Summary: Miss X complains about the failure of the Council to put in place a suitable package of care for her since the Ombudsman’s last investigation ended in March 2018. She also complains about various interactions she has had with the Council since then on many topics. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault in any of the complaints made by Miss X. It has made reasonable efforts to engage with Miss X and continues to offer her a care package it believes meets her needs, while she disputes the outcome of a Care Act assessment meeting in 2017.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the failure of the Council to put in place a suitable package of care for her since the Ombudsman’s last investigation ended in March 2018. She also complains about various interactions she has had with the Council since then about direct payments, council tax arrears, environmental health and the failure of her point of contact to be available regularly. Miss X says she is suffering significant physical and emotional distress because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the Council’s actions since March 2018, when the Ombudsman’s previous investigation ended.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 spoke with Miss X personally about her complaint on many occasions. The Ombudsman also funded an advocate who met with Miss X personally and worked with her to summarise her complaint into a written statement. That document guided my investigation.
8. I wrote to the Council to make enquiries and have reviewed the evidence it sent in response. This includes contemporaneous case notes, documents and accounts from officers.
9. I have considered the Council’s duties to Miss X under the Care Act 2014 and the Care and support statutory guidance issued by the government.
10. Miss X’s complaint statement referred to many incidents and matters she wanted to complain about covering a long period of time. Although I highlighted all Miss X’s concerns to the Council, it would be impossible to write an easily understandable decision statement without summarising them in my own words and combining them into themes where appropriate. The decision I have written below reflects that approach.
11. I shared a copy of my draft decision with Miss X and the Council. The Ombudsman again provided Miss X with access to an advocate and I invited both parties to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Background

12. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must assess all people regardless of their finances or whether the local authority thinks an individual has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
13. Miss X lives alone and says she has several physical disabilities and mental health conditions which leave her needing care. She has a particular anxiety around strangers being in her house. The Council accepts she is eligible for a care package providing support at home.
14. A previous investigation by the Ombudsman finished in March 2018 and did not find fault with the Council’s approach. We found the Council had offered an interim care package while completing a Care Act assessment and it was entitled to decide two carers needed to be present at each visit to Miss X’s home.

Miss X’s care package and access to care provision at home

15. Miss X says, since our previous investigation, the Council has failed to put in place the care package she needs. As a result, she says she had had no carers visiting her at all, to the detriment of her physical and mental health. Miss X says she is largely bed-bound and her personal care needs around washing, toileting and changing her bedding have been completely neglected because of the Council’s failings.
16. Miss X says she has to rely on elderly neighbours to bring her a limited selection of food, such as peanuts, but often has nothing in her cupboards. She has explained to the Ombudsman her great distress about her living conditions. She also says the Council has failed to provide her with a copy of her care plan.
17. The Council says it started a Care Act assessment for Miss X in November 2017. This was known at the time of the Ombudsman’s previous investigation. It says despite Miss X complaining about that assessment meeting, she has continually failed to explain exactly what she disputes about it. It says it provided a copy of its conclusions to Miss X’s then advocate and invited her to respond. Miss X says the advocate at first did not share the findings with her and then, when her social worker later provided another copy, she did not finish working through it with her before she dismissed her advocate in September 2018.
18. The Council says, as the Care Act assessment process never finished, Miss X does not have a care plan. It has however made many offers to Miss X of an interim care package. It says this would involve around 24 hours of care per week, including some time for shopping and cleaning. It agreed to use the specific care provider Miss X insisted on but still judged it necessary for two carers to be present for each call. Miss X disputes the need for two carers and says this will make the issue she has with strangers being in her home much worse. She has asked the Council to guarantee one of its managers will be present for each of the three calls per day, but it has declined to do this.
19. The Council also says through its regular interactions with Miss X, and those of other organisations which make referrals to it, it has decided Miss X’s needs have not changed enough since November 2017 to justify a new Care Act assessment. It also says it considers Miss X to have mental capacity.
20. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide what care package is suitable for Miss X or whether it is appropriate for it to insist there are two carers for each visit. Where suitably trained officers from the Council have made professional judgement decisions in consideration of all the facts and do so in line with the law and national and local policy, we cannot intervene.
21. I have considered the points made by Miss X and the Council and have reviewed the case notes kept by officers since March 2018. I have concluded the Council’s actions are not fault. It has clearly tried to engage with Miss X since our last investigation and has offered her a significant care package while they resolve their dispute. There is evidence the Council has, at times, offered concessions to Miss X and got as far as arranging to start the interim package within days, only for Miss X to then raise further objections. It has made the offer of the interim package of care on many occasions and, as it stands, the Council says it is still available should Miss X want it.

Advocacy

22. Miss X complains about the failure of the Council to find her an advocate, despite her asking for one for around a year. She says she needs someone to help her with day-to-day tasks such as opening her post, responding to correspondence, filling out forms and supporting her in complaining where necessary. This is community advocacy. Miss X has also told the Ombudsman she has issues with the few local charitable organisations that provide advocates and will not work with them. She says she has had to resort to calling other organisations herself but without any success.
23. The Council points out Miss X had an advocate, arranged through another organisation, until she dismissed her in September 2018. It accepts Miss X would benefit from having an advocate and would fund such a service if necessary. However, it says it has been unable to find one for her despite efforts to do so. It also says a further complication is Miss X’s refusal to work with her assigned social worker without good reason. Her social worker could help with some of the tasks she has problems with.
24. I have considered the views of both parties here. I am not aware of any statutory duty on the Council to provide access to an advocate for Miss X, outside of the Care Act assessment process specifically. The Council has determined Miss X’s requests are for community advocacy and two organisations it has contacted have agreed with that view.
25. There are clear limits on the availability of advocates who are local to Miss X, prepared to work with her, who she finds acceptable and do community advocacy. The Council does not have an in-house service but the evidence I have seen supports its position it will fund it should an organisation agree to help.
26. The Council’s case notes show it has contacted two organisations but found them unwilling or unable to work with Miss X. It has tried to explain the difficulties it has faced to Miss X, but she has refused to accept this and has sometimes been abusive in response. This has made fully explaining and managing Miss X’s expectations difficult, particularly as she cannot read or respond to written correspondence.
27. There is no legal duty on the Council to provide Miss X with an advocate and it has made no specific promises to do so by a certain date. On this basis, I do not find fault with its approach in this case.

Financial assessment in late 2018

28. Miss X complains about a financial assessment carried out by the Council in late 2018. Miss X says an officer came to carry out an assessment for discretionary council tax discount. She says the officer discussed personal and sensitive financial information in front of her neighbour, who was only there to reassure Miss X because of her anxiety about strangers in her home. Later, when she complained, she says an officer from the Local Welfare Assistance team came to her house in the morning without an appointment. This was despite her asking him only to come in the afternoon by appointment.
29. The Council says its Local Welfare Assistance team spoke with Miss X by phone in November 2018 and completed an online claim form for a community care grant on her behalf. A home visit then took place around the end of the month to complete a discretionary council tax discount application form. The Council says although Miss X’s neighbour was present during that visit, he was there at Miss X’s invitation and at no point did she ask him to leave. In fact, the officer who attended says Miss X volunteered lots of information about her health issues and family circumstances completely unprompted. The officer accepts she asked Miss X’s neighbour to countersign the application form, to confirm it reflected what she had said and as Miss X could not read it herself.
30. The Council says a manager tried to visit Miss X after she made complaints about the Local Welfare Assistance team. This was despite it agreeing to pay her a grant. It says officers made two visits – one without notice and one having written first – but neither was successful as Miss X did not answer the door.
31. I have no information about the time of the visits to Miss X’s address, nor what she told officers about her availability, and so I cannot determine if there was fault in this instance. However, I cannot see how a single morning visit would have caused a significant injustice to Miss X. The Council’s records suggest Miss X made phone calls after the failed visits in which she was abusive to the staff in the Local Welfare Assistance team. She could have used these calls instead to express her preference for an afternoon appointment.
32. In respect of the November 2018 visit, as I was not there at the time, I must decide on the balance of probabilities what I think most likely happened. There is no dispute Miss X invited her neighbour to be present in her home during the meeting. She knew the meeting was to discuss discretionary council tax discount and so it would be reasonable to assume there would be a discussion about her personal financial arrangements. In the circumstances I cannot find it was fault for the Council’s officer to engage in a conversation of that nature with Miss X with her neighbour present. I cannot see a practical way the meeting could otherwise have taken place.

Asbestos dust and neighbouring building work

33. Miss X has complained to the Ombudsman about the Council’s response to dust entering her home as a result of a neighbour’s building work which started in March 2019. She has particular concerns it is asbestos dust and felt that made it an emergency.
34. The Council says it has responded to Miss X’s reports of disruption caused by the building work her neighbour is carrying out. Its records show a senior Occupational Therapist who visited Miss X in May 2019 passed on her concerns by email to the relevant departments. Officers spoke with Miss X and the Council says they gave her standard advice. The Council also sent a warning letter to her neighbour about the dust complaints. There was further contact from Miss X in July 2019. The Council says a team leader spoke with her and explained officers needed to witness the issues caused by the dust themselves. He gave Miss X a telephone number to call and carried out a site visit the following day. However, no builders were on site at the time.
35. I can see the Council has taken some action in this case. It has spoken to Miss X, given her suitable advice on when to make future reports and warned her neighbour about the dust. It is difficult to see what more the Council can do without the evidence it needs to support further action. In the absence of that, I am satisfied its actions so far are not fault.

Miss X’s single point of contact and contact in emergencies

36. Miss X has told the Ombudsman she should contact a named manager in social services at the Council when she needs to call it. This is because she refuses to speak with her assigned social worker and feels the staff who work on the duty telephone line know too little about her background and mishandle her calls.
37. Miss X says the named manager, who has recently left the Council, was often difficult to contact and would deliberately avoid her calls. She says she often had to make many attempts to get through to him, and his colleagues simply told her to call back another time. Miss X says the Council’s approach is harassment and bullying behaviour and she does not feel supported by it. She also worried she had no one to contact in emergencies out of hours.
38. The Council says it had to insist on Miss X having a single point of contact because she would routinely call multiple members of staff across the Council about an issue. This made it difficult to respond to her requests, which often involved repeat information and caused a degree of alarm in other departments. It wrote to her in April 2017 to explain why. It says she was also often verbally abusive and has caused significant distress to some who have answered her calls. In the absence of the named manager, it points out Miss X could always have called her assigned social worker or left a message with other staff members. The Council’s view of emergency situations is Miss X can either call the duty social services telephone line or summon the actual emergency services on 999. It says she has a proven ability to do both.
39. The Council’s arrangement, in putting in place a specific point of contact for Miss X, appears to me to be a recognised action for it to take under its own policy on unreasonable behaviour. It has followed the policy by warning Miss X and then putting in place a restriction on her contact. Although it wrote to her, and Miss X says she cannot read, she clearly understood the meaning of the restriction as she also recognised the named manager as her point of contact.
40. The evidence I have seen in the case notes shows the named manager would speak to Miss X when he could. He clearly had his normal daily work to attend to as well. The Council had not promised Miss X unfettered access to him and it is reasonable to expect there would be times he was unavailable. In his absence, Miss X still had methods of contacting the Council, but refused to accept them. Her expectation of being able to speak to even more senior managers within the Council in such a situation is not something it has to facilitate. The case notes also show the named manager had many long conversations with Miss X and would only end calls if she became especially abusive. Overall, I have concluded the Council’s approach to this is not fault.

Outcome of urgent care referral in February 2019

41. Miss X says she had contact with the local ‘Rapid Response’ service after a GP referral and it said it would provide carers. She says the Council then blocked this and no carers ever came. She says it wrote to her in February 2019.
42. The Council says it was not a party to the GP’s referral. It says it believes this complaint refers to when the local hospital’s Homeward Team assessed Miss X in December 2018. It understands she refused to engage and refused various forms of intervention, including physiotherapy and floating support. The Homeward Team eventually discharged her.
43. The circumstances here do not give rise to fault. There is no evidence the Council in any way blocked the Homeward Team from carrying out its assessments or offering services to Miss X. The Homeward Team is an NHS unit and so outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. It appears the Council knew of the decision after it happened and is not responsible for it.

Back to top

Final decision

44. There is no evidence of fault in respect of Miss X’s various points of complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

45. I have not investigated any parts of Miss X’s complaint relating to events before March 2018. This applies where she was aware of the circumstances and could have reasonably complained about something at the time of the Ombudsman’s previous investigation. I considered Miss X’s request for me to look back further but can see no good reason to do so.
46. Miss X’s complaint about the refusal of a social worker to help with a discretionary council tax discount application in 2017 is one such complaint. The Council also says Miss X’s council tax account is currently in a small amount of credit and it had put the discount in place some time ago. On that basis, as there is no ongoing injustice to Miss X, I will not investigate that part of her complaint further.
47. I will also not investigate Miss X’s concerns about the Council’s decision she owes it over £30,000 in relation to an old direct payment account. We knew about the debt at the time of our previous investigation and the investigator in that case considered it.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman