Date of decision:
17 March 2025
Summary
A complaint was made that Gloucestershire Council refused to fund a residential placement outside its area for an adult with eligible care and support needs. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s actions, despite the family’s dissatisfaction with available local options.
What happened
Ms X complained that the Council refused to fund an out-of-area residential placement (placement Q) for her daughter, Miss Y, who had previously lived in what was described as a placement, in Gloucestershire.
Miss Y had experienced an emotional breakdown while abroad with her family during the COVID-19 pandemic and remained there for over a year, struggling with anxiety.
Ms X requested an assessment for Miss Y ahead of her planned return to the UK in early 2024.
The Council completed an assessment in February 2024, identifying eligible needs and exploring local supported living options, including opportunities for Miss Y to engage with animals, which she enjoyed.
Ms X rejected the local options, insisting that only placement Q would meet her daughter’s needs. The Council explained it did not routinely secure placements outside its area due to difficulties with quality assurance, safeguarding, and timely intervention.
In April 2024, the Council suggested Miss Y could volunteer at an animal shelter locally, but Ms X remained dissatisfied. The other council said it would not consider her needs as Miss Y was not a resident.
By October 2024, the Council clarified that Miss Y’s plan ‘could not be finalised’ because Ms X did not accept any local options and was now asserting that Miss Y would not return to Gloucestershire at all.
The Council advised Ms X to contact the authority in the area where Miss Y wished to live, but although Ms X did so, she was directed back to the Council.
What was found
The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s assessment or decision-making process. The Council assessed Miss Y’s needs, considered her preferences (including her love of animals), and offered suitable local options. Ms X’s rejection of these options did not oblige the Council to fund an out-of-area placement.
The Council explained its reasons for not securing placements outside its area and kept Ms X informed throughout the process. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council acted in line with its statutory duties and that Ms X’s dissatisfaction did not amount to evidence of maladministration.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
Councils are required by sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 to carry out assessments for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support, regardless of their finances or whether the council believes the person has eligible needs. Assessments must consider the individual’s wellbeing and desired outcomes, and should involve the person and, where appropriate, their carers or other relevant individuals. Councils must act within a reasonable timescale and keep people informed. The assessment duty is not dependent on the individual living in the area if they have a genuine intention to move there, but by ‘moving’ in this context, the legal framework envisages a move made independently of a local authority’s support and (crucially) independent of a local authority’s contractual arrangement for accommodation.
In a scenario where residential care (commonly called a placement) is offered, people have a legal right to choose to direct the council to place them in a care home in any part of the country that they wish to live in – subject to a number of pre-conditions, including availability, suitability to meet the needs, the provider’s willingness to do business with the council, and the cost package of care together with accommodation rights, being no more than the council would normally expect to have to pay for that level of care and integrated accommodation.
This is a legal right of the person owed the duty and therefore depends, strictly speaking, on the capacity of the individual to make that request. In a situation where the individual is not able to make that request, the local authority must make a best interests decision and act lawfully under the Care Act and the Mental Capacity Act, taking family members’ views into account, but not allowing the decision to be driven purely by what the family member says would be best or what they want.
The Council in this case fulfilled its statutory duties by completing a needs assessment, considering Miss Y’s interests and needs, and offering suitable local options – on paper.
We think it is telling, however, that the investigator did not distinguish between supported living tenancies and ‘placements’ properly so-called, in residential care because choice of accommodation rights apply only to scenarios where the council is to make the contractual arrangements for the accommodation – whether the accommodation is in ordinary premises, a care home or a shared lives setting. If a person makes private arrangements, whether as a tenant or a person relying on private rights to occupy someone else’s house in a particular part of the country, or paying for a care home, then it is that council, in that location which is responsible for meeting their adult social care needs.
We therefore think that the investigator got the answer right, but only by chance – because it is clear that even if the setting nominated by the mother was a residential care home the Council never agreed the young woman needed that level of support – and formal choice of accommodation rights would never have arisen in the context of ordinary supported living, (although continuing ordinary residence rights could have arisen in a tenanted situation, ironically, regardless of its whereabouts). Councils, do not in the main, make the arrangements for supported living; they certainly do not pay the rent, so it is not possible to regard supported living housing arrangements as provided under the Care Act.
The investigator does not deal with the capacity of the daughter at all and simply omits to comment on the Council’s accepting the mother’s refusal of offers of supported living settings, as if she had a legal right to stand in the way of her daughter getting adult social care services. Of course, the daughter may have lacked capacity and the mother may even have had finance and property deputyship or power of attorney – but without explaining those nuances, the report risks misleading the public.
The decision highlights the importance of clear communication and evidence-based decision-making in adult social care. Councils should ensure they document their reasoning and keep service users and families informed throughout the process. It would be better all round if the Ombudsman’s investigators stopped calling supported living a ‘placement’ arrangement and in particular not calling a tenancy a residential placement because the confusion with residential care homes is obvious.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Gloucestershire County Council (24 009 263) 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!