The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y, about the Council’s decision not to fund a supported living placement for him. Mr Y was upset about this as he needs to increase his independence. He did not want to move to another family environment as recommended by the panel that refused funding. Ms X and Mr Y have now found a suitable placement which is not supported living. We therefore find the Council was not at fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained that the Council refused to place her son, Mr Y, in a supported living placement. It says Mr Y should move to a shared lives placement instead.
Mr Y’s needs assessment identified that supported living would be appropriate and this is what he wants. Ms X says that a shared lives placement would not meet Mr Y’s needs as identified by the social worker.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from the Complainant and from the Council.
I will send both parties a copy of my draft decision for comment and will take account of the comments I receive in response.
What I found
What happened Mr Y lives with his parents and adult brother. He struggles with sharing his bedroom with his brother and Ms X asked the Council about him living independently. Mr Y was put on the shared lives scheme waiting list.
When Mr Y visited a shared lives placement with Ms X, they decided it was not suitable for him. Mr Y wanted to live independently and did not want to live in a noisy environment. A social worker assessed Mr Y’s needs and concluded that a supported living placement would be appropriate and meet his needs.
In October 2021, the social worker submitted a request for funding for the supported living placement. She recommended this for a couple of years until he was ready to live by himself and noted that there was no availability in shared lives. The Council’s “challenge” panel decided against this. It said this was not agreed as the cost was too high and a family setting would be more suitable. It also suggested looking at his own accommodation with support. However, it also noted that the social worker felt he would be unsafe to live on his own.
The Council wrote to Ms X in response to her complaint about the decision. It said that the panel had been made up of senior managers and other officers with social work or occupational therapy background. It said they looked at other ways to meet Mr Y’s needs “as the supported living provisions we use have other young people who can demonstrate behaviours that can be very challenging and or have more complex needs than [Mr Y].”.
Since issuing my draft decision, Ms X and Mr Y have found a suitable placement and Mr Y was due to move in this week.
Was there fault which caused injustice?
While the Council is entitled to consider the cost of meeting someone’s needs and to do it in the most cost effective way, it must also consider the person’s views. It must also be clear it will meet the person’s needs. It was Mr Y’s particular wish to live independently and not in a family environment. The social worker recognised this and set out why supported living would meet his needs and why a shared lives placement would not.
The panel stated the following: The cost was too high A family setting would be more suitable The supported living provisions have other young people who can demonstrate behaviours that can be very challenging and or have more complex needs.
It also suggested Mr Y live in his own accommodation with support.
Mr Y and the social worker agreed Mr Y needed to become more independent. He was already in a family environment and it is unlikely another family setting would provide the independence he needed.
From the Council’s response to my draft decision, it seems the social worker was not aware of the full range of the Council’s offerings. The Council offers shared lives and supported living schemes which are not easily separated. However, it matters not whether the placement is supported living or shared lives. What matters is that the Council provides Mr Y with the opportunity to live in an appropriate environment with the right support to become more independent.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Ms X’s complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman