet to move out and needs to build more skills and prepare for this… mum is happy for [Miss D] to continue living at home with her for now but is very clear that [Miss D needs] to build skills towards a move out of home”.
17. The Council case notes record that on 4 March 2019, Mrs X told the social worker she considered Miss D was ready to move to her own property. During this investigation, the social worker said she reminded Mrs X that she would look at all potentially suitable properties for Miss D and these would include shared properties. The social worker said Mrs X was unhappy with this because she did not want Miss D to live with other people requiring care. Instead she wanted Miss D to live alone with a full-time package of care. The social worker said she informed Mrs X a single tenancy might be acceptable, but she needed to consider the different options in order to make an informed decision.
18. Mrs X put her house up for sale on 18 March 2019. She sold it the following day. The Council’s case notes record Mrs X telephoned the social worker on 20 March to tell her she had sold her property and so it was now urgent that the Council found Miss D somewhere else to move. Mrs X stated Miss D could not move with her permanently to her new house and that Miss D was becoming stressed by the idea she might have to move twice.
19. The social worker contacted the brokerage section of the Council the same day with a description of Miss D and her needs. The brokerage section holds details of all current vacancies for people requiring supported living.
20. In May 2019, the brokerage section provided the social worker with details of eight vacancies, including a shared property with two males, an older people’s residential home and another property with older residents.
21. Miss D’s social worker discounted these properties and at the beginning of June 2019, made a request to the senior management panel to approve a full-time 1:1 package of care for Miss D in her own property. The social worker told me she made the decision to request input from the panel because the care package was more expensive than normal and it was higher risk because the planned gradual transition could not take place.
22. The panel refused the social worker’s recommendation and put forward two further potential placements. After investigation by the social worker, these were found not to be suitable.
23. On 24 June 2019, Mrs X contacted the social worker and told her she was about to sign a tenancy for Miss D. The social worker said she warned Mrs X that this was risky because the panel had not approved the care package.
24. On 26 June, the panel approved the package of care. In July 2019, Miss D moved into her own rented property with a full-time care package shortly before Mrs X moved to her new house.
25. Mrs X was unhappy with the amount of time the Council took to find a placement for Miss D. She said that because the Council had looked at different placement options, this had caused delays in finding Miss D suitable accommodation. She said Miss D’s support plans had always recorded Miss D would need to live alone because she could not live with other people.
26. Mrs X said Miss D had been aware her mother was about to move house which meant Miss D would have to move twice. This had caused her severe anxiety which had created significant problems for Mrs X who was caring for her.
27. The Council responded. It said it was routine practice to seek the least restrictive provision for a person to ensure it was suitable and proportionate.
28. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman. She said the Council had considered accommodation for Miss D that was clearly inappropriate, including placements with men who were significantly older than her and supported living for older people.
29. As part of my enquiries, the Council provided details of the process it followed to identify a suitable placement for Miss D. The Council said “In line with NYCC’s internal brokerage process for sourcing supported living a pen picture of [Miss D] was provided to brokerage to look at matching and sourcing a suitable supported living option based on: levels of needs, gender, physical and mental health needs, likes / dislikes, age, associated risks, wishes and interests. The role of the social worker is then to consider the available options based on the needs of the individual”.

My findings

30. Mrs X complained the Council deviated from a plan which had been in place for six years to provide Miss D with a single occupancy tenancy. The Council disagrees with this view.
31. Miss D’s support plans since 2017 have consistently referred to Miss D eventually moving into independent living but there was no reference to Miss D requiring her own single tenancy because she was unsuitable for living with other people.
32. Councils must take account of individual’s preferences. However, if there are other options that can meet Miss D’s requirements the Council can consider these. In doing so, it is entitled to give consideration to its own finances and budgetary position.
33. The social worker considered the placements available, immediately dismissed those that were inappropriate and came to an informed decision that the remaining ones were unsuitable. When she made her recommendation for a full-time package of care to the panel, it was entitled to suggest she explore other possible housing options. Ultimately, the Council approved the full time package of care as most cost-effective and appropriate package for Miss D. There was no fault in the Council’s actions or the way it made its decision.
34. The Council first became aware Mrs X had sold her property on 20 March. It approved the funding for a full-time package of care around three months later on 26 June. This is an appropriate timescale. Mrs X had begun the process of moving house herself at this stage, but the Council cannot be held responsible for this or the resulting urgency to move Miss D. The distress caused to Miss D by her knowledge of events was not as a result of Council fault.

Back to top

Final decision

35. There was no fault in the Council’s actions. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman