Summary: Mr T complained about the decision to terminate his daughter’s, Miss C’s, placement in specialist residential accommodation commissioned by the Council and the Integrated Care Board (ICB) as part of her aftercare services. He also complained about the lack of mental health support for Miss C while in the placement. We did not find fault by the Council and the ICB for the mental health support offered or the decision to terminate the placement. However, the authorities failed to have a contingency plan in place and failed to provide move-on accommodation as aftercare. The faults caused avoidable distress to Miss C and her parents. They have also been left with quantifiable financial losses because of the faults. We made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused and improve services.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr T, complains on behalf of his adult daughter, Miss C, about the decision made by a care provider to end her supported accommodation placement in August 2021. The placement was funded under the terms of section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 by Warwickshire County Council (the Council) and the former Clinical Commissioning Group which is now NHS Coventry and Warwickshire Integrated Care Board (the CCG). The complainant says, the Council and the CCG did not have a good plan in place for Miss C’s move on and did not properly consider her needs. He also complains they did not do enough to challenge the care provider when it decided to terminate the placement sooner than expected.
2. He also complains about the lack of mental health support, in particular psychiatry for Miss C when she lived in the supported housing placement. Mr T says the Council offered unsuitable alternative placements for Miss C which put him and his family under pressure to source private rented accommodation which they had to furnish and apply for housing benefit to meet the costs. Mr T said the accommodation should have been provided without charge by the Council and the CCG in line with the Mental Health Act 1983.
3. Mr T says Miss C experienced avoidable distress and disruption as well as adverse impact on her wellbeing. He also says the events complained about had adverse impact on him and his wife, Mrs T, and caused them stress. He feels the Council and the CCG should acknowledge their time and trouble dealing with matters and reimburse their out-of-pocket expenses.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsmen have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA)
5. The Ombudsmen investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, the Ombudsmen consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
6. If it has, they may suggest a remedy. Our recommendations might include asking the organisation to apologise or to pay a financial remedy, for example, for inconvenience or worry caused.  We might also recommend the organisation takes action to stop the same mistakes happening again.
7. When investigating complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, the Ombudsmen may make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that during an investigation, we will weigh up the available evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened. 
8. If the Ombudsmen are satisfied with the actions or proposed actions of the bodies that are the subject of the complaint, they can complete their investigation and issue a decision statement. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA and Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered:
• information provided by the complainant in writing and by telephone;
• information provided by the Council and the former CCG in response to my enquiries; and
• the law and good practice guidance relevant to this complaint.
10. All parties had an opportunity to respond to a revised draft of this decision following comments on the first draft.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance relevant to this complaint

11. Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) replaced clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in the NHS in England from July 2022. Reference to CCG is relevant to this complaint as at the time of events CCGs were in existence.
12. The Mental Health Act 1983 sets out when a person can by law be admitted, detained and treated in hospital against their wishes.
13. A person can be detained under section 3 of the Act for treatment and kept in hospital for up to six months. The detention under section 3 can be renewed for another six months.
14. Before the person is discharged, a social care assessment should take place to see if they have any social care needs the council should meet. People released from hospital detention under section 3 will not have to pay for any aftercare they need because of the condition for which they were detained. This is known as section 117 aftercare.
15. Anyone who may need community care services is entitled to a social care assessment when they are discharged from hospital. However, Section 117 of the Mental Health Act imposes a duty on councils and the relevant NHS health authority to provide or commission free aftercare services to patients who have been detained under certain sections of the Mental Health Act. These free aftercare services are limited to those arising from or related to the mental disorder, to reduce the risk of their mental condition worsening, and the need for another hospital admission again for their mental disorder.
16. Care planning for section 117 aftercare should be via the Care Programme Approach (CPA). Under the CPA, the person must have a comprehensive care plan and a named care coordinator who is responsible for ensuring the care plan is prepared, carried out and reviewed. The care coordinator should use a CPA care plan to document aftercare plans. The care plan should specify the services funded through section 117.
17. The “Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice” (the Code) is statutory guidance. This means that councils and relevant NHS health authorities must follow it, unless there are good reasons not to. The Code says that section 117 aftercare can include accommodation and continues as long as the person needs these services. Accommodation can generally only be part of section 117 aftercare if:
• the need is for enhanced specialised accommodation (“accommodation plus”);
• the need for the accommodation arises from, or is related to, the reason the person was detained in the first place (“the original condition”); and
• the “accommodation plus” reduces the risk of the person’s mental health condition worsening and the likelihood of the person returning to hospital for treatment for mental disorder.
18. The Code also says that, if aftercare services include accommodation:
• the arrangements for the person’s move to more suitable accommodation should be in place before withdrawing support under section 117; and
• it is important to fully involve the person and, if appropriate their advocate in making the decision.
19. “Care and support statutory guidance” (CSSG) is guidance on the Care Act 2014. It says that care planning under the CPA should, if accommodation is an issue:
• identify the type of accommodation which is suitable for the person’s needs;
• afford the person the right to a choice of accommodation; and
• involve the person in their care planning.
20. When accommodation is part of a person’s section 117 aftercare, it must be free to the person. Councils and NHS organisations should not recommend that people claim benefits such as Housing Benefit to pay for accommodation that is part of their section 117 aftercare.
21. People are entitled to aftercare until both the Council and CCG agree they no longer need it. When they both agree on this, they should formally discharge the person (keeping a record).
22. The Council and the CCG have developed a Memorandum of Understanding to ensure section 117 assessments and funding arrangements are completed in a consistent efficient way and in accordance with the Mental Health Act 1983. It outlines a shared process for health and social care practitioners, managers, and funding decision makers to follow.
23. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to anybody which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
24. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
25. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

Background

26. Miss C is autistic and has diagnoses of Emerging Personality Disorder and Pathological Demand Avoidance. She was detained in hospital under section 2 and then section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 prior to her move to the specialist residential accommodation (Placement X) in January 2019.
27. Placement X is a small community-based home which provides 24-hour care and treatment to young adults with complex needs. The placement was jointly funded by the Council and the CCG in line with section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
28. Miss C began to document her experiences in Placement X a few months after the placement started and she continued this up to 2020. In 2020 she sent a letter to the Care Quality Commission expressing her dissatisfaction with several staff at Placement X.
29. The Council as part of a multidisciplinary team agreed six months of funding in July 2020 to support Miss C’s transition from Placement X to more independent accommodation to include support from a different care provider. The funding panel requested a review of the situation after three months.
30. In March 2021 Miss C emailed all professionals involved in her care to share her feelings about all the changes and inconsistencies with the transition plan. The staff at Placement X felt Miss C was not engaging with the staff team and emailed the Council’s social worker in April to say Miss C wanted to leave the placement as she felt unsafe.
31. Placement X held a crisis meeting with its managers and Miss C because of the breakdown in the placement. Placement X then contacted the Council’s social worker between May and June to say Miss C’s transition to new accommodation needed to move on as soon as possible.
32. Placement X had another meeting in July with clinicians who had been involved in Miss C’s care and support. A doctor at the meeting felt Miss C’s continuing distress was detrimental to her wellbeing and that of her peers. The doctor felt issues would escalate and recommended the placement should be ended.
33. In July Placement X served notice to end Miss C’s placement after 28 days.
    Miss C did not receive the notice until 6 days after it was dated. The Council said the notice period gave little time for it to source alternative accommodation and Miss C did not want to go to temporary accommodation.
34. Mr T said it fell to him and Mrs T to source alternative private rented accommodation for Miss C. He said this caused undue distress and worry to
    Miss C and to him and his family. Miss C left Placement X on 23 August and moved to private rented accommodation. The Council and the CCG arranged for a new care provider to support Miss C in her new accommodation. The Council and the CCG jointly funded the support element of the care package in line with section 117. They did not fund the accommodation.
35. The Council’s social worker visited Miss C in September at the new property. Miss C confirmed she had struggled to process what happened at Placement X. The Council’s case notes show the situation was having an adverse impact on
    Miss C’s mental health when the social worker visited her again in October.

How the Council and the CCG managed Miss C’s transition from
Placement X

36. The decision to move Miss C from Placement X coincided with her transition from children services to adult services when she turned 18 years old. The Council’s social worker initially said children services had sourced the placement and had not involved adult services. Therefore, the funding panel decided to meet
    Miss C’s needs in different supported housing accommodation.
37. In October 2020, the Council’s social worker held a meeting with Miss C and her advocate to discuss transitioning from Placement X. Staff from Placement X also attended the meeting. Miss C’s advocate talked about the concerns around her moving and the confusion around the reason given why she had to move. The rationale for the decision included what the Council felt was Miss C’s lack of engagement with psychiatry and psychology offered by Placement X.
38. Miss C initially told the Council’s social worker she wanted to remain at Placement X when a review was completed in October 2020. Miss C said she felt the placement was meeting her needs and the decision to move her had caused her mental health to deteriorate. Miss C became anxious in the review and left the meeting.
39. Following the meeting the Council’s social worker spoke to the section 117 funding panel as she felt Miss C’s needs had changed. The social worker then spoke to Placement X to confirm the panel had agreed to continue funding the placement on a 12-week rolling basis and then review. This was on the condition Miss C started to engage with psychology and with the psychiatrist.
40. Placement X said Miss C’s disengagement with the service became worse after she was told she would have to move. By December 2020 Miss C had decided she did want to move to more independent accommodation. Miss C asked her advocate to tell the social worker she wanted the Council and the CCG to look for other accommodation and the social worker needed to work with her to find the right place. Miss C said she did not want shared accommodation.
41. In December the Council’s social worker met with staff from Placement X including the Psychologist. Placement X confirmed it was not offering Miss C
    one-to-one sessions for psychiatry and psychology as this had been tried before. The Council’s social worker confirmed it would begin to look at sourcing future accommodation for Miss C. The social worker met with Miss C and her advocate a few days later to update her about the plan.
42. Miss C’s advocate emailed the Council’s social worker a few days later to confirm the type of accommodation she wanted to move to. She said she did not want support 24 hours daily and would feel more comfortable in a self-contained flat with support available. She also said she needed mental health support and therapy to help manage her emotions and work through some trauma.
43. Miss C said she wanted to experience independent living. The evidence available shows the initial plan was for Miss C to move to different supported housing accommodation which offered her more independence. In response to our enquiries, the Council and the CCG said from March 2021 the plan was to move Miss C to mainstream/non-specialist accommodation not provided as section 117 accommodation. This is not supported by any documentary evidence.
44. In July 2021 Miss C and her parents met with the Council’s social worker. They queried why Miss C had to transition from Placement X. The Council’s social worker said because Miss C had made significant improvements she could move to accommodation where she could have more independence. The social worker also said Miss C was not engaging with psychology and psychiatry. Miss C agreed to begin working with the new care provider to build a relationship.
45. Placement X contacted the Council’s social worker to confirm it had served notice which gave Miss C 28 days to leave. The social worker spoke with Miss C’s parents who then expressed their concern with the situation and the impact this was having on their daughter’s mental health.
46. The Council suggested bed and breakfast accommodation or for Miss C to move in with her parents temporarily, but these were not suitable or viable options. Mr and Mrs T did not feel the accommodation suggested by the Council was appropriate. Mr and Mrs T found a private rented property and liaised with the care provider which had been commissioned to support Miss C with moving.
47. The private accommodation had two bedrooms to accommodate Miss C and the new care provider commissioned to support her. The second bedroom was and continues to be a requirement of the night-time support provided by the care provider to Miss C. The second bedroom is used solely by the care provider as a sleep-in space with bed and a space to complete administrative tasks and store documentation.
48. Mr T acted as guarantor for the property and paid a bond/deposit. The
    section 117 funding panel agreed to provide 24 hours of support for the first month to enable the new care provider to work with Miss C. The 24-hour support was extended for about six months.

Findings

49. The Council and the CCG arranged for Miss C to be accommodated in
    Placement X from January 2019 as part of her section 117 aftercare arrangements. Miss C was provided with the accommodation to meet her needs arising from, or related to, her mental health disorder for which she was detained. This would also reduce the risk of Miss C needing a further hospital admission. Miss C is still entitled to section 117 aftercare services. The Council and CCG do not dispute this.
50. The Council and the CCG had discretion to meet Miss C’s needs in different accommodation to suit their commissioning arrangements. A review document dated 20 October 2020 noted a decision was made to work with Miss C to transition to another placement in 6 months. The document noted Miss C was subject to section 117 and currently in ‘supported accommodation’. The section showing whether Miss C contributed to making the plan is blank.
51. I have not seen evidence to show the Council and the CCG completed an assessment or had discussion with Miss C and/or her representative before deciding she would need to move from Placement X. Prior to the decision made in July 2020 a support plan completed a month earlier confirmed Placement X was meeting her needs.
52. Miss C had an Education, Health and Care Plan and this should have been considered alongside any other assessments which were completed at the time. The organisations’ memorandum of understanding says, ‘the assessment process will be coordinated to ensure that health, social care and educational needs are taken account of.’ I have seen little evidence to show the Council and the CCG acted to ensure proper coordination. This is fault.
53. Miss C or her representative were not provided with a written communication to show how the section 117 funding panel had made its decision. The reasons provided by the Council’s social worker referred to Miss C’s lack of engagement with psychology and psychiatry.
54. It is unclear how the Council and the CCG considered Miss C’s continued entitlement to section 117 accommodation when discussing her case at panel. The documents provided do not specifically show how funding for move-on accommodation was considered by the panel during the transition planning stage. This is fault.
55. The Council and the CCG acted in line with Miss C’s wishes when they agreed to move her to accommodation which offered her more independence. However, her previous accommodation was provided as section 117 aftercare. I have not seen evidence to show why any new accommodation should not have also been provided as part of her section 117 aftercare services entitlement.
56. There does not appear to have been an assessment undertaken by the Council and/or the CCG in relation to whether Miss C’s move on accommodation was to be ‘specialist, enhanced accommodation or ‘accommodation plus’. There is lack of evidence to show the Council and the CCG properly considered:
• Miss C’s needs arising from or related to her mental disorder;
• what services were required to meet those needs;
• which services were required to reduce the risk of deterioration in Miss C’s mental condition; and
• which services were required to reduce the risk of Miss C requiring admission to hospital for her mental disorder.
57. In assessing and determining the above the Council and the CCG should have consulted with Miss C, her parents and her representative taking into account any relevant views. I have not seen evidence to show this happened and this is fault.
58. The Council and the CCG should not have left Miss C and her parents in a position where they had to source private accommodation for her to move to at short notice. Especially when Placement X had indicated some months earlier the difficulties it felt it was having with Miss C and its intention to end the placement.
59. The Council and the CCG said this accommodation is mainstream accommodation and should not be funded as part of Miss C’s section 117 aftercare package. There is no evidence to show the Council and the CCG followed any formal assessment process, guidance or established good practice to arrive at this view and when making this decision.
60. The reason why the Council and the CCG placed Miss C in Placement X was to reduce the risk of her mental state deteriorating and her being re-admitted to hospital. There is no evidence to suggest Miss C’s mental health had improved to a point where she no longer needed aftercare services which always included accommodation from the start. In any case the Council and the CCG accept
    Miss C has continuously remained entitled to section 117 aftercare and that she has never been formally discharged.
61. The evidence available suggests Miss C’s need for accommodation is over and above every human being’s common need for shelter and housing. Miss C’s express wish for a specific type of accommodation because she wanted to experience independent living did not negate the Council’s and the CCG’s statutory duty to provide or arrange for the more independent accommodation in line with their section 117 responsibilities.
62. If the Council and the CCG thought Miss C no longer needed accommodation in line with section 117, we would have expected this decision to have been supported by a proper review. The review should have involved her care coordinator, her psychiatrist, and any other relevant professionals. Miss C and her representative should have been part of the review and should have received an explanation to say why her section 117 aftercare was changing. Any changes should have been recorded in an updated CPA care plan.
63. When Miss C first moved to the new private rented accommodation, she received 24-hour care and support for around six months. Miss C continues to receive daily overnight support which the accommodation provides for. It is likely the accommodation is essential in meeting the needs arising from or related to her mental disorder.
64. The Code says, ‘The duty to provide after-care services exists until both the CCG and the [Council] are satisfied that the patient no longer requires them… If these services included, for example, care in a specialist residential setting, the arrangements for their move to more appropriate accommodation would need to be in place before support under section 117 is finally withdrawn.’
65. Miss C and her family should not have been asked to fund her accommodation through Housing Benefit. The right to accommodation under section 117 is a free-standing right and the funding flows from section 117 not Housing Benefit provisions. Housing Benefit is a means tested benefit and Miss C has to meet certain requirements and eligibility tests to have some or all of her rent funded. If Miss C were to fail any of these tests it is likely, on balance, this would increase the risk of deterioration in her mental condition and likely increase the risk of her requiring hospital admission for her mental disorder.
66. The Council and the CCG failed to properly consider, arrange, and provide for Miss C’s need for accommodation in line with section 117. In doing so they shifted the responsibility for finding and funding the accommodation on to Miss C and her parents. This is fault. The Council and the CCG should have met the full cost of her accommodation such as rent and any other associated charges, for example, a bond or deposit. These are costs which Miss C and her parents had to and continue to pay when they should not have had to.
67. Mr T provided evidence to show a shortfall in the housing benefit Miss C receives to cover her rent payments. This equates to a shortfall of around £325 monthly. Faults by the Council and the CCG caused Miss C and her parents to experience a quantifiable financial loss. The faults are likely to have caused them avoidable distress.

The decision to terminate Miss C’s accommodation in Placement X

68. The Council and the CCG did not serve notice when Miss C was resident in Placement X. This was a decision Placement X was entitled to make. The evidence available shows Placement X had said it was considering ending the placement at a meeting with a Council officer in April 2021. However, it said this would be a last resort.
69. Considering the Council and the CCG were aware of the difficulties Miss C had engaging with new people, the breakdown with Placement X and the complexities associated with her case they should have ensured better planning.
70. I have not seen evidence to show the Council or the CCG made any attempt to source accommodation other than relying on the new care provider to work with Miss C. This was despite being aware Miss C was not always engaging with the new care provider. Considering the Council and the CCG were aware of the difficulties Miss C had engaging with new people, the breakdown with
    Placement X and the complexities associated with her case they should have ensured better planning.
71. Better planning by the Council and the CCG may have assured Placement X there was an agreed move on plan in place which was tangible. The Council and the CCG failed to have a contingency plan in place despite being aware of the issues Placement X reported. This is fault.
72. Nevertheless, the Council and the CCG had little control over Placement X’s decision to serve Miss C with notice to end the placement. Placement X acted in line with the contract between it, the Council, and the CCG.
73. The Council’s officer did ask Placement X to rescind the notice, but it refused to do so based on risks it had considered. I do not find fault with the way the Council challenged Placement X after it had served notice.

The failure to consider making reasonable adjustments

74. Placement X contacted the Council about involving Miss C in the plan for transition. Its clinicians felt the situation needed to be managed in a way which considered any impact on Miss C due to her being autistic. The case notes provided record that Miss C had become more anxious when she learned she was to move from Placement X. Its manager said she had begun to disengage with services.
75. The Council said its social worker had tried to communicate with Miss C but there is no evidence to show the Council’s officer agreed reasonable adjustments with Miss C or considered doing so when first making contact.
76. Placement X had said Miss C preferred to communicate by text message or email because of communication difficulties related to her autism. The Council’s social worker recorded she had tried to communicate with Miss C by letter and via video call, but Miss C had not responded. This was not Miss C’s preferred method of communication or in line with her communication needs. This shows a failure to consider making reasonable adjustments which is likely to have adversely affected Miss C’s ability to effectively engage in discussions about the transition plan in a way that suited her.
77. The joint memorandum of understanding between the Council and the CCG lists key principles and states the ‘the individual is always at the heart of the process and decision making.’ I have seen little evidence to show they involved Miss C and/or her representative in any discussion before they made the decision that Miss C would need to move from Placement X. This is fault and not based on the principle of personalisation.
78. Placement X told the Council Miss C struggled with change and any decision to change her care and support arrangements needed to be well managed. I have not seen evidence to show the Council or the CCG initially put a written plan in place to manage Miss C’s transition from Placement X. Miss C asked the social worker to provide information in a way which suited her communication needs but this did not happen initially. It is likely this impacted adversely on Miss C’s ability to engage in the process as the person at the centre of the transition plan.
79. The Council and the CCG later accepted Miss C found change difficult. In
    March 2021 they agreed Miss C would have gradual transition from Placement X over time with support from the new care provider. There is also evidence to show officers recorded reasonable adjustments. This is evidence of good practice.

Mental Health support provided by Placement X

80. Mr T said there was a lack of mental health support within Placement X. The Council said Miss C did not appear to be accessing the specialist psychiatry and psychology support on offer from Placement X. When it agreed to fund the placement for six months from July 2020 this was on condition Miss C access psychology and psychiatry. The evidence available shows this did not happen partly because Miss C did not want to engage with those services.
81. When Miss C’s mental health started to deteriorate from January 2021 there is evidence to show she did have one to one psychology sessions as well as support at her request. This is evidence to show Miss C could access therapeutic support if she wanted to and Placement X confirmed she could have seen a doctor weekly.
82. Therefore, I do not find the Council and the CCG at fault for any lack of provision of therapeutic mental health support during the time Miss C lived at Placement X.

Conclusion

83. The faults found are likely to have caused Miss C significant injustice as the evidence available shows the faults had adverse impact on her mental health and wellbeing from July 2020 to when she moved to her new accommodation. For example, there was an increase in her experiencing suicidal thoughts and self-harming because of faults by the Council and the CCG. Miss C is a vulnerable person, it is likely she was affected by distress more severely than most people. She has also experienced quantifiable financial loss.
84. The faults are also likely to have caused Mr and Mrs T injustice which includes avoidable distress and time and trouble dealing with matters. It is also likely they were left with out-of-pocket expenses for any costs associated with providing
    Miss C with accommodation which should have been provided by the Council and the CCG in line with their joint responsibility to meet her section 117 needs.

Back to top

Agreed recommendations

85. Within four weeks of the final decision the Council and the Integrated Care Board (the former CCG) will:
• apologise to Miss C using her preferred communication method for the impact the faults set out in this decision had on her wellbeing and mental health. They will also apologise for the impact the failure to consider making reasonable adjustments sooner had on her ability to communicate with officers about the plan to move her to new accommodation;
• pay Miss C £1,200 between them in recognition of the injustice she experienced which includes avoidable distress, increased anxiety, and adverse impact on her mental health and wellbeing over a sustained period;
• apologise in writing to Miss C’s parents (Mr and Mrs T) for the avoidable distress they experienced and the time and trouble they were put to when trying to find suitable alternative accommodation for their daughter at short notice;
• reimburse Mr and Mrs T for the deposit paid for Miss C’s accommodation (on the basis that this will be refunded to the Council if and when it is returned to them at the end of Miss C’s tenancy). Consider any other out of pocket expenses they provide evidence of to the Council and the ICB and pay this in addition; and
• pay Mr and Mrs T £500 each to acknowledge their time and trouble in dealing with their daughter’s accommodation needs at short notice which is likely to have caused them avoidable distress and worry.
86. Within two months of the final decision the Council and the Integrated Care Board will:
• determine a lead authority and arrange to repay Miss C any shortfall between the rent she paid and the housing benefit she has received since her tenancy commenced in August 2021. Calculate any loss of interest in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI) and pay this in addition. The shortfall payments should continue as agreed by the Council and the ICB until they decide about funding for Miss C’s accommodation;
• determine the full costs of Miss C’s accommodation and, subject to agreement with Miss C, ensure the accommodation is funded as part of Miss C’s
  section 117 aftercare services and not via housing benefit. This is unless a review in line with the relevant law and guidance determines it is no longer necessary to provide this service to Miss C under section 117; and
• remind their officers of the importance of considering the reasonable adjustment duty set out in the Equality Act 2010 when dealing with people with autism and people who experience communication difficulties and may need reasonable adjustments.
87. Within three months of the final decision the Council and the Integrated Care Board will:
• ensure all relevant policies and procedures make it clear the duty to pay for accommodation which is part of section 117 aftercare lies with the Council and the ICB and individuals should not be asked to claim Housing Benefit instead;
• ensure all staff whose responsibilities may include administering, commissioning, assessing for or providing and arranging section 117 aftercare services have knowledge of the relevant law, guidance and policy, as appropriate to their roles;
• develop their joint procedures to ensure a clear process can be followed by officers so that cases can be highlighted to the section 117 panel when there is a lack of progress or there are complexities which may require contingency planning;
• provide evidence to the Ombudsmen to show they have completed the actions.

Back to top

Final decision

88. I found fault causing injustice by the Council and the Integrated Care Board and uphold Mr T’s complaint. The Council and the Integrated Care Board have agreed to our recommendations to put things right, so I have completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman