Summary: Mr C complained about the way in which the Council dealt with his request for adaptations and his subsequent complaint. The Ombudsman found fault with the way in which the Council communicated with Mr C. There was also an unreasonable delay in providing an OT assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, create a leaflet to provide clear information at the outset and develop an action plan to ensure clients receive an OT assessment in a timely manner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr C complained to us about the way in which the Council processed and progressed his request for adaptations, and the way in which it subsequently dealt with his complaint about that. The Council has commissioned a company (‘company X) to carry out assessments of people who ask the Council for adaptations.
2. Mr C complained that:
• There was a failure to keep him properly informed and updated about what would happen.
• There was an unreasonable delay between the time he made his request (August 2018) and when his needs were assessed by an Occupational Therapist (March 2019)
• There was an unreasonable delay by the Council in providing a response to his complaint.
• Company X and the Council failed to consider, and failed to provide him with, the reasonable adjustment he requested, which was about his hearing difficulties.
• The Council has failed to explain to him what concrete actions (if any) it would take to ensure improvements would be made by the Council and its subcontractor company X.
3. Mr C told me the above resulted in:
• A delay in him and his wife receiving the ramp he sought, and his wife receiving equipment.
• Seven months of distress between August 2018 and March 2019.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information I received from Mr C and the Council. I shared a copy of my draft decision statement with Mr C and the Council and considered any comments I received, before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is “necessary and suitable” to meet the disabled person’s needs, and also “reasonable and practicable”.
9. Non-statutory guidance by the Government “Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice”, says that:
• Clear information and advice at the first point of contact is crucial in the delivery of a high-quality adaptations service.
• Good practice in the sector involves arrangements that immediately (same day) acknowledge receipt of the enquiry and give clear information about how that enquiry will be acted upon, including timeframe for a response and contact details to follow up in the event any delay.
• A written response, or response in a more appropriate format as identified at the point of initial enquiry, should be made to everyone enquiring about the service providing an explanation of the action which is to be taken and the expected time scale. It should make clear who is responsible for each action and should give a clear point of contact. A standard “what happens next” leaflet or letter may be of use here but it is essential that timescales are specified and describe how to take the request further if the person making the enquiry is not happy with the response.
10. Company X told me it triages and prioritises any referral it receives, according to the level of risk: ASAP (5 days), Red (2 weeks), Amber (2 weeks to 1 month), Green (1 to 2 months).
11. A council has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people. However, what is “reasonable” is not set out anywhere in the law. The Council has told me that, while staff have to undertake a compulsory e-learning training, it does not have a policy or staff manual that covers reasonable adjustments.
12. Company X has told me it also does not have a Reasonable Adjustment policy or staff guide.
13. The “Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009” set out how a council should deal with social care complaints. It says a council should have a clear procedure for dealing with social care complaints. Regulations and guidance say a social care complaint should be investigated in a way that will resolve it speedily and efficiently. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf, it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. In such cases, it is important that both parties, and customers, have a clear understanding how a complaint about the service provided by the organisation will be dealt with. The Council told me it has not specified in its contract with company X how such complaints should be dealt with and progressed.

What happened

14. Mr C spoke to the Council on 14 August 2018 to ask for support from the Council. He and his wife were having problems carrying out some tasks at home and wanted the Council to install some aids and adaptations to help them. Mr C told me he explained to the officer that he was hard of hearing and he therefore asked the officer to send him a summary of what was discussed / agreed by post or email. This would ensure that he had understood everything correctly. However, Mr C says the officer refused to do this. Mr C says the officer also failed to explain to him what would happen next, namely the Council would refer his case to its subcontractor who would contact him.
15. Mr C spoke with a staff member from company X later that same day. Mr C says he also asked this staff member to send him a summary of what was discussed / agreed by post or email. However, the staff member refused to do this, only explaining that it was not normal practice to write to people at this stage.
16. Mr C told me that company X:
• Failed to give him a case reference number, to ensure (for instance) that its staff can look up his case on the system when he calls to ask for an update.
• Failed to send a letter to him in which it confirmed what would happen next, what the process would be through which it would progress his request; what priority the company had allocated to his case; what the current average waiting time was for such cases etc.
17. Mr C told me he did not hear anything from company X for months, following the first telephone call.
18. Mr C was unhappy with the lack of information he had received, and the lack of any progress in three months, and made a complaint about this on 4 November 2018 in an email addressed to the Leader of the Council. He complained about the lack of reasonable adjustments and that he had still not received an assessment from an Occupational Therapist (OT). The Council did not send an email back to acknowledge it received the email. As a result, Mr C had to chase his complaint on 9 and 15 November. The Council told Mr C the following day that company X would look into this and respond to him by next week.
19. The Council told me that Mr C’s email had gone to the Council’s “Councillor Casework Team”. It said:
• The team aims to acknowledge all Councillor Casework enquires within one day and respond within 5 working days. Unfortunately, on this occasion, the team of 3 were a member down and this did not happen.
• Following Mr C’s further email on 9 November, the team logged his complaint the same day. Councillor X picked up the issue and asked the Council to provide updates about any progress.
• The Council asked company X on 12 November to look into Mr C’s complaint, and it received a response letter back on 20 November. However, the company addressed the letter to Councillor X, because it that it was Councillor X who had raised the concern.
• The Council failed to forward the response to Mr C. As such, Mr C had to chase the Council again on 22 November 2018 for his response.
20. Mr C escalated his complaint on 5 December 2018. In response, the Council proposed a meeting between Mr C and the Council’s Head of Adult Social Care to discuss his concerns further.
21. The Council also asked company X if it had provided a response to the concerns Mr C had raised in November 2018. Mr C told the Council it had written to Mr C and explained he remains on a waiting list and would likely receive his assessment in March 2019. However, it had not written to Mr C but to Councillor X.
22. Mr C met with the Council’s Head of Adult Social Care on 19 December 2018 and said he had yet to receive a response to the concerns he had first raised on 4 November 2018. The Council promised Mr C that company X would provide him with an update about his assessment within one week.
23. The above meeting resulted in company X sending a letter to Mr C on 27 December 2018. The letter was similar in contents to the one it had sent to Councillor X. It said:
• Mr C’s referral had received a Green priority rating. Given the current demands, it was likely his assessment would take place in March 2019.
• It was sorry it did not explain to him that it is not usual practice to send out documentation following a referral.
24. Mr C was not happy with the responses he had received so far, because it showed little intention by the Council and company X to make improvements to ensure others would receive a better service in future. As such, Mr C made a further complaint to the Council, expressing that he was concerned about the lack of control the Council had over the actions of company X.
25. Company X told Mr C in its response in April 2019, that:
• It is not usual practice to send out documentation following the initial referral process. It was sorry it did not clearly explain this to him at the time.
• It was sorry Mr C felt there was a lack of communication. It said it placed him on a waiting list and it is not normal practice to follow this up. The next contact is usually when the case is allocated to a specific worker to undertake an assessment.
• It operates a 'RAG' (Red, Amber and Green) system. This system ensures that people presenting the most risk (Red) are seen as soon as possible. The company does not provide its clients with timescales, because it is difficult to predict how long a person may need to wait for an assessment, as this depends on the volume of requests it is dealing with. Work is underway to ensure it assesses people as soon as possible to reduce waiting times.
• It admits that a reference number will make it easier when clients contact us. We will consider this suggestion.
• We do not have a 'hand-out' that we provide to our clients.
26. Mr and Mrs C eventually received a visit from an OT in March 2019, after which they received equipment and a Disabled Facilities Grant to provide better access to their property. Mr C says that once company X visited in March 2019, he was happy with how things progressed further.
27. Company X has told me that:
• Current Average Performance against waiting time targets are as follows:
1. Target: ASAP (5 days) Performance: 4 weeks
2. Red (2 weeks) 37 weeks
3. Amber (2 weeks to 1 month) 78 weeks
4. Green (1 to 2 months) 72 weeks
• It is currently trialling a pilot, where it will train Community Care Workers to undertake non-complex OT assessments. It will review the pilot in February 2020.
• If Mr C highlighted he had a need to receive information in writing, it should have provided this. It is sorry that it failed to do this.
• It allocates a number to all its new clients. We are discussing with the Council’s Advice and Information Service / Single Point of access, how to implement a system where clients receive a reference number.

Analysis

28. When a Council decides to commission out services, clients should continue to receive a similar standard as if the service was still delivered by the Council. Ultimately, the Council remains responsible for the quality of the service provided. As such, the Council has a role to play in setting these standards and monitoring them.
29. The Council failed to adhere to the guidance on adaptations mentioned in paragraph 9 above. Mr C did not receive clear information at the outset as to how his request would be acted on, how it would be processed and progressed, what priority his case had received, expected timescales, or how to make a complaint if he is unhappy. It would also have been good practice if he had received a reference number which he could have used when contacting the company.
30. Without this information, clients are left in an information vacuum where they have to wait for months without having any idea when the OT assessment may take place and without receiving any updates. This is distressing and frustrating.
31. The Council was also at fault for not ensuring that its clients who use company X know who to complain to when they are unhappy about the service provided by the company. As a result, Mr C did not know who to complain to.
32. The Council also failed to have a system in place that ensures that OT assessments are carried out in a timely manner. According to the time targets of company X, Mr C should have received an assessment within two months. Instead, he had to wait seven months. This was an unreasonable delay, which is fault and caused him resulted in distress and frustration.
33. A council has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments. Councils also have a responsibility of ensuring that a company its subcontracts, provides clients with reasonable adjustments that are of a similar standard as its own. However, what is “reasonable” is not set out anywhere in law. It is therefore important to ensure there is some guidance / a process in place that ensures consistency between staff members and departments as to how requests for adjustments are dealt with. Neither the Council, nor company X had such guidance in place. The Council was at fault that Mr C’s request for an adjustment was not considered, when he contacted the Council and when he contacted company X.
34. Furthermore, due to miscommunication between the Council and company X, there was a delay before Mr C received a response to the complaint he made on 4 November 2018.

Agreed action

35. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf, it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of the organisation, I have made recommendations to the Council.
36. I recommend that the Council should:

Within four weeks of my decision

• Provide an apology to Mr C for the faults above and the distress they have caused him. It should also pay Mr C £300.
• Put a system in place through which clients, who are waiting for an OT assessment, receive periodic updates.
• Discuss with company X whether it is possible and beneficial for the company to provide clients with their ID number.

Within eight weeks of my decision

• Put a system in place that ensures that clients, who request adaptations, receive clear information at the outset as to how it will be process and progress the request, what priority their case has received, expected timescales, and how to make a complaint.
• Develop an action plan with company X, and monitor its implementation, to ensure that clients, who request adaptations, receive an assessment of their needs in a timely manner.
• Review the way in which the Council considers requests, and makes decisions, when it receives a request for an adjustment, so as to ensure that staff are providing reasonable adjustments and there is consistency.
• Discuss with company X how it considers requests, and makes decisions, when it receives a request for an adjustment, and assure itself the system will enable the company to provide reasonable adjustments to the Council’s clients in line with the Council’s standards and relevant legislation.
4. The Council has told me it has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman