Summary: Mrs D complained on behalf of her daughter the Council failed to take proactive action when a day care service provider failed to renew the lease of a venue it was using. We do not find the Council was at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complained on behalf of her daughter (Miss E) the Council failed to take proactive action when a day care service provider failed to renew the lease of a venue it was using. She says the Council’s failure to take proactive action means Miss E and other vulnerable adults have been split up and they lost the social interaction they previously had.

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. 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)
3. 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)
4. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone they authorise in writing to act for them. If the person affected cannot give their authority, we may investigate a complaint from a person we consider to be a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mrs D submitted with her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. Mrs 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

7. This chronology outlines key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
8. Mrs D’s daughter (Miss E) has complex needs. She attends activities during the day which a service provider (Provider A) organises.
9. Provider A was running its services from a Council owned venue. In May 2018, a community interest group (Organisation B) took over the management of the venue.
10. The Council contacted Provider A and Organisation B in May 2018 to discuss extending the lease.
11. Communication between the Council, Provider A and Organisation B continued throughout 2018. The Council attended several meetings with Provider A and Organisation B to discuss their concerns. It also repeatedly chased Provider A and asked for its responses to the draft lease agreement.
12. The Council continued to negotiate with Provider A and Organisation B in early 2019. Provider A apologised for the delays in responding and said it was consulting with its legal team about the specific terms of the lease.
13. Provider A spoke to the Council about some further concerns with the lease in May. The Council told Provider A to speak to its advisor.
14. The Council did not receive a commitment from Provider A to sign the lease. It emailed it at the end of July and said it needed a response within two weeks otherwise it would no longer be able to use the venue. Provider A responded the following day and said it could not commit to signing the lease. It therefore had until the 31 January 2020 to find a new venue.
15. Provider A started looking for a new venue immediately. It was also in contact with the agency that provides help and support to service providers on behalf of the Council.
16. Provider A found a new venue in November 2019. In December 2019, Provider A sent a letter to service users and their families to tell them about the new venue.
17. The Council’s adult social care department received concerns from parents who were unhappy with the new venue. The Council contacted Provider A and shared the concerns. Provider A agreed to arrange further open days and meetings to answer any concerns.
18. As a result of the feedback it received, Provider A agreed to find a further venue to run some of its sessions from.
19. Provider A started delivering the sessions from the new venues in February 2020.
20. In early March 2020, and after consultation with parents, Provider A decided that one of the venues it was using was no longer suitable. It therefore moved some sessions to training rooms in its head office as a temporary measure.
21. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Provider A had to reduce the services it offered. This also impacted its ability to find a permanent venue.
22. Mrs D contacted the Council in November 2020. She asked for further information on whether a suitable new venue had been found. She also expressed concerns about the Council’s lack of involvement. The Council responded and set out its involvement in the matter. It said it would ask Provider A for an update.
23. Mrs D responded and said nothing had moved forward in finding a suitable venue.
24. Mrs D chased for a response in January 2021. The Council responded and said it not seen her letter. It said conversations with Provider A about future arrangements had not stopped, but things had slowed down because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It offered to discuss the matter further on the telephone.
25. Mrs D emailed the Council and asked why it did nothing between May 2018 and 31 January 2020. The Council responded and explained that under the Care Act 2014 (which sets out how adult social care in England should be provided), it has a duty to commission services which prevent wellbeing deterioration. However, that is a broad duty, and it does not go into detail of finding venues for every service. It said that an officer (Officer A) from its learning disabilities team would be happy to speak to her to discuss the issues further.
26. Mrs D replied to the Council and said it still had not answered her questions. She repeated them and said she was willing to speak to Officer A.
27. The Council answered Mrs D’s questions and explained Provider A had been in contact with the Council from May 2018. It also provided her with Officer A’s email address and said she could contact her to arrange a telephone call.
28. Mrs D spoke with Officer A on 19 March. Officer A agreed in the telephone call to contact Provider A and set up a meeting to the discuss the issues further.
29. Mrs D attended the meeting at the end of April. Officer A also attended.
30. The Council updated Mrs D on 26 May. It explained it would contact Provider A to ensure it held regular meetings with families. It also said it would approach voluntary, community and faith sector groups to find a new venue. Finally, it asked her if she wanted to discuss the measures on the telephone.
31. Mrs D emailed the Council and Provider A on 11 June about a potential new venue. The Council liaised with Provider about it until 17 June.
32. Mrs D complained to the Council on 15 June about its failure to take proactive action. The Council responded on 25 June and said it would not respond further as it had already issued a detailed response to her concerns.
33. Provider A secured a new permanent venue for some sessions in August 2021.

Back to top

Analysis

34. The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. Mrs D became aware in December 2019 that Provider A was moving the sessions to a new venue, but she did not refer her complaint to the Ombudsman until May 2021. I have decided to exercise direction to investigate the Council’s actions from May 2018. Mrs D contacted the Council within 12 months (November 2020) to find out some information about its involvement in the matter. She remained dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to her queries after communicating with it for several months and therefore referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.
35. The Council communicated with Provider A regularly from May 2018 onwards. It also met with Provider A and responded to the concerns it raised about the lease. Therefore, I cannot accept Mrs D’s assertion the Council was not proactive. The Council tried hard to get Provider A to sign the lease. There was no need for Council’s adult social care department to get involved at that stage to find alternative venues as the Council’s focus was encouraging Provider A to sign the lease.
36. Provider A only confirmed on 1 August 2019 that it would not sign the lease. At that stage, it tried to find an alternative venue with the assistance of the agency that provides help and support to service providers on behalf of the Council.
37. When the Council’s adult social care department became aware of the concerns with the new venue, it discussed the issues with Provider A. Provider A agreed to offer further open days so families could view the new venue and share their concerns.
38. I agree with the Council that while it does have a duty under the Care Act 2014 to commission safe and appropriate services, it does not extend to finding a venue to every service. I would however expect the Council to support a service provider when it asks for it. The Council did this in this case. Officer A also attended meetings in 2021 with Provider A after Mrs D raised her concerns.
39. Mrs D says the director of adult social services at the Council promised her a telephone call, but this has not happened. The director did offer Mrs D a telephone call in an email in January 2021. Mrs D replied and said she was happy to talk. The director said the best person to speak to was Officer A. Officer A had been in contact with Provider A and so was aware of the issues. Mrs D spoke to Officer A on 19 March 2021.
40. The director offered Mrs D a further telephone call in her email of 26 May 2021. I cannot see Mrs D responded to this email and offered her availability. In any event, the Council was in regular communication with Mrs D and tried to resolve her concerns. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman