Date of decision: 21 July 2025
Summary
A complaint was made by Mr X and his mother, Ms Y, against the Council for repeated delays in assessing his care needs and sourcing suitable accommodation, as well as procrastination in pursuing a vacant placement at a preferred setting.
What happened
In November 2022, Ms Y, the mother of an adult seeking to move out of his home, contacted the Council to request a move to supported living accommodation.
The Council agreed to carry out a needs assessment, with an occupational therapist visiting in December 2022 and a full care needs assessment. By February and May 2023, Ms Y was making repeated requests for progress updates, and the Council flagged service demand pressures, finally allocating a social worker in late May 2023.
This social worker initiated an assessment and sought medical insight, especially relating to diabetes management. Communication delays plagued the gathering of medical information from health professionals, for at least 4 months, with the Council only finalising the needs assessment in September 2023 – almost ten months after the original request.
The assessment identified supported living as the required service type.
A new social worker took over, meeting Mr X in December 2023 to confirm continued interest in supported living. Progress then stalled, with Ms Y seeking updates in February 2024 as the Council had yet to source a placement or circulate the pen picture to providers. The pen picture was completed in March and sent out in April 2024. A residential care home provider (Provider A) responded (after 3 days) and assessed Mr X a week later.
Mr X and Ms Y were satisfied during a visit to Provider A and wished to proceed, with the provider making an offer based on funding being agreed. But only when sent the details of the cost of the accommodation regarding the level of 1:1 support the provider considered appropriate did the Council clarify that Provider A was a residential care home rather than supported living. Despite further review and discussions, Provider A would not amend the support level (to the identified supported living support level), and no other offers were forthcoming.
Ms Y pressed for Provider A’s placement, saying Mr X required 24-hour support with his diabetes and that this was one of the attractions of Provider A’s accommodation. Ms Y also made the point that this was the only organisation to make an offer even to assess Mr X for suitability.
The Council only re-sent the pen picture to supported living providers in July 2024 after Ms Y had complained, 3 months after finding out that Provider A was offering care together with accommodation instead of supported living.
The Council kept the option notionally alive, whilst citing its duty to find a best value solution, ultimately pausing active pursuit for three months before resuming negotiations – by which point Provider A’s vacancy was filled. The Council acknowledged error, delayed reassessment, and apologised for confusion regarding Provider A.
Throughout mid-late 2024, Ms Y continued to visit further settings, none apparently meeting needs until finally a supported living arrangement was secured in November 2024, nearly two years after initial contact. Multiple delays, errors in provider identification, and poor communication by the Council drew repeated complaints and resulted in further investigation.
What was found
The Ombudsman found fault in three main areas: excessive delay in care needs assessment (taking 10 months from the request to the completion of the care plan), unacceptable sluggishness sourcing suitable accommodation, and a three-month pause in any activity in following up the preferred provider when it was saying that it had not absolutely discounted that provider’s services.
Each breach caused direct distress, frustration, missed opportunities, and heightened uncertainty – notably a loss of chance for a formal placement at the favoured Provider A. Raised expectations and poor distinction between care settings under consideration also led to avoidable frustration.
The investigator said that councils should complete assessments in a timescale that is proportionate to the complexity of the issues, and normally within four to six weeks. 15 weeks after a 6 months delay in even starting was not reasonable, on any footing.
A financial remedy was ordered: £500 each for distress and uncertainty, £350 each for raised expectations, and mandatory reforms to Council procedures and staff oversight.
The Council agreed to apologise, pay the ordered amounts, review its internal processes, and provide clear communication in future.
In particular, the Council agreed to review the role of the Council’s brokerage team in its sourcing of supported living vacancies and its interaction with adult social care teams, with a view to improving communication and taking a pro-active approach regarding available pen pictures.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
The Ombudsman’s assessment highlights procedural delays, communication failures, and errors in clarifying accommodation types, but specialist community care law provides essential context which the report omits.
The point that is entirely missing is that a placement is only the correct language to use where the care planning Council sees the person as suited to a package of care together with accommodation. This Council wanted to buy a service level more suited to the description of supported living and there is no way that that could be bought by way of negotiations with Provider A, which was a care home, not interested in taking a much smaller sum of money for the care of this gentleman than its costing model suggested a formal placement would net for the business in return for the space and services.
Under the Care Act, local authorities have a duty to carry out prompt, person-centred assessments and to ensure that individuals are supported in making choices about their care arrangements. These are not just ‘best practice’ — they are enforceable duties. Statutory guidance and established case law make clear that unwarranted delay in care planning is unlawful, and there is an expectation that authorities will keep individuals properly informed and involved at every stage.
It was not wrong of the Council to take the view that diabetes management needs can be met in supported living, but it WAS wrong to allow the client’s heart to become set on a facility in which there was no hope of his being placed.
The misidentification of accommodation types and prolonged uncertainty over suitable provision demonstrated a breach of the duty actively to promote wellbeing, maintain transparency, and support informed choice – all fundamental principles under both case law and the Care Act. Consistent, accurate communication about differences between supported living and residential care is legally required, under the advice and information duty, as confusion directly infringes rights to autonomy and the least restrictive options.
The legal framework insists councils must not allow “system pressures” to serve as a blanket reason for delay.
The investigator states in this report: “Supported Living accommodation provides housing with support services to help individuals live as independently as possible. This is designed for people with disabilities or other needs who require some level of support to manage daily life, but who do not need full-time residential care.” This is a serious misrepresentation of the legal truth which is that accommodation of this nature does do what is described but not by way of provision under the Care Act. Councils involved in commissioning care in that setting will not be contracting for or paying for the accommodation – which will be rented to the individual, often with the support of housing benefit or universal credit.
The Council said it had removed Mr X from the pending list in error in March 2023, but it rectified this the following month. The Council apologised for the error but said this did not impact the time taken to allocate a social worker to Mr X.
This is a ridiculous stance for the Council and the LGSCO’s investigator to have taken: no social worker NEEDED to be allocated for this authority to get ON with its job. There is no requirement that a social worker oversees Care Act assessment. Anyone can do it, as long as they’re competent.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Gloucestershire County Council (24 011 795) report.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service?
Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £50 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!