Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to place him in a nursing home after his release from prison in 2018. The Ombudsman will not investigate this part of Mr Y’s complaint because he did not make a complaint within 12 months of the decision to place him there. However, the Council delayed in issuing invoices for Mr Y’s care charges and we find this caused some distress which it will apologise for. There is no evidence of fault in the complaint about the storage of Mr Y’s belongings.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will call Mr Y, complains the Council housed him in unsuitable accommodation and failed to provide enough support to meet his assessed needs whilst in that accommodation. Mr Y also complains the Council has failed to support him with the removal and storage of his belongings.
2. Mr Y says he experienced distress from residing in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from December 2018, but only in relation to Mr Y’s care charges. This is because the Council continues to pursue Mr Y for those charges and the claimed injustice is therefore ongoing. My reasons for not investigating earlier matters are explained at the end of this decision statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. During my investigation, I have:
• Discussed the complaint with Mr Y by telephone and considered any information he provided;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• Consulted any relevant law and guidance, cited where necessary in this statement; and
• Issued a draft decision and invited comments from the Council and Mr Y. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Accommodation one

8. Mr Y is a wheelchair user with social care needs. Mr Y had previously lived with his mother until 2010 when the Council accepted the main housing duty when Mr Y’s mother decided she could no longer accommodate him. Mr Y moved to supported housing where he received social care support.
9. Mr Y became homeless again in 2011 when he went to prison. In prison Mr Y continued to receive social care support. In March 2018 the Council received a referral on behalf of Mr Y seeking provision for housing and social care support pending his upcoming release from prison. The Council had just seven days’ notice to make the necessary provision for Mr Y.
10. Due to the conditions of Mr Y’s license, the Council was limited in where it could accommodate him. Those limitations were further compounded by Mr Y’s requirement for a level access property, with access wide enough for a bariatric wheelchair.
11. With short notice, the Council’s housing department secured emergency interim accommodation for Mr Y in a local hotel. However, after realising the hotel room would not be appropriate for Mr Y’s social care needs, the Council’s social care team arranged a place for Mr Y in a local nursing home.
12. Although the home was for elderly residents, the Council considered this was an appropriate short-term placement despite Mr Y being a young adult. This is because the accommodation was fully accessible for Mr Y’s wheelchair and the home was able to fulfil Mr Y’s assessed social care needs.
13. Notes made by the Council in March and April 2018 reflect Mr Y’s general satisfaction with the placement. Mr Y did not raise any concerns at the time of his admission to the home. To the contrary, notes show that Mr Y’s social worker suggested moving him to a home which accommodated adults in his own age group, but Mr Y declined:

“I put to him again that we can make an application for him to be placed in a care home that is set up for younger adults with disabilities. I told him of the homes I know, that Bromley use and what they are like… [Mr Y] stated that his decision is to stay where he is at [nursing home] for now. His basic needs are met well, he is happy with the service he is getting at the home. The food is prepared for him + cleaned up afterwards. He has a T.V, Radio, access to books + magazines, he is seeing his Mum once a week he sees his sister once a week. He can come and go from the home at will in his electric wheelchair”

14. The Council’s notes show that Mr Y raised a concern in July regarding other residents entering his room at night without permission. But the Council worked with the home to rectify this; arranging for a lock to be installed on Mr Y’s door to prevent the entry of other residents. Mr Y reported that this was successful.
15. The Council reviewed Mr Y’s care needs and concluded that the home was meeting his assessed needs.
16. I have not investigated the Council’s decision to place Mr Y into the home for the reasons explained at the end of this statement. Although Mr Y claims an ongoing injustice arising from the home’s inability to meet his care needs, this is not supported by the evidence I have seen.

Charging for accommodation one

17. The Care Act ‘Care and Support Statutory Guidance’ says, “People in a care home will contribute most of their income, excluding their earnings, towards the cost of their care and support. However, a local authority must leave the person with a specified amount of their own income so that the person has money to spend on personal items such as clothes and other items that are not part of their care. This is known as the personal expenses allowance (PEA)”
18. In August 2018, and five months after his placement, the Council completed a financial assessment with Mr Y. Until this point Mr Y had not been required to make any financial contributions towards the cost of the placement, which was £1,200 per week. This is because the Council had funded the placement under its ‘Winter Resilience’ funding.
19. In an email to Mr Y on 3 August 2018, his social worker explained:

“We have seen an omission in your file. We are duty bound under the Care Act 2014 to financially assess you and request a contribution for your stay at [the home]. This should have been explained to you already, but it seems to not have been. We apologise for that.

I have sent a message over to our financial team to contact you so they can fill out the assessment form. They will want to know about the usual....property, assets, savings, income. We have to do this assessment with everyone who gets a service that London Borough of Bromley are funding.

Please scroll down to the bottom of this email, I have attached some information that Bromley give out. There is also a link in the text for further information. There is also a lot of independent information and advice if you do a Google Search”

20. Mr Y called the Council on 14 December 2018 to express his unhappiness at receiving an invoice, dated 12 December 2018, seeking payment for £1863.04. This covered the care charges which the Council said Mr Y was responsible for (£149.90 per week) from 3 August 2018.
21. The notes show the Council decided not to backdate charges to the point of Mr Y’s placement in March 2018 because it overlooked the requirement to financially assess Mr Y. The Council therefore only sought charges from the point where Mr Y received notice that he was required to pay a contribution to his care costs.
22. The notes show that Mr Y formally complained about his placement around the time he was notified of the requirement to contribute £149.90 per week.
23. The statutory guidance says councils should carry out a financial assessment when it has decided to charge for care. Councils must provide a written record of the assessment and give an explanation about how the assessment was carried out, what the charge will be and how often it will be made. The guidance says councils must ensure any information about charges is relayed in a “manner that the person can easily understand”.
24. The guidance does not state when the council should carry out the assessment, and how quickly it should issue any subsequent invoices. However, in my view, the Council waited too long to assess Mr Y’s financial status and delayed in advising him that he would need to contribute to the cost of his residential care. The Council has already accepted it was responsible for this oversight and apologised to Mr Y in August 2018.
25. In my view there is further fault because, although the Council notified Mr Y of his requirement to contribute to care costs in August 2018, it did not issue the first invoice for a further four months. Although by this point Mr Y was aware that he would need to make a financial contribution to his care, the bill was considerable and caused some initial shock and distress to Mr Y, which the Council will also apologise for.
26. In response to my draft decision, the Council accepted there was some unfortunate delay in Mr Y’s case but considers this was an isolated incident caused by officer oversight. The Council has explained it is currently implementing a new social care database which it says will be “… more proactive and user-friendly in ensuring that processes, including billing, are progressed and recorded in proper and timely fashion”. The Ombudsman is reassured by this information and I do not consider there are any other systemic improvements which the Council should take in this case.
27. Although there was some delay in this case, I do not find that the Council should waive any of the charges. Mr Y did not have to fund any of his care between March and August, therefore benefiting from the Council’s mistake. Although Mr Y argues his financial contribution would have been less, had the Council provided accommodation and domiciliary care services instead of a residential placement, the Council could not find accommodation which was suitable for Mr Y’s needs.
28. I am also mindful that Mr Y would have been responsible for additional outgoings had he been accommodated elsewhere; such as rent, utilities, council tax and food bills. He was not required to make any such payments when living in the home and therefore I do not find that Mr Y was placed at a financial disadvantage because of any fault by the Council.

Accommodation two

29. The nursing home evicted Mr Y in December 2019 after a CQC inspection highlighted concerns with his accommodation. The Council discussed alternative options with Mr Y, such as a residential placement which catered for younger adults. The notes show Mr Y opted to stay in a hotel in a nearby council’s area, which I will call ‘accommodation two’. Mr Y made this decision because he wanted to be close to his family and his aim was to move into that area.
30. The Council’s records show that Mr Y’s social worker transported him to accommodation two, which was a wheelchair accessible hotel room. The social worker delivered Mr Y’s belongings in his car and checked that the room was suitable for Mr Y’s personal needs.
31. Accommodation two had no kitchen facilities. However, the Council’s records show it paid £200 per week for Mr Y to receive cooked meals from the hotel’s kitchen for the duration of his stay there.
32. As accommodation two was in a different council’s area, the responsibility for Mr Y’s social care transferred to that council.
33. Mr Y moved to a specialist unit in the new council’s area in March 2020. I understand this is a temporary arrangement pending Mr Y’s continued search for suitable long-term housing.
34. I find no fault in this part of Mr Y’s complaint. The accommodation was suitable in meeting Mr Y’s needs as a temporary measure. Although the room did not have kitchen facilities, the Council ensured that Mr Y was catered for. Any complaints which Mr Y may have about the social care he received whilst in accommodation two need to be directed to the relevant council and so I cannot consider them as part of this case.

Removal and storage

35. Councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of a person’s property, or to mitigate damage, when it has reason to believe:
• there is danger the applicant’s personal property will be lost or damaged;
• the danger arises because the applicant is unable to protect or deal with the property; and
• no other suitable arrangements have been made.
36. This applies when the person is subject to the main housing duty.
37. This can mean putting possessions into storage when the person has not been able to make alternative arrangements. Councils can make reasonable charges for doing so.
38. Mr Y says he pays £100 per month to store his belongings. He paid an additional £156 in removal costs when he moved from accommodation one to accommodation two in December 2019. Mr Y says the Council should reimburse him for all costs.
39. When the nursing home gave notice of its intention to evict Mr Y, he arranged to store some of his possessions. In an email to Mr Y on 26 November 2019, Mr Y’s social worker said:

“I see you have chosen to put some of your stuff into storage. I haven’t advised you an any of that, I need to say that that is your decision to put things into storage and you need to consider what happens when your 3 weeks ends. I am hoping something will be sorted by then.”

40. Mr Y responded: “Thank you for your email, but I had to clear the stuff out as she gave me 2 weeks notice and what option did I have but to move some of it out ready if I had to move within that period. Most of my stuff is now in storage so let's see what happens”
41. The Council’s housing team says the duty to protect belongings only arises when those belongings are at risk and no other arrangements can be made. The Council says Mr Y had opted to make his own arrangements to store his possessions, and so its duty to make arrangements on his behalf was not engaged.
42. Mr Y’s social worker helped Mr Y move into accommodation two. The Council paid for a taxi and Mr Y took some smaller items with him in the taxi. Mr Y’s social worker followed with his own car, which he had also filled with Mr Y’s belongings.
43. Although I appreciate that Mr Y considers he is entitled to help with the costs associated with the storage and removal of his possessions, I am satisfied the Council was not under a duty to protect Mr Y’s goods because they were not at risk. Furthermore, Mr Y was responsible for funding his own removal costs; accommodation one was not intended to be a permanent residence for Mr Y, so he would have had the expense of moving irrespective of its decision to evict him. I do not uphold this part of Mr Y’s complaint.

Agreed action

44. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr Y for the delay in issuing the bill for his client contributions, and the shock and confusion this caused when Mr Y received the bill; and
• Arrange a payment plan for any outstanding arrears if it has not done so already.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation. I have found some fault causing injustice in the Council’s actions. It will take the steps outlined in the section above to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

46. I did not investigate the Council’s decision to place Mr Y in accommodation one. This is because the Council placed Mr Y in March 2018, but Mr Y did not complain to the Ombudsman about the decision until January 2020.
47. The law says we can investigate ‘old’ matters if there is good reason to do so, or if the person was prevented from complaining sooner. I have considered the available information and decided there is no good reason to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to consider this late complaint. In my view, Mr Y could, and should, have complained to the Ombudsman about this matter sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman