Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to assess, or review, his, his wife’s or adult son’s social care needs. The Council was not at fault in the way it offered to assess their needs.

The complaint

1. Mr X, his wife, Mrs X, and adult son Mr Y complained the Council, over a number of years, has failed to assess or review their social care needs or Mr X’s needs as a carer. They believe they may have missed out on social care services as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. 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 have considered the information provided by Mr X and information provided by the Council in relation to our initial enquiries. I have considered the relevant law and guidance.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and I considered the comments I receive in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Events before August 2018

7. 26B (1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1974 says the permitted period to complain to the Ombudsman is 12 months beginning on the day on which the person affected first had notice of the matter. The Act goes on to say we may disapply these requirements in relation to a particular complaint. When deciding whether to investigate a late complaint we consider two tests, regardless of the seriousness of the allegations or the claimed injustice. These are:
• are we confident that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision, and
• are we satisfied that the complainant could not be reasonably expected to have complained sooner. Our policy gives guidance on when to disapply this. It includes when a complainant has not at any time allowed the matter to rest for more than a few months.
8. Mr X has raised issues about the lack of support going back a significant number of years. In January 2016 he complained to us and we referred his complaint to the Council to consider. I obtained some case records from the Council which showed the Council was involved with Mr X following this, it assessed his and Mrs X’s needs and installed some bathroom adaptations. It closed the case in July 2016. Also in 2016 it contacted Mr X to arrange to review Mr Y’s support plan. Mr X said he did not want this to go ahead as the Council owed him money. The notes record Mr X said they all managed together. The officer suggested Mr Y might like to do activities and it would provide Mr X and Mrs X with respite but Mr X said Mr Y ‘was happy doing what he is doing now’. The officer wrote to Mr X confirming they had cancelled the review and that Mr X had declined a further appointment. Later in 2016 it wrote to advise their case was to be closed.
9. There is no correspondence again until August 2019 when Mr X complained to us and the Council.
10. Mr X has known about the Ombudsman Service and has complained to us previously on other issues. If Mr X was dissatisfied with the way the Council dealt with him in 2016 he could have complained to us at that time. There is no evidence to show he continued to raise the matter with the Council between July 2016 and August 2019. In addition, I cannot now reach a fair, sound and meaningful decision on whether Mr X, Mrs X and Mr Y had unmet care needs in 2016 or earlier. I will therefore not exercise my discretion to consider events before August 2018, which is 12 months before Mr X complained to us in August 2019.

Relevant law and guidance

11. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to 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.
12. People may approach a local authority for an assessment, or be referred by a third party.
13. An adult with possible care and support needs or a carer may choose not to have an assessment. In these circumstances local authorities do not have to carry out an assessment. Where an individual refuses a needs or carer’s assessment but at a later time requests that an assessment is carried out, the local authority must do so.

What happened

14. The following summarises the key events and correspondence:
15. Mr X and Mrs X have health problems and disabilities. Mr Y, their adult son, has learning disabilities.
16. Mr X wrote to the Council in August 2019. He said none of the family had received any support from the Council. In a further letter in September 2019 Mr X said he was making a formal complaint against the Council for its failure to provide adult social care support. The Council wrote to Mr X later that month to confirm it had asked officers to contact the family to discuss any adult social care support they required.
17. In September 2019 the Council telephoned to speak to Mr X. Mr Y advised Mr and Mrs X were visiting another relative. The Council called a further three times but received no answer and could not leave a message. An officer spoke to Mr X in late September 2019 asking if Mr X wanted to arrange a review for Mr Y. Mr X said he was not at home and to call the following week. An officer telephoned Mr X again to offer Mr Y an assessment. Mr X refused this and referred to his concerns regarding highways. The officer wrote to Mr Y with contact information should the family require social care support.
18. Mr X wrote to the Council that there was no point writing to Mr Y as he could not read or understand correspondence. The Council responded in early October 2019 offering a needs assessment to look at what support Mr Y may need and to consider whether Mr X needed support as his carer. They offered to visit and suggested some available dates.
19. The Council wrote to Mr X again in late November 2019 asking that he contact them to discuss completing an up-to-date assessment of need for Mrs X. The letter was not signed but provided the sender’s contact details, name and job title. Mr X responded that he had previously requested a meeting and referred to his own health conditions and the needs of his son. He sent a further letter that he would not respond to unsigned letters, that correspondence should be in writing and that he offered to attend a joint meeting with adult social care and highways. We asked the Council to consider Mr X’s complaint about adult social care through its complaints procedure.
20. An officer visited Mr X in February 2020 to discuss his complaint and agree a complaints resolution plan. The outcomes Mr X wanted were needs assessments for him, Mrs X and Mr Y. They explained to Mr X they would not look at any highways issues.
21. The officer wrote to Mr X about his complaint in April 2020. The letter set out they had intended completing referrals for Mr X, Mrs X and Mr Y. However due to the COVID-19 pandemic assessments were being completed by phone so they decided to wait a while. As the situation was unchanged they asked if Mr X was happy for them to submit the referrals for telephone assessment or wait until the restrictions were lifted.
22. In April 2020 the carers association called Mr X to ask how they were managing. Mr X said nothing had changed. The Council gave Mr X advice about an organisation that could help with shopping, medication and telephone support.
23. We contacted the Council in June 2020 asking about progress with the complaint. The Council said Mr X had not responded to the officer’s letter and it agreed to follow this up.
24. The Council wrote to Mr X and Mr Y in July 2020 offering a care act assessment to him, Mrs X and Mr Y. It gave a number to call to discuss ‘having an assessment for you and /or your wife and the options for completing one, such as a self-assessment, or a telephone assessment in the first instance’. The Council wrote again to Mr X later in July to discuss the options of self-assessment or a telephone assessment which would not require anyone to attend their home. They explained this assessment needed to be completed before any support or services could be offered to Mr or Mrs X.
25. It did not receive a response so sent a further letter in August 2020 that the referral would be closed as it had not received a response.
26. The Council wrote to Mr Y again in August 2020 to offer a needs assessment. Mr X responded in late August 2020. He said that due to the COVID 19 pandemic they would not accept visitors. The Council replied and asked Mr X to read the letter to Mr Y. It explained an assessment would be completed over the phone due to the COVID-19 pandemic and asked Mr X to contact the Council if he wished to progress this.
27. Mr X responded in late August 2020. He referred to his ongoing dispute about highways which he considered the reason he had been denied an assessment previously. The Council responded asking Mr X to write or telephone to confirm a date and time when an assessment could commence. Mr X responded that he could not move forward until the officer had completed their investigation into his complaint.
28. The Council wrote to Mr X in September 2020 with a final response to his complaint. It noted the Council made a number of attempts to offer needs assessments to the family. It had also offered support for Mr Y which was declined. It recommended the Council contact Mr X in writing and not by phone in line with his wishes. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

Findings

29. I have seen no evidence Mr X contacted the Council to request an assessment or adult care support between August 2018 and August 2019. When Mr X contacted the Council in August 2019 it offered to carry out assessment of him and other family members. An officer also suggested dates they could visit in November 2019 to assess Mr Y’s needs. Mr X did not take steps to arrange the assessments.
30. Another officer wrote to Mr X in November 2019. Mr X was unhappy a Council letter was not properly signed. The letter should have been signed. However, it did contain the relevant contact details and officer’s name. The lack of a signature did not prevent Mr X from contacting the Council to arrange an assessment. There is no fault in the way the Council has responded to Mr X’s requests for social care support.
31. In 2020, in response to the national lockdown, Mr X did not want a face-to-face meeting due to COVID-19, as is his right. However, the Council offered to arrange telephone assessments or self-assessments. Given the difficult circumstances, there is no fault by the Council in offering assessments this way during the COVID-19 pandemic. It remains open to Mr X to contact the Council to pursue these options.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

33. Mr X also complained about a highways matter. We have considered this issue in the past and will not investigate a complaint about the same issue. In addition, Mr X previously took court action in relation to this issue and the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters which have been subject to court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman