Date of decision: 23 July 2025
Summary
An individual’s mother (Ms X) complained that the Council took excessive time to move the individual, who has care needs, to a different residential placement nearer to his family.
What happened
The individual, Mr Y, whose care was funded under s117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, resided in accommodation far away from his family.
In April 2024, the Council contacted another council to clarify who should pay ongoing aftercare costs, initiating a funding dispute.
In July 2024, Mr Y requested a move to a placement run by the same provider but closer to family; the Council agreed, verbally, but implementation stalled.
In October 2024, the Council held a review of Mr Y’s care. The notes said the Council was in a funding dispute with another council about Mr Y’s s 117 costs. The notes mentioned that Mr Y had asked to move to another residential placement near to his family.
In November 2024, the Council told Ms X that it was trying to resolve the dispute and had not refused the move.
After legal advice in December 2024, the Council decided to continue funding temporarily and sought costing details from the preferred placement. The funding request for the move was sent in mid-January 2025, with approval granted, resulting in the individual moving on 31 March 2025—eight months after the initial request.
Ms X complained in November 2024. She said her son’s health worsened as he had not been able to move closer to family. She said he had put on weight and got into gambling. The Council upheld the complaint in its own process but said there was an ongoing dispute around the responsibility for Mr Y’s s117 aftercare costs. The Council offered to meet Ms X to discuss the details of the dispute.
Dissatisfied, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.
What was found
The Ombudsman found the Council at fault for the length and handling of the move, noting delayed legal consultation and indecisiveness contributed to the problem. The funding dispute should not have impeded arranging appropriate care and accommodation.
The delay caused uncertainty for the carer about family support, though the individual continued to receive care.
The Ombudsman ordered the Council to apologise and pay £200 to the carer for the uncertainty and distress.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
The reason the funding dispute arose was not because the man had moved areas but because West Sussex believed it had a previous agreement with another council that it would pay the costs and bill the other council; however, it had not received any money from the other council.
The Ombudsman refers to the funding scheme under s117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 as amended by the Care Act 2014 and to the Care and Support (Disputes Between Local Authorities) Regulations 2014 which set out the procedures councils must follow when disputes arise regarding a person’s ordinary residence.
Councils must first take all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute between themselves. It is critical the person does not go without the care they need while councils are in dispute. The default scheme is that the council meeting the needs of the adult or the carer on the date the dispute arises must continue to do so until it is resolved, with alternatives for variations of that situation. The regulations set out detailed procedures which must be followed for disputes to be resolved. An explanatory note to the regulations make it clear they apply to disputes about ordinary residence under s117.
S117(4)(a) of the Mental Health Act 1983 expressly applies the same ordinary residence dispute procedure to s117 disputes — but only insofar as the dispute concerns which local authority area the person was ordinarily resident in immediately before the most immediate triggering detention. So the Regulations are imported by the MHA itself for that specific question.
If, having followed the procedure set out in the disputes regulations, the councils are still unable to resolve a particular dispute, the lead council must apply for a determination to the Secretary of State or appointed person. This should be done as soon as the councils agree they cannot resolve it and, in any event, no later than four months after the dispute started. (Section 19, Care and Support Statutory Guidance)
The Council’s staff seem to have been unaware of the provisions of these regulations and their responsibility to continue to fund Mr Y’s care while the dispute was resolved. The Ombudsman could have recommended training for the Council’s staff about these regulations.
The Ombudsman did not consider there was significant injustice to Mr Y because he was getting care in his old placement. Ms X said Mr Y put on weight and gambled as his family could not support him at the old residential placement. The Ombudsman could not say on balance whether moving Mr Y to a new residential placement would have stopped him from engaging in these behaviours.
It is not clear from the report whether the Council disputed Ms X’s concerns about this, but the implication from Ms X’s concerns was that the gambling and weight gain were new. In our experience issues such as weight gain and gambling are common problems for vulnerable people who may find it difficult to plan their own time. It seems credible that without the company of his family Mr Y became bored and increasingly isolated.
The report could have explored whether Mr Y’s weight gain and gambling suggested the need for a review of his care plan. The Mental Health Act Guidance provides that Mr Y’s care plan should have been regularly reviewed. His care plan should have included encouragement regarding daytime activities and social needs, as well as his psychological needs.
The report could also have explored whether a carer’s assessment should have been offered to Ms X. It is not clear from the report whether Ms X was a carer, but this seems likely. She may well also have been Mr Y’s nearest relative.
The 2024 Statutory Guidance on discharge from mental health settings stresses the importance of involving carers in discharge planning. It refers to the Triangle of Care membership scheme, which was developed by the Carers Trust to address the ask from carers that they be listened to and consulted more closely.
Case law and statutory guidance emphasise the need for proper involvement of individuals and their families in care planning, including clear explanations, opportunity for representation, and sufficient signposting as to the legal right to challenge and seek urgent resolution, such as through judicial review or the court’s interim relief powers.
The delayed move deprived the individual of their right to family life, a key aspect of wellbeing protected by both community care law and the Human Rights Act, and the Council should have been far more proactive in mitigating both the practical and emotional consequences of the delay.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s West Sussex County Council (24 017 249) 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!