Bromley Council has issued an apology and paid £250 in compensation to a disabled woman 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, causing her significant distress.
The woman, referred to as Mrs X, has a number of medical conditions and relies on daily home care visits. She moved to Bromley in 2023 after being placed in temporary accommodation by another local authority, referred to as 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 believed Bromley Council should take over responsibility. Bromley disagreed, leading to a dispute between the two councils.
In mid-May 2024, after internal discussions and negotiations with Authority Y, Bromley Council agreed to deliver Mrs X's care, acknowledging she was in its area but of no settled residence. There was no gap in services during the transfer, and Bromley continued providing the same support as Authority Y: a daily 45-minute morning visit for personal care and meal preparation, a daily 30-minute afternoon visit for meal preparation, a weekly one-hour visit for domestic tasks, and another weekly one-hour visit for shopping.
In early June, Bromley decided that Mrs X's Personal Independence Payment (£732.20 per month) could cover the weekly domestic and shopping visits. Mrs X agreed to arrange those herself, and the council stopped funding them, leaving her with only the daily morning and afternoon visits.
Shortly after, Mrs X was hospitalised following a fall. While in hospital, she raised concerns about the standard of her housing. Bromley told the hospital that Authority Y, which had placed her in the accommodation, was responsible for the housing. Mrs X also claimed she had not received home care for a month because the care agency felt it unsafe to continue, but the agency denied cancelling any visits.
After a ten-day hospital stay, Mrs X was discharged but immediately returned to A&E and was readmitted. Three days later, she was discharged again. About a week later, Mrs X informed Bromley she was moving to another authority's area, Authority Z, and moved that same day. The next day, Bromley sent her documents to Authority Z and asked it to take over her care. Authority Z refused, arguing that Authority Y, which had placed Mrs X in the new accommodation, remained responsible.
For the next two weeks, Bromley was locked in a dispute with Authority Y and Authority Z over who should meet Mrs X's needs. Bromley believed Authority Y should ultimately be responsible, but there was internal disagreement about who should provide temporary care. Bromley decided that Authority Z, where Mrs X was physically located, had the temporary duty, though Bromley offered to provide a four-week interim package during the transition. Two weeks after Mrs X's move, Authority Z accepted responsibility and began delivering care. However, Mrs X received no care during those two weeks.
The Ombudsman found Bromley Council at fault, stating that statutory guidance requires the council meeting a person's needs at the start of a residency dispute to continue meeting those needs until the dispute is resolved. The Ombudsman ordered Bromley to apologise to Mrs X, pay £250 for distress, and provide advice to its social care staff to prevent recurrence.
Mrs X also complained that Bromley refused to provide care when she first moved to Bromley in May 2024, but since Authority Y continued her care then, the Ombudsman found no injustice on that point.
