Date of decision: 14 September 2025
Summary
A mother complained about the Council’s handling of her adult son’s move from residential accommodation directly arranged by the Council, out of area, where he had been attending college. Kent failed to act swiftly to secure new housing and did not properly assess or inform the family about the personal and financial implications of the move to ordinary housing with support, leading to distress, avoidable expense, and uncertainty for both the individual and his carer.
What happened
The individual, an adult with learning difficulties and health needs, had been living for several years in accommodation which the report describes as Council-arranged ‘residential supported accommodation’ outside the Council’s area while attending an out-of-area specialist college. [The report does not call it a care home but there is definitely no mention of a tenancy or of the person having had to pay for the accommodation at all….]
The provider (Provider A) gave 7 weeks’ notice to both the family and the Council on 27 September 2023 that it could no longer meet his needs, with the placement ending 9 November.
On 6 October, the allocated social worker (Officer J) said he would look for out-of-town placements. The Council reviewed the case on 18 October and requested an extension, but Provider A refused.
By late October and early November, the Council corresponded with a potential provider found by the family, but this led nowhere. On 3 November, contingency planning began. On 8 November, the Council identified Agency A as a care provider, which found two weeks of emergency accommodation; the individual moved the next day with on-site carers from Agency A.
Agency A identified permanent rented accommodation (Property M), with the mother viewing it on 28 November. It was described as rented accommodation. Agency A arranged additional emergency accommodation until Mr Y and the carers moved into Property M on 7 December, with Agency A signing the tenancy and the individual named as tenant.
On 8 and 11 December, the Council confirmed via email that the individual would need to apply for benefits to cover all living costs. A meeting on 13 December, attended by Officer J, Agency A, and the mother, clarified that the Council would cover only care costs, and Agency A would assist with budgeting and benefit applications.
On 24 March 2024, the mother requested a return to her understanding of supported living due to financial pressures. The Council only completed a financial assessment on 28 March. On 26 April she formally complained, citing Ccouncil delays, lack of action by her son’s social worker (with progress only after involvement of another worker), inadequate financial information about Property M, and being told only after the move that full housing costs would fall on her son. She had to use her son’s savings to cover living expenses. The Council responded on 17 June, stating it had made every effort to find accommodation and that housing costs were expected to be covered by benefits.
It specifically said that when young people move from residential placements to supported living it was expected the cost of the rent would be met by the young person through benefits and their own contributions “as this was not a Care Act need.”
The mother continued dialogue with the Council but remained dissatisfied and escalated to the Ombudsman.
Subsequently, the mother confirmed benefit payments had been awarded and repaid the sums she used from savings. Nonetheless, the complaint highlighted the stress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s actions.
What was found
The Council accepted there was an initial delay due to exceptional circumstances caused by an officer’s absence and limited duty staff capacity. It said it had made exceptional agreements to progress the plan and explore all options, including funding temporary accommodation, which the Ombudsman acknowledged. However, it took too long to act in trying to source new accommodation for Mr Y. There was considerable drift and inaction due to staff absence and overall capacity which led to a reactive approach.
The Ombudsman found the Council was too slow to act after receiving notice from the accommodation provider, did not adequately oversee or participate in securing new housing, failed to sufficiently assess the individual’s needs, and did not provide the necessary information and advice about housing and financial implications as required by the Care Act 2014 and its guidance. The Council’s delay and lack of oversight caused significant distress and uncertainty, with a direct financial impact and preventable anxiety for the individual and his carer. The Council agreed to apologise, pay £400 each to the individual and his carer, and issue guidance to improve compliance with statutory duties.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
The Council took the stance that as Mr Y’s power of attorney holder, it was Miss X’s responsibility to consider any financial implications and contact relevant organisations about any benefits due.
But the arrangements for Mr Y to live at and pay for Property M were substantially different to his time living at Provider A. The investigator found it was therefore unlikely Miss X would have been aware of how financial arrangements would change when Mr Y moved out or to have had sufficient knowledge of the potential benefit payments Mr Y would receive, or how much it would cost to run Property M which the Council’s appointed agency had signed Mr Y up to live in.
Case law requires councils to demonstrate active oversight and to record reasons and evidence for decisions made, although this lack of oversight was indeed highlighted by the Ombudsman’s findings.
However, there were some gaps in the approach taken by the Ombudsman as compared to the requirements set out in community care law. The actions of Kent took no account of the leading case in this area, Merton (JF) or the Care Act, as far as we can see. The fact that his housing costs would have been necessarily deducted from his benefits-based charges had financial assessment been done on time, was not mentioned.
Kent’s care plan for the provider listed multiple entries of what appeared to the investigator to be historic information, eg. references to educating young people about Covid, Covid prevention measures, lateral flow tests and teaching about one-way systems in school and college. It said any incidents involving Mr Y should be reported to the ‘home manager,’ all of which were clearly no longer relevant.
The requirement that assessment and care planning should have been thorough and evidence-based, with proper involvement of all relevant parties, is not fully articulated as a legal necessity in the report, despite repeated emphasis in public law decisions.
Established law, guidance and case law shows that authorities must conduct a proportionate and appropriate re-assessment when circumstances change, such as a provider terminating a placement. A mere contingency response, without an updated, transparent, and participatory assessment (including consultation with family or advocates), fails to comply with the s27 Care Act duty underpinning lawful transitions in accommodation.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s treatment of financial information does not fully reflect the legal requirement for councils to provide detailed, accessible advice and clarity on benefit entitlement, housing costs, and the effect on minimum income guarantees prior to the move.
Moves prompted solely by provider notice, without full evaluation of the person’s ongoing health and welfare needs, run counter to public law standards of fairness, transparency, and sufficiency, because the provider will have owed human rights responsibilities, too.
Revision planning when a move of one’s home is involved must be geared to the individual’s well-being, with full access to housing and financial advice, and consultation with all relevant parties before final decisions.
The investigator set out many excerpts from Chapter 3 of the Guidance for councils’ social services teams about the duty to provide information and advice. Paragraphs 3.16, 3.21, 3.24 and 3.25 were all set out in the report, regarding the timing of information at big change points in a person’s life, which you can access by using the link below.
Life would be so different if people just followed the Guidance, and families took the time to read it and highlight bits that are relevant to them, we have to say.
We are astonished at the treatment of the signing of the tenancy. Agency A was thereby turned into the provider of the care together with the accommodation because there was no valid tenancy, at least at first. The fact that the mother held power of attorney but nobody asked her to sign the tenancy is testament to the levels of ignorance going on here in the commissioning and care planning team.
The most interesting feature for us is the Ombudsman’s failure to treat the move from residential to ordinary albeit supported tenanted premises, and the whole topic of accommodation arrangement under the Care Act in the same way that the investigations team treats such consideration in the context of s117 Mental Health Act aftercare.
People who lack capacity to sign a tenancy are entitled to accommodation plus service being directly secured by social service under the Care Act if they cannot use the Housing Act, capacity being a requirement of that use – IF that would be the only way of meeting the person’s eligible assessed needs.
This is the law, even after the Campbell case in May 2024 shut that route into accommodation, down, for UK nationals and people with capacity. This report should have spelt that out, for much more significant public education.
The LGSCO report positions the man as having lived in ‘supported residential accommodation’ without calling it a care home, so if in fact he had been in a directly contracted for placement, it is even more telling that this investigator has not thought to challenge the position that as of now, he would be needing to be a tenant. The fact of this key ambiguity over the nature of the original setting makes us really wonder whether the fog is deliberate, and if so, to serve whose ends…?
For better practice, whatever brings a placement to an end, councils should review whether direct, accommodation ‘plus’ style placement arrangements, transitions, and assessments are needed, for either the short term or for the foreseeable future. People lacking in capacity to use the Housing Act systems (homelessness or the register) are not precluded from receiving accommodation plus care packages in premises of some other type than a care home.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Kent County Council (24 012 991) 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!