Summary: There was delay in carrying out a social care assessment in August 2017 for Mr B and in sending a copy of the assessment to Ms A. This meant Mr B did not receive a personal budget which would have enabled his family to arrange respite care. There was also a delay in sending Ms A a copy of a social care assessment which caused her avoidable frustration and inconvenience. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise and make payments described in this statement.

The complaint

1. Ms A complains about West Sussex County Council (the Council). She says it:
1. Failed to respond to the family’s request for respite care for her late father, Mr B, in August 2017
2. Did not have regard to Mr B’s wish to return home and receive care
3. Failed to provide a suitable available care home within Mr B’s personal budget
4. Failed to properly assess his need for night-time care
2. Ms A says this caused her and the family avoidable distress and financial loss including a loss of earnings, legal costs and costs of paying for private care. She seeks repayment of those costs and interest.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. I considered:
• The complaint to the LGSCO and supporting documents
• The Council’s complaint response
• Documents described later in this statement
• Comments and information from the parties on a draft of this statement, including a witness statement and medical records provided by Ms A.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

6. A council must carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the outcomes they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where appropriate their carer or any other person they might want involved. (Care Act 2014, section 9)
7. The Care Act spells out the duty to meet eligible needs (needs which meet the eligibility criteria). (Care Act 2014, section 18)
8. An adult’s needs meet the eligibility criteria if they arise from or are related to a physical or mental impairment or illness and as a result the adult cannot achieve two or more of the following outcomes and as a result there is or is likely to be a significant impact on well-being:
• Managing and maintaining nutrition
• Maintaining personal hygiene
• Managing toilet needs
• Being appropriately clothed
• Making use of the home safely
• Maintaining a habitable home environment
• Accessing work, training, education
• Making use of facilities or services in the community
• Carrying out caring responsibilities.

(Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2014, Regulation 2)

9. The Care Act explains the different ways a council can meet eligible needs by giving examples of services that may be provided:
• Accommodation in a care home or other premises
• Care and support at home
• Counselling and social work
• Information advice and advocacy

(Care Act 2014, section 8)

10. If a council decides a person is eligible for care, it should prepare a care and support plan which specifies the needs identified in the assessment, says whether and to what extent the needs meet the eligibility criteria and specifies the needs the council is going to meet and how this will be done. The council should give a copy of the care and support plan to the person. (Care Act 2014, sections 24 and 25)
11. A council should revise a care and support plan where circumstances have changed in a way that affects the plan. Where there is a proposal to change how to meet eligible needs, a council should take all reasonable steps to reach agreement with the adult about how to meet those needs. (Care Act 2014, sections 27(4) and (5))
12. The care and support plan must set out a personal budget. A personal budget is a statement which specifies the cost to the local authority of meeting eligible needs, the amount a person must contribute and the amount the council must contribute. (Care Act 2014, section 26)
13. The Council uses a resource allocation system to help work out personal budgets. There is:
• A series of questions
• Points assigned to each response in the questionnaire
• A ‘pounds per point’ calculation that converts the points into a sum of money known as a ‘indicative personal budget’.  A software package produces the provisional figure automatically once the completed assessment form is entered on the computer.
14. An indicative personal budget is a rough idea of the money needed to buy care to meet the person’s eligible needs based on local market averages.  It is an estimate that can go up or down in individual cases depending on the actual cost and availability of services. 
15. An assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale taking into account the urgency of needs. Councils should give the person an indicative timescale and keep them updated. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014, Paragraph 6.24)
16. Statutory Guidance explains a council should review a care and support plan at least every year, upon request or in response to a change in circumstances (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Paragraph 13.32)
17. A person with eligible needs can have a council arrange their care. Or if they prefer, they can arrange their own care using a direct payment (a payment from the council.) (Care Act 2014, section 31)
18. The Court of Appeal decided:
• A council’s duty under section 9 of the Care Act 2014 is not to achieve the person’s desired outcomes but to assess whether the provision of care and support would contribute to those outcomes
• The wishes of the person may be a primary factor but they are not an overriding consideration.

(R (Davey v Oxfordshire CC)

19. The Mental Capacity Act and Code of Practice to the Act sets out the principles for making decisions for adults who lack mental capacity. An assessment of a person’s mental capacity is required where their capacity is in doubt (Code of Practice paragraph 4.34)
20. Where a person lacks capacity to make a decision, any decision made on their behalf should be taken in their best interests. There is a checklist of things to consider:
• The person’s past and present wishes and feelings
• The beliefs and values which would influence them if they had capacity
21. When dealing with adults who lack capacity to make decisions about their care, councils should consult and take into account the views of: people the person has named to consult; carers; their attorney or deputy. Generally, councils consult about care assessments and personal budgets by holding a best interests meeting involving relevant people. If there is a dispute, either party may apply to the Court of Protection for an order about what is in the person’s best interests.

What happened

22. Mr B had dementia and physical health problems. Until March 2018, he lived at home with his wife, Mrs B who was his main carer. Ms A, their daughter, worked abroad sometimes, but when in the UK, she lived with her parents. Ms A and Mrs B had Lasting Powers of Attorney for finances and health and welfare. The latter was registered with the Office of the Public Guardian in November 2017 and gave Ms A and Mrs B authority to make decisions about Mr B’s health and care.

August and September 2017

23. Ms A told us she submitted a self-assessment form on the Council’s website at the start of August 2017. She said Mr B needed to go into hospital in September 2017 for a routine operation; the family felt he needed more care than Mrs B could provide presently and may need even more care following surgery. Hearing nothing from the Council once she had submitted the self-assessment form, Ms A told us she phoned the social care team.
24. The Council’s records indicate Ms A phoned the duty social care team on 14 August and said she was concerned about her father who had dementia and her mother who was struggling to care for him at home. Ms A told the duty worker her mother hardly got any sleep and when she did, was woken by her father. The Council said in response to my enquiries that an occupational therapist had recorded on the same day there was a high level of needs and risks identified in the referral and the case was to be allocated as a priority.
25. Ms A phoned the duty worker again on 6 September. She said her mother had been unwell and she needed appropriate support to care for Mr B who was currently in respite care.
26. The Council’s records indicate Ms A phoned the duty worker again on 11 September and said her father was currently in a care home for respite care, which the family had arranged and funded following what they considered to be an increase in Mr B’s needs, especially at night. Mr B stayed in the respite care home for three weeks and returned home on 17 September. Ms A wanted to know if the Council could provide care for Mr B until he went into hospital.
27. On 20 September, a social worker emailed Ms A saying the Council would assess Mr B after the operation, providing he remained an inpatient. The email suggested the writer was aware the operation was planned to be a day procedure: an internal email on the same date says Mr B might only be in hospital as a day case and so the need for an assessment was urgent.
28. Mr B had surgery on 22 September.

October 2017

29. The Council’s records include paperwork from the hospital indicating Mr B was medically fit for discharge from 23 September. The hospital notified the Council of this on 11 October and asked the Council to carry out a social care assessment. Mr B’s hospital records (which Mrs A provided as part of her response to a draft of this statement) indicate Mr B remained fit for discharge throughout his stay and that the hospital did not discharge him because it was waiting for the Council to sort out care arrangements.
30. Mr B remained in hospital through October.
31. On 13 October, Ms A emailed the social worker saying the family wanted nine hours a night of support and two hours in the day for washing, shaving and dressing.
32. A social worker carried out a social care assessment on 16 October. The assessment form noted Mr B was eligible for social care and:
• A placement in a care home had been discussed, but the family declined it
• Mr B was unsteady on his feet and needed to use a walking frame and supervision
• He needed support with personal care tasks due to being unable to sequence tasks
• He needed someone to prepare and serve food and drink for him
• He needed support to take his medication and some support after going to the toilet
• He wandered at night and needed supervision to ensure his safety.
33. A social worker completed an assessment of Mr B’s mental capacity to make decisions about his care. The outcome was he lacked mental capacity.
34. On 16 October, the Council offered Mr B a personal budget of £450. Ms A instructed a solicitor and asked for a copy of Mr B’s social care assessment and care and support plan. There followed a series of emails and letters between the parties’ legal representatives and between Ms A and social work staff.
35. A team manager emailed Ms A saying Mr B needed a permanent placement in a care home due to the high level of supervision he required day and night and his risk of falls. The team manager said the family could use the personal budget as a direct payment and could arrange Mr B’s care themselves.
36. On 23 October, a team manager emailed Ms A’s solicitor to say Mr B was not fit for discharge from hospital. (I note the team manager’s statement that Mr B was not fit for discharge contradicts the evidence in Mr B’s hospital records which indicates he was fit for discharge.) The team manager said Mr B could not engage cognitively with a reablement programme due to his inability to remember instructions. The team manager explained she was not sharing a copy of Mr B’s social care assessment with the family as it might need amending following a trial of sleeping medicine. Ms A’s solicitor responded saying Mr B had been medically fit for discharge since straight after the operation.
37. A email on 26 October from the hospital’s ward manager to a social work team manager said Mr B was medically fit for discharge. The ward manager explained the doctor had tried Mr B on sleeping tablets for 3 days but had stopped these because they had no effect.

November 2017

38. Legal correspondence and emails continued in November. Ms A’s solicitor asked again for copies of Mr B’s assessment, for a home care package for Mr B and for the Council to confirm post-discharge care arrangements. The family gave the Council a quote they had obtained from an agency for night care at home and asked the Council if they could arrange this care in the absence of an assessment for Mr B and a decision on funding. The Council’s solicitor said the Council would not cover the cost of night care if the family started this over the weekend.
39. Mr B went home on 5 November. The family arranged and paid for night care privately every night. Mrs B cared for her husband during the day. Ms A’s solicitor continued to press the Council for the assessment and care and support plan and said the Council had set an arbitrary personal budget of £450 with no reference to a care and support plan.
40. On 16 November, the Council apologised for not sending the assessment. The Council sent a copy of a social care assessment dated 16 October and said it had since done a re-assessment and would send this the following week. The Council said there was no care and support plan because Ms A had removed Mr B from hospital before this could be completed. The Council also said Mr B was not fit for discharge on 25 October (again, this statement goes against information in Mr B’s hospital records, see paragraph 36) and it would usually have offered a temporary bed in a care home to enable discharge but had not done so in this case as it was against the family’s wishes. The Council said it was willing to arrange care for Mr B in line with its assessment.
41. Ms A’s solicitor accepted the personal budget of £450 but said it was not enough to meet Mr B’s needs. She asked the Council to explain how the figure could meet the needs identified in the assessment.
42. In November, a social worker visited Mr B and his family at home. A long-time family friend was also present and provided a statement of his recollection of what was said at the meeting:
• The social worker asked Mr B what he wanted and Mr B said he wanted to stay at home, felt there were no risks and he felt safe at home
• Mrs B said she could cope with looking after Mr B if she had a good night’s sleep with night-time support available
• The social worker said he was going to recommend care at home.
43. The Council completed a further assessment (which it calls a reassessment) in the last week of November (because Mr B had been discharged home without the Council putting care in place) and sent a copy to Ms A. It increased Mr B’s personal budget to £650. Mr B had eligible care needs in six of the areas set out in paragraph eight. The reassessment noted:
• Mrs B felt able to care for Mr B in the day as long as she had a good night’s sleep.
• The family had arranged night care privately.
• Mr B got up two or three times during the night and needed a carer to settle him.
• Mr B needed:
1. Supervision when walking, risk of falls due to cognitive impairment
2. Support with personal hygiene
3. Preparation and serving of food and drink
4. Medication management
5. Support with toileting
• The social worker noted the areas of disagreement with the family namely:
1. the Council’s view that a residential placement met Mr B’s needs due to the risks to Mr B and the risk of carer breakdown to Mrs B who was spending a high amount of time caring for Mr B and had her own health problems.
2. The family’s view was Mr B’s best interests were served by remaining at home and they wanted the Council to fund night-time home care so he could continue to live at home.
44. The Council sent the family two proposed care and support plans. The first proposed a residential care placement. The social worker’s view was Mr B had fluctuating needs and a carer who had become overwhelmed by his needs and a residential care home with trained staff could meet those needs in a more pragmatic and efficient manner. The first plan proposed beds in three care homes with vacancies. The second plan set out a home care package of four calls a day and respite care in a care home for up to four weeks a year and two days a week attending a day centre.
45. On 8 December Ms A’ s solicitor asked the Council to revise the personal budget to meet the actual cost of care at home. Ms A’s solicitor said the reassessment and care and support plan did not take into account the family’s comments which were:
• The proposed care homes were too far for Mrs B to travel to visit Mr B
• Mr B wanted to stay at home and the risks to him were mitigated by care and supervision
• The actual cost of night care at home was £974 and was reasonable. Mrs B would provide all day-time care
• His previous experience of a care home was not a positive one
• Night-time care was not mentioned in one of the plans.
46. Ms A’s solicitor asked the Council if the family could use the personal budget to fund home care. Ms A’s solicitor also said the Council should pay £650 from the date of the first assessment and not the reassessment. The Council’s solicitor confirmed the direct payment would be backdated for the amounts specified in the two assessments.
47. The Council paid Mr B’s direct payment at £650 and the family arranged for him to receive night care using the direct payment and their own money.

February and March 2018

48. Legal correspondence continued. The Council’s solicitor summarised the Council’s position in February 2018:
• The direct payment was £650 and had been backdated
• The reassessment was lawful. The family’s disagreement did not make it unlawful. The Council considered the family’s views including the views of the attorneys and had provided two care and support plans with examples of how the budget of £650 could meet Mr B’s needs, either at home or in a residential placement.
• Officers would like to work with the family to see if there were better ways of spending the direct payment that just on night care.
• Mr B’s needs were unpredictable and best met in a care home
• Ms A and Mrs B were health and welfare attorneys, but they could only make decisions about Mr B’s care on the basis of what was available to them in the first place (the same would have been true had Mr B had mental capacity to make decisions about his care).
49. Mrs B’s health declined and Ms A asked for respite care for Mr B. On 20 March, Ms A suggested Care Home B, a nursing home, as the family’s preferred placement costing £1050. Ms A asked whether there were any other nursing homes near Mrs B. The social worker emailed Ms A with two nursing homes that could take Mr B for emergency respite care: Care Home A (a home where the Council had a block of beds which was 10 miles away and had no top-up and good transport) and Care Home B which had a top-up of £516. The social worker said the family could use Mr B’s direct payment for respite care if they wanted Care Home B, but they would have to pay the top-up.
50. On 23 March, Ms B told the social worker that administrative staff at Care Home A had told her staff could not manage Mr B’s catheter and it was too far for her mother to drive.
51. Mr B went into Care Home B at the end of March 2018 and the Council allowed the family to use his direct payment towards the cost. The family paid a top-up.
52. On 13 April, Ms A emailed the social worker saying Mr B had settled in well at Care Home B and the family could no longer care for him at home and it was in his best interests to remain there. She asked for a review of his care.

May 2018

53. A social worker completed an assessment of need in May 2018 because the family wanted the placement at Care Home B to be permanent. The assessment said:
• Mr B’s needs had changed and his family was no longer willing or able to care for him. He was currently in Care Home B for respite care
• He had eligible needs
• Night-time wandering had been prevalent for the past four years and he was currently getting up two or three times a night requiring supervision to ensure he was safe as he was unsteady on his feet. He was confused about night and day. He did not understand he needed to use a walking aid
• His needs were best met in a nursing home
• He lacked mental capacity to make decisions about his care
• Two other nursing homes said they could not meet his needs
• The provisional personal budget was £1100 (including provision for waking night care)
54. Ms A emailed her suggested amendments and the social worker incorporated these into the assessment. The Council’s funding panel met and approved funding for Care Home B.
55. Ms A’s solicitor complained to the Council in June 2018. The Council replied saying it had already responded to most of the complaints in legal correspondence. It also said:
• Officers told Ms A in March/April 2018 that the family had chosen homes that were more expensive that it usually paid and the Council would look to find a placement within its usual cost, but, as Mr B had a direct payment, then Ms A could use this and pay the excess if the family wanted to go ahead with the more expensive option. This was a practical response to a request for emergency respite. The Council identified a placement at the usual cost that could meet Mr B’s needs and was within 10 miles travelling (Care Home A, which could manage Mr B’s catheter care). Ms B said it was too far away and the family had chosen Care Home B. Ms B was told that a third party would have to pay the top-up.
• The Council had reassessed Mr B and decided to meet the full cost of the permanent placement at Care Home B from the date of reassessment (with no top-up required)
• There was no cap on care home placement costs. It was reviewing its leaflets about costs to see if it needed to change them
• The Council offered to meet the family in February 2018 to explore how to spend the personal budget to meet Mr B’s needs at home. The Council then heard nothing further from the family
• The Council agreed to fund a permanent placement at Care Home B as a result of following proper processes. This was nothing to do with the complaint
• The Council would not backdate the increase in the personal budget because funding decisions were lawful at the time.

Was there fault?

Complaint a: The Council failed to respond to the family’s request for respite care for Mr B in August 2017

56. Ms A contacted the Council on-line and by phone in August 2017 expressing concern about her father with dementia and her mother who was in poor health and struggling to cope with caring for him at home. The Council’s social care team decided to leave the assessment to the hospital social work team because Mr B was going in to hospital for an operation in September. This did not make sense when the plan had been for day surgery and the referral had been screened as a priority. The Council should have carried out an assessment of Mr B within a reasonable timeframe after Ms A’s contact in August. Taking two and a half months to complete an assessment was not a reasonable response, was not in line with paragraph 6.24 of Care and Support Statutory Guidance and was fault. The Council’s failure to complete an assessment promptly in response to Ms A’s request in August delayed Mr B’s discharge from hospital.

Complaint b: The Council did not have regard to Mr B’s wish to return home and receive care

(i) The Care Act

57. The Council set out a care and support plan which showed how the personal budget could meet Mr B’s needs. I accept this was not sufficient from the family’s perspective because they wanted a budget to cover the cost of one-to-one night care at home. But, I consider the Council acted line with sections 8-9, 18, 24-27 and 31 of the Care Act 2014 by:
• Carrying out an assessment and determining Mr B’s eligibility
• Setting a personal budget
• Sharing care and support plans with the family and noting their views
• Agreeing a direct payment and allowing the family to spend this in their preferred way.
58. The assessments made it clear Mr B wished to remain at home. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that an individual’s wishes are not the same as their needs and are not the paramount consideration. Both the assessment of needs and the decision on how to meet those needs were decisions for the Council.
59. The ward manager’s email of 26 October indicates Mr B was medically ready to be discharged and in fact the medical records indicate he had been ready for discharge far sooner and since shortly after the operation. And, Ms A had been asking the Council for the assessment a social worker completed on 16 October. The Council should have provided a copy of the assessment and a care and support plan given Ms A needed to make decisions about Mr B’s care after he left hospital. The Council did not provide a copy of the assessment until the last week of November. The delay was fault.

(ii)The Mental Capacity Act:

60. The outcome of the Council’s assessment of Mr B’s mental capacity was that he lacked capacity to make decisions about his care. This required the Council to involve the family in a discussion about what was in Mr B’s best interests. If agreement could not be reached, it should have considered an application to court. The failure to hold a best interests meeting was not in line with the Mental Capacity Act and was fault. It is not possible to conclude on a balance of probability what the outcome of the best interests meeting would have been.
61. The family’s position is that the Council was obliged to fund one-to-one night care at home because the hospital had put this in place, because Ms A felt she needed it to get a good night’s sleep and therefore he must have needed it at home. My view is that nothing in the Care Act, case law or in the Mental Capacity Act required the Council to fund night care at home. The difference between being at home and in hospital and how that may or may not impact on Mr B’s need for one to one supervision at night or otherwise, were decisions for the Council to take and which I have no grounds to criticise in this case.

Complaint c: The Council failed to provide a suitable available care home within Mr B’s personal budget

62. The Council had to offer a care home with a vacancy within Mr B’s personal budget. I am satisfied the Council did this by offering Mr B a placement at Care Home A. I accept the family felt this was too far for Mrs B to travel. But, 10 miles is a reasonable distance. I note Ms A spoke to an administrator at Care Home A and was told staff could not manage Mr B’s catheter. The Council confirmed in the complaint response that staff could. I am satisfied catheter care (like dealing with blockages and by-passing) could have been done with the support of district nurses and so Care Home A, which was a home within the Council’s contract to provide respite care and is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide nursing care, was a suitable placement for Mr B had the family chosen to use it. So I do not uphold this complaint.
63. The family chose to place Mr B in Care Home B for respite and paid a top-up. Once the family said they could no longer care for Mr B at home, the Council arranged a further assessment in May 2018 and decided to fund Care Home B permanently without the family needing to pay a top-up any longer. The Council acted in line with the Care Act 2014 which required a review of the care and support plan as circumstances had changed. Rather than move Mr B, it decided to fund the full cost of the placement. There was no fault.

Complaint d: The Council failed to properly assess Mr B’s need for night time care

64. I am satisfied the Council’s assessments properly considered Mr B’s need for night-time care and set out an appropriate way of meeting this need: residential care in a nursing home. I accept this was not the family’s preferred option, but the decision was for the Council which has scope in section 18 of the Care Act 2014 and in line with a judgment of the Court of Appeal, to meet needs in a way that is not in line with the person’s preferences.

Did the fault cause injustice?

65. The Council took too long to assess Mr B’s needs following Ms A’s contact in August 2017 indicating a high likelihood of carer breakdown. Had the Council carried out an assessment promptly, it is likely that Mr B would have been eligible for social care support and the Council would have offered the family a personal budget to meet his eligible needs. The family could then have used this towards the cost of paying towards the respite care they arranged privately. This was a loss of a service to which they had an entitlement.
66. I also find the Council delayed in sending Ms A a copy of the October 2017 assessment. I see no reason for the delay and in fact the evidence indicates a copy was retrieved from the post shortly after completion. This delay caused Ms A avoidable frustration and inconvenience and hindered her ability to plan Mr B’s care as she did not have written decisions about council funding or about his assessed eligible needs.
67. The failure to hold a best interests meeting was also fault and caused Ms A and Mr B avoidable distress and frustration. It meant their views were not considered within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act.

Agreed action

68. Our remedies aim to put a person back into the position they would have been ‘but for’ the fault. I recommend the Council pays Ms A a contribution towards the cost of the three-week private respite care placement that she arranged in August 2017. This should be at the agreed weekly personal budget rate from Mr B’s first social care assessment (£450), as on a balance of probability, this is what the Council would have agreed to fund had the assessment been carried out promptly. I have taken into account that the Council’s care and support plan of November 2017 included up to four weeks of respite care a year to allow Mrs B to have a break from her caring role. It is appropriate therefore, that the Council pays this as a contribution towards the private respite care the family arranged and funded.
69. I recommend the Council apologises to Ms A for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the delay in sending copies of Mr B’s assessment and care and support plan and by the failure to hold a best interests meeting. It should also make a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise this. The payment (£1500 in total) and apology should be made within one month of my final decision.
70. The Council has accepted the above recommendations.
71. Ms A seeks a payment for her loss of earnings, legal fees and additional care costs. There are no grounds for me to recommend these payments because our Guidance on Remedies says:
• We do not generally expect people to instruct a solicitor to make a complaint to a council or to us. Both processes are designed for lay people to use and there are no grounds to depart from our usual rule in this case. I consider the approach of pursuing every point in great detail as adopted by Ms A and her legal representative was disproportionate
• There is insufficient evidence the fault I have identified prevented Ms A from working or otherwise caused a loss of earnings
• There are no grounds to recommend the cost of private care to be reimbursed because I do not conclude the Council was at fault by not funding one to one night care at home
• I have not recommend payments to the late Mr B (for his distress in having to stay in hospital longer than necessary because of the Council’s delay in carrying out assessments) This is because the Ombudsman’s view is this distress is a personal injustice and we would not normally seek a remedy for it is the same way we might if the person was still living.

Back to top

Final decision

72. There was delay in carrying out a social care assessment in August 2017 for Mr B and in sending a copy of the assessment to Ms A. This meant Mr B did not receive a personal budget which would have enabled his family to arrange respite care. There was also a delay in sending Ms A a copy of a social care assessment which caused her avoidable frustration and inconvenience. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise and make the payments described in this statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman