Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to properly support his grandson when he transitioned from children’s services to adult care services. He also says the Council failed to give him information about his grandson’s wellbeing. We find the Council delayed assessing Mr D’s grandson. It also should have done more to explore what information it could share with Mr D. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained the Council failed to properly support his grandson (Mr E) when he transitioned from children’s services to adult care services. He also says the Council did not do enough to support Mr E after he was arrested. Finally, he says the Council failed to give him information about Mr E’s wellbeing.
2. Mr D says the Council’s failures have caused distress and upset. He wants the Council to provide Mr E with a proper care package.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered information Mr D submitted with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
7. Mr D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Transition from children’s services to adult services

8. When a child reaches age 18, they are legally an adult and responsibility for meeting their needs moves from a council’s children services to adult services. The legal basis for assessing their needs changes from the Children Act 1989 to the Care Act 2014. However, councils can decide to treat a children’s assessment as an adult assessment and can also carry out joint assessments.
9. Statutory guidance says transition assessments should begin when the council can be reasonably confident about what the young person’s needs for care and support will look like when they turn 18. The purpose of the assessment is to provide the young person and their family with information so they know what to expect in future and can prepare for adulthood.
10. After completing the transition assessment, the council must give an indication of which of their needs are likely to be “eligible needs” under the Care Act 2014, and which are not.
11. If transition assessment and planning is carried out effectively there should be no gaps in the provision of care and support. However, if adult care and support is not in place when the young person turns 18, the council must continue providing the services under children’s legislation until it is in place or until it decides the young person does not have “eligible needs”. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, 2014, at paragraph 16.68)
12. For young people with complex needs, the council may decide that children’s services are the best way to meet their needs even after they have turned 18.

What happened

13. Mr E has learning disabilities and complex needs. He was receiving a care package from the Council’s children’s services. This included 1:1 support in a residential placement (Provider A).
14. The Council reviewed Mr E’s case. It agreed on 24 June 2020 that its adult care services team would need to assess him by 31 August to identify any post 18 support as he was due to turn 18 in January 2021. The Council also recognised that Mr E struggled with change and therefore it was important to prepare him for moving on to avoid distress and anxiety.
15. There was a delay with the Council starting the assessment due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
16. Mr E’s children’s services social worker and his newly appointed adult care services social worker (Social Worker A) visited him on 25 September to discuss his transition. The plan was for Mr E to move into his own property, but he would receive four hours of outreach support every evening from Provider A.
17. Social Worker A contacted a housing charity in November and asked if it could help Mr E find a property. He also visited Mr E again later that month and assessed whether he had the capacity to deal with his own financial affairs. He noted Mr E would need support from staff. Social Worker A also asked the staff at Provider A to help Mr E find a property.
18. The Council struggled to find Mr E a property in time for when he turned 18. Therefore, it sought agreement for him to remain at Provider A while it looked at other options.
19. Mr E became upset about the situation and started self-harming. An incident occurred in March 2021 where held a firearm to his carer’s head. He was arrested and put on remand in prison.
20. Mr D contacted Social Worker A on 6 March and asked for contact. He sent a further email to the Council the following day.
21. Social Worker A spoke to Mr D on 8 March. Social Worker A said Mr E had been charged and he did not want his family to know he had been arrested.
22. Mr D emailed the Council on 12 March and asked for a further update on Mr E’s wellbeing. The Council did not respond.
23. The disability nurse from the prison emailed Social Worker A two weeks later and said Mr E had been allocated a housing officer. She said it might cause Mr E distress to know he would be moving from Provider A. Social worker A responded and said the manager from Provider A would speak to Mr E. He also said Mr E did not want his family to know what was happening.
24. Social Worker A met with other professionals to discuss the long-term plans for Mr E. The Council asked for Mr E to receive support at a residential setting (Provider B) rather than staying in prison.
25. Mr D contacted the prison. A member of staff gave him Mr E’s prison number. Mr D then sent letters to Mr E to keep in contact.
26. Mr E was bailed from prison in May and moved to Provider B.
27. Mr D complained to the Council on 6 June. He said Social Worker A had refused to reassure him about Mr E’s wellbeing. He said he did not know where Mr E was. He also said if he had been involved, he would have warned Social Worker A the plan to move Mr E would have resulted in a deterioration in his behaviour.
28. Social Worker A met with Mr E via video chat in July. Mr E agreed to have an independent advocate to support him. He also said he was happy to tell Mr D where he was.
29. Social Worker A called Mr D the following day and updated him.
30. Mr E ran away from Provider B in September. He was later admitted to hospital and then he eventually returned to Provider B.
31. The Council responded to Mr D’s complaint on 22 September. It said Mr E did not agree to it sharing specific information with the family. However, he did agree to it sharing his location with the family. It apologised it failed to carry out Mr E’s request.
32. Mr D wrote the Council on 29 October. He said Mr E’s care had not improved, he had lost weight and his mental health had deteriorated. He also said Mr E had not met Social Worker A when he moved to adult care services.
33. Social Worker A visited Mr E in November. Mr E said he wanted to return to the area where his family lives. Social Worker A told Mr E he had to remain at Provider B because on the ongoing court case.
34. Social Worker A phoned Mr D to update him.
35. The hearing has now taken place and it is likely Mr E will be subject to a supervision order. Supervision orders aim to stop individuals from re-offending by ensuring they are aware of the consequences of their behaviour.

Analysis

36. The Care Act 2014 stipulates the need to ensure smooth transitions by early identification of need and communication with partner agencies. According to the Council’s notes, it should have assessed Mr E by 31 August 2020. It recognised he struggles with change and therefore it was important to prepare him. Despite this, there was a four-week delay in starting the assessment. The Council also did not refer Mr E a housing charity until the beginning of November 2020, which was only two and a half months before he was due to turn 18. Making the referral so late meant there was a significant risk there would not be enough time for Mr E to find a property before he turned 18.
37. It is positive the Council extended Mr E’s stay at Provider A. However, the delays in starting the assessment and making the referral are likely to have contributed to Mr E’s anxieties about moving to independent living. Mr E may still have reacted negatively to the situation, but the Council should have started the conversations with Mr E earlier considering the significant difficulties he has coping with change.
38. Mr D says the Council failed to include him in the transition planning. There is no evidence the Council discussed with Mr E whether he wanted to include Mr D. It is noted in the assessments that Mr E has a positive relationship with Mr D. There is no guarantee that Mr E would have agreed to Mr D being involved, but the Council lost an opportunity to explore this with Mr E. This leaves Mr D with uncertainty whether the incident with Mr E could have been avoided if he was involved.
39. Mr D says the Council did not do enough to support Mr E after he was arrested. Social Worker A arranged for Mr E to receive outreach support from Provider A while he was in prison. He also secured Mr E’s placement at Provider B. This meant he did not have to stay in prison.
40. However, when Mr E moved to Provider B, Social Worker A had little communication with him. This is fault. Mr E moved to Provider B in May 2021, but it was not until July 2021 that he had a meeting with him by video call. Social Worker A then did not meet with Mr E again until November 2021. Social Worker A says there was a COVID-19 outbreak at Provider B, and so he could not visit Mr E in September 2021. However, Social Worker A could have arranged a video call with Mr E. I understand Mr D’s concerns about Mr E’s wellbeing deteriorating during this time. I find Social Worker A should have done more to keep in regular communication with Mr E given what he had gone through.
41. Finally, Mr D says the Council failed to give him information about Mr E’s wellbeing. The Council says Mr E did not consent to it sharing specific information about his situation until July 2021. The Council’s notes suggest Mr E was reluctant to tell his family he had been arrested. Mr D agrees this is likely to be true. However, he says the Council should have encouraged Mr E it was in his best interests for his family to support him. He also says the prison authorities gave him some information about Mr E and told him he had been bailed. He says it was stressful not knowing where Mr E had been bailed to.
42. The Council should have explored with Mr E much sooner whether he was happy for Mr D to know his whereabouts. It took two months for Social Worker A to contact Mr E and ask him this. The Council knew Mr D was concerned. Mr D got some information from the prison authorities which suggests Mr E had changed his mind about what information he was happy to share. Mr D was left in the dark about Mr E’s wellbeing and whereabouts, which caused upset.
43. Mr D wants Mr E to have a proper care package in place. Mr E’s current care package is that he receives 24-hour residential support from Provider B. The Council says it is likely when Mr E is sentenced, he will be subject to a supervision order. It is aware of Mr E’s wish to return to where his family live, and it will take this into consideration. I recommend the Council starts a review of Mr E’s care package when it receives the supervision order.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 15 June 2022 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr D and Mr E.
• Pay Mr D £200 to acknowledge his uncertainty, frustration, and distress.
• Pay Mr E £300 to acknowledge the distress and the uncertainty he was caused by the delay in assessing his care and support needs.
• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure:

1. They are aware they must start assessments in good time and without unnecessary delay to ensure a smooth transition from children’s services to adult care services.
2. They are aware they should explore with the service user whether they wish for their family to be involved in a Care Act 2014 assessment. Staff should properly document any decisions on this.

45. The Council has agreed to start a review of Mr E’s care package under the Care Act 2014 within two weeks of receiving the supervision order. It will ask Mr E if he wants Mr D involved in this process. It will provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has started the review by 13 July 2022.

Back to top

Final decision

46. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr D and Mr E an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman