Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide clear information and guidance about the adult social care assessment process after she asked for support for her adult son, Mr Y. She said the Council also delayed in giving Mr Y support from the correct service. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £200 for the avoidable distress caused by the fault. That remedies the injustice caused. The Council has agreed to review what information it provides to people accessing adult social care for autism support.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide clear information and guidance about the adult social care assessment process after she asked for support for her adult son, Mr Y. She said the Council also delayed in giving Mr Y support from the correct service. Mrs X said that meant Mr Y did not receive any support with education, training or employment for twelve months. She said she has experienced avoidable time, distress and anxiety in trying to access support for Mr Y.

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 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)
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 information provided and discussed the complaint with Mrs X.
6. I considered the Council’s response to enquiries.
7. Mrs X and the Council both had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law

8. Councils must assess anybody in their area who appears to be in need of care services. If the Council assesses the person as having eligible care and support needs, it must produce a care and support plan, specifying how it will meet those needs.
9. The Council must set a personal budget as part of the care and support plan. That sets out the money the Council has allocated to meet the assessed need. That allows the person being assessed to make an informed decision about the care they receive.
10. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance (the Guidance) outlines what councils must do if they receive a request for adult social care support. It states that at a person’s first contact with the Council they must be given as much information as possible about the assessment process, including what to expect during the process, the timescale of assessment and complaints’ processes.
11. The Guidance does not provide a statutory timeframe for completing an assessment but states “An assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale taking into account the urgency of needs and a consideration of any fluctuation in those needs”.

The Council’s services for adults with autism

12. The Council has a policy on supporting adults with autism. It finalised that policy in February 2019. It states it has five different ‘pathways’ for an autistic adult to access support depending on their additional needs and previous service involvement.
13. The Council’s Children and Young Adults with Disabilities (CYAD) Service provides support through one pathway. This service works with young adults aged 18-25 who have a diagnosis of autism and a learning disability. It defines a learning disability as a person with an IQ below 70.
14. The CYAD Service completes adult care assessments and if eligible, provides financial support to meet the person’s needs. If the CYAD Service does not assess a person as eligible for support, it signposts to other support services.
15. For adults with autism but who do not have a diagnosed learning disability, support is provided by the Central and North West London (CNWL) NHS Trust. The CNWL provides adult autism services and completes adult care assessments on behalf of the Council. If eligible for social care support, the person will be offered services through a personal budget.

What happened

16. Mrs X contacted the Council in December 2018. She asked it for support with her 24-year-old son, who at the time, was doing nothing. She said Mr Y had autism and had previously been supported by the Council though an Education, Health and Care Plan.
17. The Council spoke to Mrs X to get information about Mr Y so it could decide which team would be most appropriate to complete his assessment. It identified that Mr Y had attended a specialist school therefore may be eligible for support by the CYAD Service.
18. The Council allocated Mr Y’s case on 22 January. The social worker visited Mrs X and Mr Y on 14 February 2019 to complete the care assessment. Following that they discussed Mr Y’s assessment with the CYAD Head of Service. The Council did not assess Mr Y as eligible for support from the CYAD Service as he did not have a diagnosed learning disability. It decided to refer him to adult services in the CNWL for autism support. The assessment completed by the CYAD Service said that Mr Y did not have an eligible need.
19. Mrs X emailed the Council to follow up the outcome of the assessment. The social worker telephoned her and left a voicemail message saying Mr Y did not meet the CYAD service criteria as he did not have a learning disability. The social worker had a further telephone conversation with Mrs X. The case records indicate Mrs X was not happy with its decision not to accept Mr Y’s referral. She said that Mr Y did have a learning disability.
20. Mrs X complained to the Council on 9 March 2019 that:
• the social worker had left her a voicemail message saying Mr Y “only has autism and not a learning disability”; and
• it had failed to allow her to attend the CYAD Panel to put Mr Y’s case forward for its services.
21. The CYAD Service’s Team Manager responded to Mrs X’s complaint on 22 March 2019. They:
• apologised for leaving a voicemail message and that on reflection the social worker realised they should have called her back;
• explained Mr Y was not eligible for support with the CYAD Service as he did not have a diagnosed learning disability;
• said that the autism pathway was being refreshed therefore when the social worker visited they were not aware of it; and
• provided information on the formal complaint route.
22. Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s response. Subsequently, the Council sent a stage one complaint response to Mrs X in May 2019. It apologised for not always contacting Mrs X back. It suggested that a telephone conversation might be more useful than email to discuss what services Mr Y was eligible for.
23. On 8 August the Council wrote to Mrs X. It provided the contact details of the allocated worker from the CNWL who would be assessing Mr Y. It said Mrs X could escalate her complaint to stage two if she remained unhappy.
24. Mrs X responded. She said she was unhappy the Council had given her incorrect information about its services and that there was a delay in the support provided to Mr Y. She said that the Council had misled her by ‘inference’.
25. The CNWL worker met with Mr Y on 30 August 2019. They completed a further adult social care assessment and assessed Y as having eligible needs for support with education and employment.
26. The Council sent its final response to Mrs X in September 2019. It acknowledged that:
• accessing the Council’s adult support service had not been ‘a clear and well signposted journey’ for her;
• it had delayed in responding to some of her queries and contacts; and
• it should have chased up its referral to the CNWL for Mr Y.
27. The Council did not accept that it had misled Mrs X by inference. It said it had told Mrs X why Mr Y was not eligible for CYAD Service support.
28. The Council offered Mrs X a financial remedy of £200 for the avoidable distress and inconvenience and as a good will gesture.
29. Mrs X and Mr Y met with the CMWL for a support planning meeting on 23 October 2019. The Council said that in that meeting CNWL identified that Mr Y was already being supported by the appropriate employment services and was not eligible for other support services. It agreed to fund twelve fitness sessions and a graphic design course for Mr Y. CNWL sent Mr Y a copy of the support plan and his personal budget on 19 November 2019.

The Council’s response to enquiries

30. The Council said there was an initial delay in allocating Mr Y’s case in the CNWL service. Following allocation, the CNWL said there were several reasons for the delay in finalising the care and support plan including:
• it was waiting for the completed financial assessment from its joint assessment team;
• that the assessing officer had been on leave in September 2019; and
• Mrs X wanted to attend the assessment, so her availability had to be considered.
31. The Council said the CNWL service aimed to complete the personal budget assessment within eight weeks and that this fell just outside that timeframe.
32. It said the CNWL had referred Mr Y to the gym, but because of an unpaid invoice that support had not started as soon as expected. That support started in March 2020.

My findings

The Council failed to provide clear information and guidance about the adult social care assessment process after she asked for support for her son.

33. The Council has already accepted that Mrs X’s experience of the adult services “was not a clear and well sign posted journey”. The Council did not provide Mrs X with clear information about how it would assess Mr Y’s support needs or the different types of support available to Mr Y. It did not provide information about how long the assessment process would take or what an adult social care assessment was. Nor did it explain what would happen on transfer of Mr Y’s case from the CYAD Service to the CNWL service. That was fault. That caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty as to the support Mr Y would receive.

The Council delayed in allocating support from the correct service.

34. The Council’s CYAD Service initially assessed Mr Y. It took the Service 12 weeks following referral to give Mrs X an outcome. I do not consider that to be a significant delay. The Council was not at fault.
35. The Council told Mrs X on 6 March that it would refer Mr Y to CNWL for support. The CNWL met with Mr Y on 30 August 2019. That meant there was a delay of just under six months in Mr Y accessing the correct support service. That delay was fault. Unlike the CYAD Service, the CNWL did assess Mr Y as having eligible care needs. So, the delay in Mr Y accessing CNWL meant he did not receive support as soon as he should have. However, that has not caused Mr Y a significant injustice and Mr Y is now receiving support. It did cause Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
36. The Council has apologised to Mrs X and offered £200 to remedy the avoidable distress caused by lack of clarity in the assessment process and delays in Mr Y accessing the correct service. The Council’s remedy is in-line with the Ombudsman guidance.

Mr Y has not received the support as specified in his care and support plan.

37. Mr Y’s care and support plan agreed for him to receive a direct payment for a college Course and for twelve sessions at the gym.
38. At the time Mrs X complained Mr Y was not accessing the gym. The Council has identified that was because of an unpaid invoice, it said that had been resolved. That has remedied any injustice caused.
39. The Council said it made a direct payment to Mr Y in November 2019 to access the college course he identified. The Council was not at fault.

Agreed action

40. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to pay Mrs X the £200 it has already offered.
41. Within three months of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Remind all staff involved in requests for care act assessments of the need to provide information about the assessment process and timeframes for assessment.
• Review how it provides information to people about its autism pathways and services to ensure it clearly explains the options available and how people can access the services
42. It should provide the Ombudsman with evidence to show it has done this.

Back to top

Final decision

43. There was fault in how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s request for a care act assessment. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman