Summary: Mr C complained to us about the way a care provider, commissioned by the Council, supported his son in supported living. We have found fault with some issues Mr C complained about, for which the Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to him and his son.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr C, complained to us on behalf of his son, whom I shall call Mr X. Mr C complained about the care support his son has received from a care provider who have been commissioned by the Council to support his son. He complained:
• About the way in which his son’s finances have been dealt with.
• About the decision that his son had to pay for the entire electricity bill (£300/month), even though Mr C said that:
1. They had initially been told he would only have to pay a part of this (one third)
2. His son should not be negatively affected (in effect be penalised) for the Council’s inability to find two other residents.

He says the Council should refund 2/3rd of the bills he paid for that since the start.

• The Council / care provider failed to refund him and his son for the money they had to spend on buying furniture etc for the property that would be used and shared by other residents too, even though this was agreed early 2021.
3. Mr C also complained:
• About the way his son’s nutrition has been managed
• About the high turn-over of staff who he said did not have the correct experience, and training before they started work with his son
• The care provider and the Council failed to properly investigate, and therefore act on, his concern that a particular staff member had been shouting at his son, and his son was scared of him as a result.
• The provider banned him from visiting his son without due process or evidence of his alleged persistent rude / abusive behaviour towards his care staff.

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 investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), 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 the information I received from Mr C and the Council. I shared a copy of my draft decision with Mr C, the Council and the care provider and considered any comments I received, before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Mr C’s complaint about support with finances

7. Mr X has a condition that can cause a wide range of difficulties with learning, and social, language, attention, emotional, and behavioural problems. Mr X moved into supported living accommodation (a house meant for several service users) at the end of 2020. The plan was the care provider would support him, along with other service users who would live there. Soon after Mr X moved into the property, his father started to raise several concerns about the support and arrangements in place.
8. One thing Mr C was unhappy with, was the way in which his son’s finances were being managed. He complained his son’s care provider failed to record how his son spent the £50 of cash he had in his wallet when he went into the supported living scheme at the end of 2020, and the £140 in cash his son withdrew with staff soon after. As such, he said the care provider could not show who spent the money, and on what. He said this left his son vulnerable and at risk of abuse.
9. Mr X’s assessment from September 2020 said that Mr X’s Education, Health and Care Plan stated he needed support with managing his finances. It said he needed:
• Verbal and visual prompts how much money he needs to get out of the bank each week and when completing his budget and planner.
• Support with staying in budget using cash and bank card.
• Continuing support to help with gaining more understanding of where his money is coming from and banking.
• Visual and verbal support about bills and the importance of paying bills.
10. The Council’s support plan from September 2020, before Mr X went into the accommodation, did not specify that staff would have to keep receipts of everything that Mr X would spend his money on.
11. The care provider has said it was not agreed, before Mr X went into the accommodation, that staff would have to record all details of Mr X’s spending. As such, it said it did not at first keep detailed records of everything Mr X bought with his money.
12. At a meeting between all stakeholders in January 2021, Mr C said his son did not have capacity to manage his finances and that he was extremely vulnerable, especially with money. The care provider said, in response to Mr C’s request, that it had put together a spending tracker sheet where all staff would log Mr X’s receipts and transactions.

Analysis:

13. I did not find there was fault that the care provider did not keep a detailed record of what Mr X bought with the £190 of cash he had. There was no requirement or agreement at that time that this level of detail was required. When Mr C raised this as an issue, the care provider agreed to keep a detailed record of his son’s cash spending going forward. The care provider has since told me that it should only have agreed to that on the provision that Mr C would be willing to provide this information and for it to be recorded each time.

Mr C’s complaint about his son’s support with finances: the decision to stop sending spending sheets to Mr C

14. From the available information, it appears that Mr C and his wife have always supported Mr X with his finances and have always been able to track his spending through his bank statements, by having a joint account for seven years. At the meeting in January 2021, the care provider agreed it would send Mr C a copy of his son’s expenses sheets, going forward. This, along with his son’s bank statements, would enable Mr C to continue to monitor his son’s finances. Mr C said this was important to ensure his son’s finances were being properly managed and his son would not be at risk of potential financial abuse.
15. The minutes of a meeting held in March 2021 said that Mr X’s social worker said that Mr X can understand the basics of finances but doesn’t understand the value and intricacies of this. Mr C said he was happy with the process in place to keep track of his son’s money.
16. However, Mr C complained to us the care provider stopped sending these sheets to him after some time. He said the provider did this without officially telling him and without an explanation.
17. In response, the care provider:
• Said it did not initially ask Mr X whether he would agree (provide his consent) for staff to share information about the way he spends his money (the sheets) with his father.
• Said it explained to Mr C at a meeting, that the sheets were Mr X’s confidential information, and that it would only share this with his family if Mr X was happy for this to happen and had capacity to make this decision.
18. The care provider did not provide evidence of the meeting referred to here. Furthermore, Mr C told me there was no such meeting. As such, there is no evidence this meeting with Mr C took place. The only reference I have seen to a discussion, is a conversation between Mr X’s social worker and Mr C’s solicitor at the end of July 2021, where the social worker told the solicitor that Mr X had not given permission for staff to share this information with his father.
19. The Council told me that Mr X asked the care provider not to send statements and breakdowns to his father anymore.
20. The Council has since acknowledged to me that the assessment and support planning process regarding the management of finances when Mr X moved into the scheme was not adequate and not robust enough. The Council said it should have completed a mental capacity assessment around financial decisions at this time so there would be clarity about Mr X’s capacity and about the need for decision-making, to inform a robust support plan. It said there was a reasonable cause to suspect that Mr X may have lacked capacity to make decisions around his finances as he had a DWP Appointee in place.

Analysis

21. Mr C stopped receiving copies of the finance sheets, without an explanation why. This is fault.
22. The Council only provided an explanation, not to Mr C but to his solicitor, at the of July 2021. It said this was done, because Mr X had said he did not want the care provider to share that information with his father, and that Mr X had capacity to make that decision. However, the care provider has not provided any documentary evidence that / when / how it asked Mr X if he wanted his father to have access to this information. Furthermore, if staff did discuss this with Mr X, it would have been good practice to have recorded that staff did not have any concerns about Mr X’s capacity to make this decision.
23. In the absence of such evidence, I found the Council failed to establish this, which is fault. This means it also provided an explanation to Mr C which was not factually correct, which is fault. Furthermore, the Council failed to assure itself that the care provider had followed the correct decision-making process. This is fault.
24. In these circumstances, the Council should have asked Mr X, recorded his response and (if needed) carried out a mental capacity assessment. However, I am unable to determine, on the balance of probabilities, if Mr X would have decided, at that time, if his father should continue to receive this information.

Mr C’s complaint about support with finances – The safeguarding concern raised by Mr C about £670 of cash having been withdrawn

25. Mr C says he raised a safeguarding a concern with the Council in October 2021, about a total of £670 of cash that had been withdrawn. He wanted to know what this was spent on. However, Mr C told me he had still not received a response from the Council, despite the Council’s promise to investigate this as a safeguarding concern.
26. At a meeting in March 2021, it was agreed the care provider should ensure there would always be an accurate record of Mr X’s spending. The support plan review in November 2021 emphasised again there was still a requirement for the care provider to: provide thorough support for Mr X on how to manage his money, including tracking all spending by copious recording.
27. The Council has told me that £670 of cash was withdrawn during September 2021. Of this:
• £220 was deposited back into his account
• £400 was for the £80 a week withdrawal for household items, food etc
• £20 known about but unable to be accounted for
• Leaving a shortfall of £30.
28. I did not receive evidence to support the statement that £400 was indeed in relation to 5-weeks of paying a £80 a week contribution.
29. The Council says that: financial abuse by staff cannot be substantiated as: “Mr X sometimes goes out by himself and has access to his bank account. It is not possible for support staff or Mr X’s parents to know the full details of every penny spent by Mr X unless he keeps a record of this information himself and then shares it with those involved”.
30. The care provider has told me that Mr X was able to access the community without support staff. Furthermore, it said there have been occasions when Mr X did not allow care staff to record his spending. However, I have not seen any evidence the care provider has recorded this as a (recurrent) issue, or that it raised this as an issue with the Council. As such, there is no evidence to substantiate this claim.

Analysis

31. It took a long time for Mr C to receive an explanation from the Council as to what the amount of £670 was spent on, which is fault. I have not seen information or evidence that suggests money was used inappropriately; that financial abuse occurred.

Mr C’s complaint about the cost of electricity and furniture

32. The accommodation where Mr X lived was meant to be occupied by several service users. As such, any costs related to electricity and gas would be shared amongst the service users living there. However, there was a significant delay in other service user(s) joining. This meant the care provider asked Mr X to pay the entire energy bill of £300 per month by himself. Mr C said this was not fair, as it was not his son’s fault that the Council had been unable to find more service users. Mr C says the Council should reimburse 2/3rd of the energy bills his son paid from the start.
33. In response, the Council said it explained to Mr C that, as his son was the only tenant at the time, he would be expected to pay this bill.
34. Mr C said his son had to pay for furniture for the property, that would also be used by any other (potential) future residents, which he said was not fair. He said the Council / care provider failed to reimburse him and his son for the money they spent on this, even though this was agreed early 2021.
35. At a meeting in January 2021, it is recorded that:
• Mr C said he had to supply more than £800 worth of items for the shared kitchen and dining areas.
• It was confirmed the care provider would do a formal inventory of the items Mr X had brought into the house and reimburse 2/3rd of the cost for the items purchased for the house to Mr X (£300). An amount of £300 was agreed upon.
36. Mr C has told me his son only received an amount for a table and chair staff had bought with his son’s bank account, without having the authority to do so.

Analysis

37. I found the Council failed to properly explain, before Mr X accepted the placement, what would happen with the cost of energy if it would not be able to immediately find a service user for the other places. This would have enabled Mr X to make a more informed decision at the time. This was fault. However, based on the available information, I found this would not have resulted in Mr X turning down the placement.
38. I have not seen evidence that Mr C, or his son, received the £300 that he was promised in January 2021. In the absence of this evidence, this amount should still be paid.
39. In response, the care provider has said that, while it refunded money for a table and chair set, it has not yet paid £300 for communal furniture / items as agreed. It will do this now.

Mr C’s complaint about the care provider’s decision to stop sending him a copy of his son’s meal plans etc

40. Mr C says the care provider sent him monthly updates about what his son was eating / cooking (menu planner etc) so he could see if he was eating healthy and nutritious food. However, the care provider stopped sending this, without explaining why.
41. In response, the care provider said it told Mr C at the same meeting referred to above (see paragraph 17 point 2), that it would only share Mr X’s food diaries and menu planners with Mr X’s consent.
42. As mentioned above, there is no evidence there was such a meeting. Furthermore, it was also not mentioned during a telephone call between the social worker and Mr C’s solicitor in July 2021.

Analysis

43. Mr C stopped receiving the information he received before, without an explanation at the time why this happened. This is fault.
44. The Council says the care provider stopped sending this information, because Mr X had said he did not want the care provider to share it with his father, and that Mr X had capacity to make that decision. However, the care provider has not provided any documentary evidence that / when / how it asked Mr X if he wanted his father to have access to this information. Furthermore, if staff did discuss this with Mr X, it would have been good practice to have recorded that staff did not have any concerns about Mr X’s capacity to make this decision.
45. In the absence of such evidence, I found the Council failed to establish this, which is fault. This means it also provided an explanation to Mr C which was not factually correct, which is fault.
46. Furthermore, the Council failed to assure itself the care provider had followed the correct decision-making process. This is fault.
47. In these circumstances, the Council should have asked Mr X and (if needed) carried out a mental capacity assessment. I am unable to determine if, on the balance of probabilities, his son would have decided at that time that this information should continue to be shared with his father.

Mr C’s complaint about high turn-over of staff who are unqualified

48. Mr C complained there was a high turnover of staff. He says his son had to deal with more than 15 staff members changing within a year, including six supervisors. He said that people with his son’s condition suffer huge anxiety and worry if things change out of routine, including staff changing regularly.
49. In response, the care provider said that while there was some staff turnover, this was not high or due to reasons that would highlight a concern. It said that, of those who worked at the scheme on a permanent basis, 6 supervisors moved on from their supervisor role, one support worker left the company, one support worker went on maternity leave and one transferred to another service closer to their home.
50. Furthermore, Mr C complained that staff did not have sufficient knowledge as to how to effectively deal with aspects of his son’s condition etc. Mr C said that:
• Most of the care workers were new to the job; had not worked in the care sector before. While there was a general induction training for those care workers, he said this would not have been sufficient to ensure they had the skills needed to effectively support his son.
• The house supervisors had not worked as supervisors before and had not worked as care workers long enough to be able to be a supervisor.
• Furthermore, he said that his son has a complex condition, which is very different to the more “standard autism”. As such, a general autism awareness course would not give staff the skills needed to look after and care for an adult with this condition.
• The lack of understanding of his son’s needs, and the inability to properly respond to him, caused his son to become extremely anxious / stressed and upset. This resulted in damage to equipment (which cost £2,400) and unusual behaviour that he had not seen before.
51. In response, the care provider said that:
• In hindsight, one out of six Field Support Supervisors did not have sufficient experience or the required skills for the role.
• Six care workers did not have previous experience in care. However, these employees received training tailored to the needs of the people they support, along with guidance from another established support worker. It said this approach is in line with the government’s campaign to encourage people to consider a career in adult social care without the need for previous experience.
• All its staff receive Autism Awareness training. However, only three support workers had completed their mandatory Autism Awareness training before starting to support Mr X. The care provider has recognised that staff were previously not always completing their mandatory e-learning. It said this could be attributed to pressure on the operational teams during the Covid-19 pandemic and resulting staffing shortages. It said this has now been addressed by a new robust system.
52. The care provider told me that each service user has their own support guidelines, which are tailored to their specific needs:
• The provider sent me a copy of Mr X’s ‘Condition’ support guideline dated December 2021. It said it was developed for staff to have a deeper understanding of this condition and be better equipped therefore to support him. I reviewed the guideline, which is very generic, only saying what traits a person can or cannot have. It does not provide specific information in relation to how that applies to Mr X or what staff should do / consider for him as a result. The care provider also did not include his father in developing / reviewing it.
• Due to a conflict in the house at the time, a referral was made to the Community Clinical Psychologist in June / July 2021. The CCP provided some useful suggestions to manage his behaviour and anxiety.
• A Wellness and Recovery plan was being undertaken by Mr X’s clinical psychologist. This was still not received by the care provider as of December 2021.
• On 29 October 2021, the care provider said she would try to obtain some training or techniques for the staff on Mr X’s condition. She confirmed in December that she had yet to receive a response. There is no evidence the care provider chased this in the interim, or subsequently.
53. Furthermore, Mr C said his son’s social worker promised in early 2021 to arrange an awareness session with the care provider on how to manage Mr X’s special condition, how to de-escalate if there is tension / frustration etc. However, this never happened.
54. In response, the Council says there is no evidence in the records to show the social worker made such a promise.

Analysis

55. During Mr X’s stay at the property, there was a high turnover of supervisors, which would not have been ideal in light of Mr X’s special condition, which meant he suffers anxiety and worry if things change out of routine, including staff changing regularly. However, there is no evidence to conclude this was due to fault by the care provider.
56. Many of the care workers were new which is not fault. However, it makes it even more important they receive tailormade training before supporting a service user who had very specific needs. I found there were gaps in this with, for instance, not all care workers having been on an awareness course before they started.
57. Furthermore, it failed to provide a personalised person specific syndrome support guideline that explained how Mr X’s special condition affected him. The plan made in December 2021 lacked any detail. This would have helped care workers with being able to more effectively manage Mr X’s behaviours and any outbursts. However, I did not see evidence that Mr X experienced or felt this resulted in a significant injustice to him, as he did not raise any concerns about his care and, when asked, was happy with the care and support he received from staff.

Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate a concern

58. Mr C said the care provider and the Council failed to properly investigate, and therefore act on, his concern in June 2021 that a particular staff member had been shouting at his son, and his son was scared of him as a result.
59. According to a case note record, the Council said it had: “looked into the allegation of Mr X being shouted at, and that they and Safeguarding had found no evidence, concluding no case to answer.  This matter is now closed and no further action will be taken”.
60. In response to my enquiry, the Council told me that:
• Following the safeguarding referral, the Council reviewed Mr X’s care and support needs. His social worker visited Mr X and found him to be well cared for and not at risk of neglect. Mr X was happy to be living at the scheme and did not want any changes.
• The care provider investigated the incident in question, which was as a result of Mr X throwing water on a service user and the male staff member. Mr X said the staff member had shouted at him. He said he had not been upset and he still wanted the male staff member to support him. The care provider organised training for the staff member around de-escalation of behaviours of anxiety and frustration, and training around challenging behaviours. There was no evidence of ongoing emotional abuse to Mr X and the Council closed the safeguarding on mid-July 2021.

Analysis

61. The Council has now provided details to me as to how it investigated the incident and how it reached its conclusion. It should have provided this information to Mr C at the time.

Mr C’s complaint about being banned from visiting his son

62. Mr C complained the care provider banned him from visiting his son without due process or evidence of his alleged persistent rude / abusive behaviour towards his son’s care staff.
63. The care provider’s solicitor told Mr C on 28 June 2021 by email to stop any further contact with the care provider’s staff team who care for his son. The email said that, if he ignores the no contact request, the provider would proceed with an application against him for an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
64. Mr C says he was told not to visit his son anymore, because staff wrongly claimed he was persistently aggressive towards his son’s care staff. This was mentioned by the care provider’s solicitor to him by email on 28 June 2021.
65. In response, the care provider said it meant that Mr C should stop his behaviour towards staff; it did not say he should stop visiting his son. Furthermore, it said that: during a meeting between Mr C and the care provider, it was acknowledged that as long as Mr X was happy for his father to visit him at his flat, this was of course fine. It apologised for any suggestion made that he could not visit his son. Mr C was asked to be respectful to staff during any visits to his son’s property.
66. In response, the Council said that:
• There was a significant exchange of emails on 28 June 2021 between the care provider and Mr C. The care provider classed certain email contacts from Mr C as ‘aggression’. It was directed mainly at a manager.
• Mr C disputes he has ever been aggressive towards staff at the placement. However, his communication with the manager could be regarded as harassment.
67. Although Mr C has complained about further issues that have happened since then, these are new issues that he will first need to complain about to the Council.
68. The owner of the property has advised since then that they want to have the property back. This has resulted in Mr X being served notice.

Analysis

69. I have not seen evidence in the records, up to 28 June 2021 when he received the email, that Mr C had been aggressive with care staff who were caring for his son at the property. As such, I am not clear why the care provider told him ‘no contact with staff’. This could only have been interpreted by Mr C as an instruction to no longer visit the property as contact with staff would occur during a visit in the property. The care provider has now said this was a misunderstanding and it did not properly explain what it wanted Mr C to stop doing. Nevertheless, I did not find that this resulted in an injustice as Mr C did not stop his visits as a result.

Back to top

Agreed action

70. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf, it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of the care provider, I have made recommendations to the Council.
71. I recommended that, within four weeks of my decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr C and his son for the faults identified above and the distress these have caused to them.
• Pay Mr C £500 for the distress he experienced and the time and trouble he spent as a result of dealing with the faults identified above.
• Pay Mr X the £300 promised at a meeting in January 2021.
• Share the lessons learned with its staff, as well as with the care provider.

Back to top

Final decision

72. For reasons explained above, I have upheld Mr C’s complaint.
73. I am satisfied with the actions the Council will carry out to remedy this and have therefore decided to complete my investigation and close the case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman