Hackney Council pays £2,500 over disabled man's care delays

Hackney Council has paid £2,500 to a disabled man and his family after its failures led to significant delays in moving him into supported living. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found that these errors caused injustice and put the family at risk of breakdown.

Delays in Supported Living Placement

The man, known as Mr X, is non-verbal and has learning disabilities that prevent him from making key decisions. His sister, Miss X, first contacted the council in late August 2024 to discuss moving him from a day centre where he was no longer progressing. By late September 2024, she had asked the council to allocate a social worker to reassess his needs and consider a supported living placement.

By mid-November 2024, the council acknowledged an urgent need to act as Miss X and their mother, Mrs X, were caring for him to the point of potential breakdown. A social worker was not allocated until late January 2025, and a permanent supported living placement was approved the following month. However, Mr X was not moved into this placement until February 2026, 18 months after his sister's initial contact.

Ombudsman's Findings on Council Errors

The ombudsman noted that during this period, the council made several errors and decisions that caused delays and injustice. A carer's assessment for Mrs X was not completed until May 2025, although her own assessment had been done in February. Both should have been completed in November 2024, when the council's internal review warned that the carers were at risk of breakdown. The ombudsman found the delay beyond this point to be a fault.

These assessments eventually granted each woman a direct payment for a spa day and increased Mr X's respite entitlement from 14 to 28 days a year. The ombudsman found no fault with the support itself, only with the lateness of its arrival. Despite acknowledging a shortage of supported living vacancies, the ombudsman concluded the council could and should have dealt with the case sooner.

The council accepted it had significantly delayed reviewing Mr X's circumstances between 2019 and 2025, a period outside the ombudsman's investigation scope which covered the year from August 2024. Statutory guidance requires care and support plans to be reviewed at least every 12 months.

Refusal of Direct Payment for Personal Assistant

The ombudsman also criticised the council for initially refusing to directly pay for Mr X to employ his mother as his personal assistant. The law permits such arrangements where they are 'strictly necessary'. The council cited Mrs X's health and the availability of external care when it rejected the request. This decision was later reversed.

During the search for a suitable placement, the council arranged a week of respite care in another local authority area in late February 2025. A second week was booked in late March. Upon his return, his family found he had not been supported to shower or change clothes, leading to a safeguarding inquiry by the hosting council.

Hackney Council also failed to provide evidence of its placement searches when requested by the ombudsman. Instead of showing it had acted on the safeguarding inquiry's recommendation to review the provider's suitability for non-verbal adults needing full personal care support, it offered general assurances about its monitoring of care quality.

Mr X's care and support plan, issued in February 2025, mistakenly listed his late father's phone number as the primary care contact. The ombudsman concluded that Hackney should have identified and contracted a suitable care provider much sooner, even with placement vacancy challenges and the family's desire to view the new home first.

Compensation and Future Actions

The council had previously offered the family £1,000 in compensation for the delays. The ombudsman requested an additional £500 payment to Mr X, his mother, and his sister, bringing the total compensation to £2,500. The ombudsman stated the family deserved an apology and a further symbolic payment for the council's failure to recognise Mrs X's unique role in her son's care and to consider a direct payment promptly.

Hackney Council has since agreed to explain how it vetted the care provider's suitability and to improve training for assessment staff to prevent future wrongful payment refusals. The council did not respond to requests for comment from the Local Democracy Reporting Service by the time of publication.