The woman was left without daily morning and afternoon visits for two weeks while three councils were locked in a dispute over who was meant to pay for it
Bromley Council has apologised to a woman and paid her £250 after it failed to administer her care when she moved out of the borough.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found the South London authority at fault for not meeting the woman’s care needs for a two-week period in June 2024 and causing her distress. The Ombudsman described the woman as having “a number of medical conditions”.
Bromley Council refused to continue administering the woman’s care during these two weeks as she had moved elsewhere, but the Ombudsman found that Bromley had a responsibility to do so despite the move.
The woman, referred to by the Ombudsman as Mrs X, moved to Bromley in 2023 when she was placed into temporary accommodation by another local authority, named Authority Y.
Authority Y continued to meet Mrs X’s social care needs until March 2024 when it decided she had become a Bromley resident and so believed Bromley Council was responsible for her care. Bromley Council disagreed and the two authorities entered a dispute. Authority Y continued to administer her care during this time.
In mid-May, after some discussion both internally and with Authority Y, Bromley Council agreed to deliver Mrs X’s care. It did so after agreeing that Mrs X was in its area but of no settled residence.
There was no gap in services to Mrs X during the transfer from Authority Y to Bromley Council. When Bromley took over her care, it continued to deliver the same support as Authority Y.
This consisted of a daily 45-minute morning home care visit to help her with personal care and meal preparation, a daily 30-minute afternoon visit to help with meal preparation, a weekly one-hour visit to help her with domestic tasks, and another weekly one-hour visit to help her with shopping.
In early June, the council decided Mrs X’s Personal Independence Payment—which amounted to £732.20 per month—could pay for the weekly domestic and shopping visits. Mrs X agreed to arrange those visits herself, and the council stopped paying for them which left her with just the daily morning and afternoon care visits.
Mrs X was then admitted to hospital after a fall. While hospitalised, she raised “significant concerns” about the standard of her housing. Bromley Council told the hospital that her housing was Authority Y’s responsibility as Authority Y was the council that had placed her there.
Mrs X also told the hospital that she had not received any home care for a month as the care agency “felt it to be unsafe to continue” but her care provider said it did not cancel any visits during that period.
The hospital discharged Mrs X after ten days but she immediately presented at A&E and was re-admitted. Three days later, the hospital discharged Mrs X again.
Around a week after being discharged, Mrs X told Bromley Council she was moving to a different authority’s area, Authority Z, and she moved that day. The next day, Bromley Council sent Mrs X’s documents to Authority Z and asked it to start delivering her care.
Authority Z refused to accept responsibility, saying the duty of care remained with Authority Y which had placed her into the new accommodation. At this point Mrs X stopped receiving care.
Over the next two weeks, Bromley Council was in a dispute with the other two local authorities about who was responsible for meeting Mrs X’s needs. Bromley’s view was that, ultimately, Authority Y should be responsible.
However, there was some disagreement within the council about who should be temporarily delivering Mrs X’s care while the dispute was ongoing. In the end, Bromley Council decided this temporary duty was for Authority Z (as this was where Mrs X was physically located), although Bromley would provide a four-week interim package during the transition.
Two weeks after Mrs X moved home, Authority Z accepted responsibility for her care and began delivering it. Mrs X did not receive any care during the preceding two-week period.
When investigating Mrs X’s complaint, the Ombudsman decided that Bromley Council had a responsibility to continue delivering Mrs X’s care during those two weeks, even though she was not residing in Bromley at the time.
The Ombudsman report said: “The statutory guidance makes clear that the council which is meeting a person’s needs on the date a dispute about residency arises should continue to meet those needs until the dispute is resolved.”
The Ombudsman ordered the council to apologise to Mrs X, make a symbolic payment of £250 to her for the distress caused, and administer advice to its social care staff to prevent a similar occurrence happening again.
Mrs X also complained to the Ombudsman that Bromley Council refused to provide care and support to her after she moved to Bromley in May 2024. However, Authority Y continued to administer social care services when she moved to Bromley, and so the Ombudsman found that she had suffered no injustice in relation to this complaint.
Bromley Council has been approached for comment.
Got a story? email [email protected]
Don’t miss out on the biggest local stories. Sign up to our MySouthLondon newsletter HERE for all the latest daily news and more.
