Summary: The complainant, Mrs X, says the Council is at fault in its handling of payments for respite care for her son. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council and he has therefore completed his investigation of this complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mrs X, says the Council is at fault in its handling of respite care for her son P. She says the Council failed to:

• provide respite care for the period February 2014 to June 2016 despite saying it would do so;
• make payments for respite care from June 2016 onwards; and
• listen to her objections about it fitting a device in her home to gather information about P’s needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of my investigation I have considered information from Mrs X. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I set out my initial view on the complaint and considered comments from Mrs X on this. In response I made further enquiries of the Council and third parties.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. P has autism and moderate learning disabilities. He lives at home with his mother who is his main carer.
7. P was detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act and discharged under section 117 in 2006. NHS funding was used to provide for P’s needs until late 2012.
8. Since 2012 P’s care has been funded by both the NHS (49%) and the Council (51%), albeit with some breaks in NHS funding. Currently P receives 47 hours of care from 2 carers. He also received 60 nights of respite care at a local care facility but from 2013 it was no longer able to provide this.
9. An assessment of P’s needs was carried out in January 2014. The assessment records Mrs X requesting additional hours of respite care for P as she had not had a break for 10 months. It also records her concerns that 2 carers are required as P was having frequent seizures triggered by behavioural issues.
10. Mrs X complained to us as she was unhappy with the lack of respite care for P and the assessment.
11. In February 2014, we recommended the Council progressed the provision of respite care and took steps to identify P’s needs under section 117. The Council agreed to act on these recommendations.
12. In June the Council agreed to provide an extra 14 hours of respite care with 2 carers. This would be funded by the NHS and so P’s funding from the NHS would increase from £339.76 per week to £635 per week. The funding was paid directly by the NHS to the care agency providing P’s care. The care agency has sent me copies of statements showing the payments it received for P’s care.
13. In addition to the NHS funding, P was also receiving £2850 per month funding from the Council. The Council has provided a printout of the payments it made during this period.
14. The Council carried out a carer’s assessments for Mrs X in 2015. This did not make any reference to her receiving respite care.
15. In June 2016 the Council undertook an assessment of P’s needs. Mrs X told the social worker completing the assessment that she was not receiving sufficient respite care for P. The assessment concluded that P should receive 42 nights respite per year. This resulted in additional funding of £109.65 per week from the Council for this purpose.
16. In August the Council carried out a carer’s assessment for Mrs X. She explained the problems she was having caring for P and her granddaughter. The assessment concluded she should receive a one-off payment of £150 towards gym membership and confirmed that she received 42 days per year respite.
17. Unhappy with the Council’s handling of matters Mrs X complained to the Council.
18. The Council replied in January 2017. In its response it said:

• P’s social worker identified in August 2016 that Mrs X was no longer in receipt of respite care that P was previously receiving from the NHS; and
• upon realising this, P’s social worker reassessed the case and found that 42 days respite should be provided.

19. Mrs X continues to dispute that payments have been made. She says she has not received respite care payments since February 2014. She also says the Council is only paying for one carer to sleep in rather than paying for a carer to be awake. Mrs X says P requires the latter to assist him with his epilepsy and night terrors, and to take him to the toilet. For this reason, Mrs X says she is awake even on the nights when respite care is provided.
20. The Council says it has no evidence that P needs to have a carer who is awake at night. This is because his seizures are behavioural and not caused by his epilepsy. It has offered to install ‘Just Checking’ equipment at Mrs X’s home so it can create an accurate picture of P’s night time needs to see if additional support is required.
21. Mrs X declined to have the equipment installed as the Council would not allow the contract to be between her and the equipment provider and so P’s needs have not been reassessed in this regard.

Analysis

22. Mrs X has complained about matters which occurred more than 12 months ago. I have decided to exercise discretion to investigate events since February 2014. This is because Mrs X was pursuing matters with the Council during this period and complained to the Ombudsman within in a year of receiving a final response from the Council.

The Council failed to provide respite care for the period February 2014 to June 2016

23. Mrs X says the Council has not provided respite care for P during this period. I note that a carer’s assessment from 2015 does not make any mention of Mrs X receiving respite care. I also note the social worker who undertook the 2016 assessment identified that Mrs X was not in receipt of respite care, although in response to my enquiries the Council has said the social worker was simply stating what Mrs X told her. Nevertheless, I note the Council provided funding equating to £109 per week for respite following the assessment.
24. The Council also says Mrs X was provided with respite care following a panel meeting in June 2014. It says the funding came from the NHS and that payment was made directly to the care agency providing care for P. I have been provided with copies of statements from the care agency showing the payments it received following the meeting. These equate to £635 per week.
25. While I appreciate there is some ambiguity on this matter, the statements clearly show payments for respite care were made from late June 2014 onwards. For this reason, I cannot agree that respite care was not provided during the substantive part of this period.

The Council failed to provide respite care since July 2016

26. I do not agree. The Council has provided statements showing that payments have been received for this period. The statements clearly show that an increase in funding of £109 per week was included for respite from July onwards.

The Council is not providing respite at a rate which provides suitable night time care for P

27. Mrs X says her son requires an awake carer during the night to meet his needs. Currently the Council is not providing this as it was not identified in the previous assessment of P’s needs. The Council has explained to Mrs X that it would like to reassess P’s needs. I note that Mrs X has refused to allow the Council to undertake the monitoring because of concerns about the contract being between the equipment provider and the Council. The Council cannot approve additional funding without establishing that P has an assessed need requiring it. I do not find the Council at fault in this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have ended my investigation of this complaint as I have not identified fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman