Summary: Mrs D complained the Council delayed providing her son with an assisted living placement. She also complained the Council failed to provide her with support in setting up direct payments and it did not provide her with respite care. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in exploring an assisted living placement for Mrs D’s son. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complained the Council delayed providing her son (Mr E) with an assisted living placement. She also complained the Council failed to provide her with support in setting up direct payments and it did not provide her with respite care.
2. Mrs D says Mr E’s independence and confidence has regressed. She adds the Council’s failures have affected her health and she had to take on additional caring responsibilities.

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 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)
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 may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Mrs D refers to matters from 2018, but she did not refer her complaint to us until March 2024. As it was an ongoing issue that was affected by continual delays, I have exercised some discretion to investigate Mrs D’s complaint from August 2022 onwards. However, I am satisfied Mrs D could have bought her concerns before August 2022 to us sooner. Any reference to issues before August 2022 are for background purposes only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information from Mrs D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
9. 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

Assessment

10. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.

Direct payments

11. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. The council must ensure people have relevant and timely information about direct payments so they can decide whether to request them. If they do so, the council should support them to use and manage the payment properly.
12. The gateway to receiving a direct payment must always be through the request from the person. Councils must not force someone to take a direct payment against their will. They should not place someone in a situation where a direct payment is the only way they can get personalised care and support.

Carer’s assessment

13. Where somebody provides or intends to provide care for another adult and it appears the carer may have any needs for support, the council must carry out a carer’s assessment. A carer’s assessment must seek to find out not only the carer’s needs for support, but also the sustainability of the caring role itself. This includes the practical and emotional support the carer provides to the adult.

What happened

14. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
15. Mr E has a neurological and developmental disorder and learning difficulties. He had an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan issued by another Council (Council X) and was attending a residential college. An EHC Plan is a document which describes a child or young person’s special educational needs. He moved to the Council’s area in 2018 when he was a young adult.
16. The Council assessed Mr E’s needs in February 2019. It noted he had eligible care needs under the Care Act 2014. Mr E said he wanted to complete another year at college.
17. The Council decided not to fund Mr E’s place at the residential college. Mr E said he did not want to stay on in education and he wanted to return home with his family and explore other options. The Council therefore decided to cease Mr E’s EHC Plan.
18. The Council issued Mr E with a pathway plan (care and support plan) in July 2019. This plan detailed Mr E’s health, finances and education and employment needs.
19. Mr E started attending a day centre twice a week in early 2020. His attendance stopped because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and then re-started in 2021.
20. An officer completed a pathway review in August 2022. Mr E said he was ready to start looking at supported living placements, but he was not necessarily ready to move out. The officer explained they would go at the speed he wanted. The officer contacted a member of staff who worked at the day centre after the meeting and asked if anyone who attended the day centre lived in supported accommodation so Mr E could visit.
21. The Council had an internal discussion about Mr E’s case in October. It decided it did not need to take any action as Mr E was considering a future move, but not in the short term. Therefore, it said his case would be unallocated, and it would provide the family with duty contact details if they needed support before the next review.
22. Mrs D contacted the Council in December and asked for a call back to discuss Mr E’s future plans. The Council returned her call and left a voicemail.
23. The Council assigned a new officer to the case. The officer visited Mrs D and Mr E at home in April 2023. Mr E said he wanted to live in supported accommodation to build his independence. The officer agreed to look at supported living options. Mr E also discussed having a personal assistant to help him get to and from the day centre, rather than him using the taxi service. The officer sent Mrs D a link to a website about personal assistants after the meeting.
24. Mrs D complained to the Council about in July about its failure to meet Mr E’s needs. She had a telephone conversation with an officer in August and explained the Council had failed to progress a supported living placement for Mr E.
25. The Council responded to Mrs D’s complaint in late August. It said it discussed supported living at Mr E’s pathway review in August 2022. Mr E said he was ready to explore supported living, but not necessarily ready to move out. The officer then went on extended leave in November. It then assigned a new officer in March 2023. It said it needed to complete an assessment of Mr E’s needs to determine whether he was ready for a supported living placement. It said changes of officers and periods of Mr E not having an allocated officer meant it did not discuss plans for his future living as often as it should have. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience it had caused her and Mr E. It said it would try and complete the assessment within 12 weeks. It said it would remind staff of the importance of telling young people and their families when their worker changes and if their case will be unallocated.
26. An officer visited Mr E in October to complete an assessment of his needs. She completed the assessment in December and recommended Mr E should move to supported living.
27. The Council had an internal discussion about transferring Mr E’s case from its young people’s team to its adult community team in late January 2024. Officers from the young people’s team agreed to complete the transfer paperwork and complete a pathway review before they transferred the case. An officer visited Mr E and Mrs D in March to complete the review. Mrs D said she was waiting for a direct payment for £1,000 which was agreed for Mr E to employ a personal assistant.
28. The Council transferred Mr E’s case to the adult community team in late March. An officer from the team visited Mr E in April to complete a further assessment of his needs. The officer recommended for Mr E to move to supported living. Mrs D said she was finding being the main carer difficult and it was affecting her health. The officer asked Mrs D if she wanted a carers assessment, but she declined.
29. The Council sent an email to Mrs D in April after she raised further concerns that she had not received support in setting up direct payments. The Council explained it provided her with information about direct payments in 2019, but she eventually decided not to proceed in 2020. There were no further requests for direct payments.
30. The Council made a referral in early May for Mr E’s supported living placement. It contacted Mrs D in early June and said it had found placements in two areas. Mrs D declined both because they were too far from home.
31. Mrs D contacted the Council and asked for respite. It initially declined this, but then later agreed to it in June.
32. The Council found a support living placement for Mr E in late July, which he has accepted. It is in communication with Mrs D and Mr E to confirm a move in date.

Back to top

Analysis

33. The issue of Mr E accessing a supported living placement was raised at the August 2022 pathway review. Mr E explained he wanted to start looking at supported living placements, but it was not an urgent need to move. The officer contacted a member a staff at the day centre about placements, but then took no further action to follow it up. The Council also decided not to take any further action in October 2022 because it considered the matter was not urgent. While I accept it was not urgent, Mr E had clearly expressed an interest in looking at placements. Therefore, the Council should have started the process of sending Mr E potential placements and giving him more information about the process. Its failure to do so was fault.
34. Mr E said in the April 2023 assessment he wanted to build his independence by moving to supported living. The officer agreed to look at different options. There is no evidence she did so or made any attempt to move the matter forward. This is fault.
35. The Council’s assessment from December 2023 stated Mr E was ready to move to an assisted living placement. However, the assessment overlapped with Mr E’s move to the adult community team. This meant there was a further wait before a referral could be made for Mr E to access supported living. The officer who completed the assessment in December left her post, which meant the Council had to assign a new officer to complete the review before the case was transferred. This created a further delay as the review did not happen until March 2024.
36. The Council’s delays have caused Mrs D and Mr E an injustice. Mrs D has explained having Mr E at home full time has affected her health. Mr E has lost an opportunity to explore independent living sooner and develop his independence. The Council has apologised to Mrs D and Mr E, but I do not consider this is sufficient to remedy their injustice. I make further recommendations. I welcome this matter is now resolved and the Council has agreed a placement for Mr E.
37. Mrs D says the Council failed to provide her with respite until recently (June 2024). She says she was struggling to cope looking after Mr E, but the Council failed to provide her with support. I have not seen any evidence Mrs D said she was struggling to support Mr E, or that she needed a break from her caring responsibilities, until the assessment in April 2024. The reviews and visits in August 2022, April 2023 and October 2023 would have given her an opportunity to discuss the challenges she was facing. As soon as Mrs D raised it in April 2024, the Council took appropriate action by arranging respite, and offering her a carer’s assessment. The Council was not at fault.
38. Mrs D discussed the option of employing a personal assistant to support Mr E getting to and from his day centre in April 2023. The Council sent Mrs D a personal assistant website on the same day. There is no evidence Mrs D pursued this, or made any further enquiries about direct payments, until she raised a complaint to the Council. She said she was waiting for a direct payment for £1,000, but there is no evidence this was discussed or agreed. Therefore, I do not uphold this part of Mrs D's complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. By 29 November 2024 the Council has agreed to:

• Pay Mrs D and Mr E £350 each for the injustice caused by the faults identified.
• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they are aware they must progress a service user’s request for an assisted living placement without undue delay.

40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman