Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed completing Mr F’s assessment, care and support plan and in reassessing his disability related expenditure. It also failed to seek expert advice during the assessment. The fault caused a loss of service and avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise, make payments, seek specialist advice and review Mr F’s care and support plan following that advice.

The complaint

1. Ms E, a representative, complains for Mr F that Kent County Council (the Council):
1. Provided a direct payment/care package that was not enough to meet Mr F’s needs
2. Did not meet his communication needs or provide an advocate
3. Reduced his disability related expenditure.
2. Ms E says this has caused Mr F avoidable distress and suffering because his needs have not been met. She wants the Council to provide Mr F with a suitable care package.

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 complaints to the Council and its responses
• The complaint to us
• Records described in the next section of this statement
• Comments from the Council.
6. Ms E, Ms F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. 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)
8. 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)
9. The Care Act spells out the duty to meet eligible needs (needs which meet the eligibility criteria). (Care Act 2014, section 18)
10. 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)

11. 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)
12. 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))
13. 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)
14. There are three ways in which a personal budget can be used:
• As a managed account held by the local authority with support provided in line with the persons wishes;
• As a managed account held by a third party with support provided in line with the persons wishes;
• As a direct payment (a direct payment is money a person gives to a council to meet agreed needs). (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)
15. Statutory Guidance explains a council should review a care and support plan at least every year, on request or in response to a change in circumstances. The purpose of a review is to see how a care and support plan has been working and to decide if any revisions need to be made to it. The council should act promptly after receiving a request for a review. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Paragraphs 13.19-21 and 13.32)
16. 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)

17. Care and Support Statutory Guidance (CSSG) is statutory guidance which councils should normally follow. CSSG says councils can charge people for care they provide and if there is a charge, this should follow national regulations on charging.
18. Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) is expenses a person has which are connected to their disability. DRE is an allowance in a person’s financial assessment which reduces their weekly care charge. DRE can include specialist items and services such as wheelchairs. They can include extra heating or laundry costs, equipment and aids and regular payments such as wheelchair insurance and gardening costs. CSSG says:
• A council must leave a person with enough money to pay for necessary DRE to meet needs that are not being met by the local authority
• The care plan may be a starting point for considering DRE, but councils need to be flexible. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance Annex C, 39 and 41)
19. The Council has a standard weekly DRE allowance of £17. People can have an individual assessment if they do not think the standard allowance is enough to cover their disability expenses.
20. CSSG says assessors who are assessing people with complex needs may need support from an expert when carrying out an assessment to ensure needs are fully captured. It goes on to say:
• Assessors should have specialist training to assess an adult with autism or consult with someone who has expertise (paragraph 6.89)
• An expert must be involved in an assessment where a person is deafblind. People are deafblind if their combined sight and hearing impairment causes difficulties with communication, access to information and mobility. (paragraph 6.91)

What happened

Background

21. Mr F is deaf and uses a wheelchair; he lives alone in a bungalow with adaptations and has support from an assistance dog. He also has an eye condition. Mr F has no speech and his physical disability prevents him from using sign language, although he understands British Sign Language (BSL) and can communicate by email and by using a tablet.
22. Mr F’s care and support plan of 2015 set out his eligible needs, his personal goals and outcomes and described the care the Council would fund to meet each of his eligible needs. Personal assistants (PAs) and agency carers supported Mr F with personal care, cooking, shopping, cleaning, socialising in the community and communication support. The care and support plan set out Mr F’s charge and his personal budget which he took as a direct payment. Mr F received funding for 45 minutes a day of agency care and 40 hours a week for PAs. There were further payments for administration of the direct payment, holiday cover, a contingency payment, dog insurance and £2000 for yearly ‘respite/holiday care to give his parents a break during the year, Mr F uses this to pay for a holiday.’
23. Ms E met with a case manager from the disability team, Mr F and an interpreter in the middle of February 2019. After the meeting, Ms E emailed the case manager about what the holiday payment could be used for. The case manager said she would check with her seniors. Ms E emailed again asking for extra care hours on Wednesday and Friday.
24. In March, the case manager confirmed Mr F could use his direct payment to pay for care while he was on holiday. Also in March, the case manager and a BSL interpreter met with Mr F to go through his new direct payment agreement.
25. Mr F’s DRE allowance was reduced in April. This meant his weekly charge (client contribution) went up. The Council acknowledged in later correspondence there was no financial assessment before implementing the reduction.
26. Ms E complained to the Council in April raising the same issues as in her complaint to us. She said:
• Mr F’s care and support plan had no break down explaining how the funding met his eligible needs
• He needed support with paperwork due to his autism and the autism team should support him. He also needed support from a BSL interpreter to understand assessments and care and support plans.
• The hourly rate the Council allowed for a PA was less than the cost charged by PAs who are fluent in BSL
• The funding previously called ‘a holiday payment’ was now called a ‘respite payment’. They were not sure why this had changed
• He wanted additional hours on a Wednesday and Friday to access the community. And the current funding was not enough to meet his nutritional needs
• His mother could no longer provide care on a Sunday
• His client contribution had not been reassessed for 6 years.
27. The Council’s first complaint response in May said:
• It had referred Mr F to the sensory team for advice about communication
• There would be a fresh social care assessment which would break down the hours allocated for each eligible need. Mr F could use the direct payment flexibly
• It would look into if Mr F met the criteria for support from the autism team
• The Council pays a fixed hourly rate for PAs.
• The term respite is used because it gives a carer a break. The normal amount allowed is four weeks a year
• The Council would also reassess Mr F’s DRE
28. The sensory team carried out an assessment of Mr F and decided to provide him with equipment to use during his holiday so he could summon his PA at night.
29. Ms E met with the case manager and Mr F in May to discuss his DRE. Ms E proved a list of items for the Council to consider. In June, Ms E emailed the case manager to ask when the DRE would be reassessed. The case manager said this was in progress.
30. The case manager carried out a social care assessment in July 2019. This noted:
• Mr F communicated using texts and emails and he preferred short statements. A signing interpreter, his representative and his mother were at the assessment
• One of the PAs could sign and so if there was an appointment, she could go with him and support him around communication and advocacy needs.
• He was able to express his wishes and feelings well.
• He paid people privately for window cleaning and gardening
• Care was a mix of agency care and PAs, 42.5 hours a week
• There would be a referral to the autism team, but Mr F needed a diagnosis of autism.
31. An occupational therapist completed an assessment at the same time as the case manager’s social care assessment. The outcome was to provide Mr F with some equipment to use in the home.
32. The case manager drew up a care and support plan for Mr F after the assessment. The dates on the plan I have seen are confusing. The first page says the plan was reviewed in December 2019. Then later, it says the service started in July 2019. Although the Council has not disclosed a plan dated July 2019, it told me there had been various ‘iterations’ of the care and support plan and it appears the case manager sent Ms E a copy of this document in July as she refers to it in email correspondence the following month. The plan set out Mr F’s eligible needs under each of the domains described in paragraph 10. It described in detail the support Mr F needed and gave his weekly personal budget and charge. The Council provided funding for 20.5 hours of PA support and 21 hours a week of support from a PA who used BSL. There was also funding for agency care (one hour a day) and a yearly payment for care when Mr F was away from home. The care and support plan had a break down of the time allocated to support Mr F in each domain of need.
33. Ms E escalated Mr F’s complaint in July. She said previous assessments and care and support plans were not in line with the Care Act 2014. And, Mr F had been told his charge had gone up, but not why.
34. Ms E also wrote to the case manager in August. She asked for:
• A copy of the assessment as she had only got a copy of the care and support plan.
• A decision on Mr F’s DRE
• Assistance from the sensory team for Mr F
• Assurance that the assessment was done by someone with expertise in working with deafblind adults
• Separate funding of 5 hours a week for a BSL advocate with autism experience to assist Mr F with paperwork, calls and enquiries.
35. Ms E also asked for additional hours of funding for meeting nutrition needs, personal hygiene, managing toilet needs, being appropriately clothed, managing home environment, maintaining relationships and accessing the community. She asked for 68 hours a week in total.
36. The Council’s second complaint response in August said:
• It accepted it could have provided a care and support plan earlier, but the case was complex and this caused a delay
• The care and support plan contained appropriate detail to explain how Mr F’s needs could be met
• It completed assessments in partnership with Mr F
• There was a referral to the sensory team in May. The social worker would also discuss Mr F’s case with the autism team
• A review/reassessment took place in July 2019 resulting in an updated care and support plan but there was no change in care hours
• The social worker will also consider whether further training for Mr F’s PAs is needed as they have been working with Mr F for a long time.
• The existing DRE allowance should have remained in place pending the outcome of the review of the financial assessment. The Council was sorry for this
• The Council does not recognise the term ‘holiday payment’. Mr F is entitled to go on holiday and he can use his direct payment flexibly to fund his PAs while he is away from home, but this is not the same as respite care.
37. Ms E sent a third complaint letter in September, saying the Council had not addressed the issues she had been raising about the faults in the care and support plan, Mr F’s DRE had not yet been decided, she had still not received a copy of the care assessment and the Council’s respite policy was not clear.
38. Mr F received a copy of the draft assessment of need in the middle of September
39. The case notes indicate the finance team assessed Mr F’s DRE in September and added a weekly allowance of £53 (in addition to the standard weekly allowance of £17) and wrote to Mr F to inform him. The new DRE allowance was backdated to April 2019.
40. The Council replied to Ms E’s complaint letter (see paragraph 37) in October saying:
• The case manager had started an assessment in July, this was being finalised and the Council would ensure Mr F’s care and support needs were being met in line with the Care Act
• A joint visit with the autism team had been arranged
• Her request for additional hours would be addressed when the assessment process was complete
• The DRE allowance should not have been removed without a review. The Council was sorry. If Mr F had lost out financially, (for example, if he had lost interest), the Council would remedy this
• Respite care is to allow unpaid carers to take a break from their caring role. It is not necessarily a helpful term because the Care Act just refers to meeting needs
• The Council would: (1) complete the assessment and care and support plan (2) complete the DRE assessment and (3) review the care and support plan within 6 months.
41. Also in October, Mr F emailed the case manager about problems with his care and support. The deaf PA who could sign had left in August. Mr F told the case manager none of his PAs knew BSL and he needed support to sort out a new PA because his mother could no longer help. Mr F said he had autism and that the Council had lost the reports about this. Mr F received a final copy of his assessment of need at the end of October, this included some changes he had requested.
42. The Council allocated a worker from the sensory team to advise the case manager. The sensory team worker visited Mr F at home to help with an application for a new assistance dog and emailed Mr F information about a website advertising deaf/BSL trained PAs.
43. At the end of October, the case manager visited Mr F along with Ms E and an interpreter. The case manager provided a list of accepted and refused items of DRE. She noted the family were not happy the Council did not agree all their DRE.
44. At the start of November, Ms E chased the case manager for a response to her letter in August requesting an increase in the hourly rate for PA’s as they needed to know BSL. Ms E said Mr F needed an advocate who could meet his communication needs.
45. The Council’s direct payment support term advertised for BSL PAs for Mr F. There was little response to the advert.
46. In the middle of November, Mr F emailed the case manager saying he had been without a deaf/BSL PA for 12 weeks and was struggling. He said there was a specialist agency who had BSL PAs which could support him and wanted to know if he could use this agency.
47. The worker from the sensory team exchanged emails with the specialist agency in November about costs. Mr F emailed the case manager to say his parents and the other PA (who was not BSL trained) were covering but he’d had no luck with recruitment.
48. Ms E complained again to the Council in November, saying the issues she raised in previous complaint correspondence had not been properly addressed. She said:
• The meeting about DRE in October was a disaster and it was the first time they had been asked for receipts or invoices to evidence DRE
• They had still not had a copy of the social care assessment
• They had not had a response to the request for additional hours
• There was still no advocate and there had been no visit by the autism team
• Mr F’s PA had left so he has been without full support for several weeks. He cannot find a replacement PA. Please can the Council fund the specialist agency’s rates
• Mr F could not understand the term ‘flexible’ and he would like to know exactly what he can use the annual ‘respite’ payment for.
49. At the end of November, Ms E emailed the case manager asking for Mr F’s updated care and support plan, for decisions on his DRE and about whether the Council would pay a higher hourly rate for BSL trained PAs. She also asked what receipts the Council needed and for an explanation about why it had refused items of DRE.
50. Also at the end of November, a service manager approved one change to the previously agreed DRE. He said the family needed to show evidence Mr F’s food costed more than average due to his disabilities. The records indicate the finance team added the new DRE to the assessment, backdated it to April 2019 at the end of December and this lowered Mr F’s charge.
51. Internal emails between the case manager and sensory worker indicate officers were considering whether Mr F’s eye condition meant he was deafblind and if he’d had or needed an assessment for autism. The case manager and sensory worker discussed Mr F’s care and support plan at the start of December. The sensory worker said Mr F’s communication needed to be supported in social activities and accessing the community and needed to be considered at the BSL PA rate for him to make direct communication.
52. At the start of December, Mr F emailed council officers. He said he had no BSL PA for three months and no-one was answering him about using the BSL specialist agency. The case manager replied saying her manager was looking at the issues but meantime he should use the current budget to meet his needs. Ms E pointed out in chaser emails that Mr F could not recruit PAs until the Council confirmed the rates it would pay.
53. The case manager referred Mr F to an advocacy service at the start of December for advocacy support in a care and support plan review. The advocate and an interpreter met with Mr F to seek his views. There appears to have been a review of the care and support plan in December. No changes were made to the plan or to the agreed funding as a result of the review.
54. Ms E continued to ask the Council for a list of items it had refused as DRE. The Council provided a further complaint response in January 2020. It said it would not repeat issues it had already addressed and officers had reviewed Mr F’s DRE and those items not approved were not costs directly related to Mr F’s disability, for example general food costs did not meet the definition of DRE and would need to be evidenced by receipts.
55. The issue about the specialist BSL agency’s costs and whether the Council would pay these remained unresolved. In mid-January, the case manager emailed a senior manager to say the specialist agency charged travel costs on top of a higher hourly rate. The case manager noted the Council did not normally pay travel costs as it expected them to be included in the hourly rate.
56. Ms E emailed the Council unhappy with the revised care and support plan. She requested additional hours for Mr F.
57. There were further emails between officers in February about the specialist agency’s costs in comparison with another agency providing a similar service. Mr F emailed the case manager saying he felt suicidal, said he’d had no PA for 5 months and had £4200 in his direct payment account that he had not been able to spend. Ms E asked officers if Mr F could use the accrued money to pay for the specialist agency to support him on trips and use the annual payment to take a holiday. Ms E said it was not appropriate for officers to tell Mr F he could use the direct payment ‘flexibly’ as he needed very clear, specific answers so he knew exactly was and was not allowed. Mr F also emailed the service manager saying flexibility was a difficult concept for him.
58. The service manager replied to Ms E in February saying:
• he had agreed the specialist agency’s rate
• the Council would also pay their travel costs.
• the case manager would send a revised care and support plan.
• there would be no extra hours in the care and support plan.
59. At the end of February, an advocate visited Mr F with a BSL interpreter. He asked for an extra nine hours a week of care and support. (three on a Saturday and six on a Sunday.) He said the hours on a Sunday were to replace his parents who could no longer care for him. Mr F said he used to go on holiday with his parents but they could no longer take him and going with carers would cost more.
60. There was a review of the care and support plan in February 2020. This resulted in a slight increase in the hours of PA support. The specialist BSL agency started supporting Mr F at the end of February.
61. The case manager sent the advocate an email saying:
• Mr F had 48.5 hours a week of care and support (22 for personal care and domestic tasks, 21 for social and community activities and 45 minutes each morning for personal care.
• The funding included a reserve for emergencies
• Mr F was not eligible for respite care. The additional money on his personal budget is a yearly payment for care away from home (for example, while on holiday.)
62. Ms E emailed council officers asking why the Council was not using a BSL trained advocate for advocacy and there was no emergency advocacy support. The sensory worker said in an email that there was a deaf 999 service and the NHS 111 number had an interpreting service for health emergencies.
63. Correspondence from Ms E about DRE continued. In March, the service manager sent a letter setting out which items of DRE had been refused and explained why. The reasons the Council excluded some items were:
• They were not connected to Mr F’s disabilities (sky subscription, car wash, PAs meals when eating out, camera adaptation)
• They were available at no cost (computer software)
• Disability-related additional costs were not evidenced (more expensive home insurance, extra toilet roll and hand sanitiser, shoes, clothing over and above what a person would normally pay, pressure hose hire, washing powder, food),
• They were not necessary for Mr F to have at home as he can access the community (haircut)
• They were a luxury item (dog treats)
• it was reasonable for Mr F to use support available from other sources: his disability living allowance (fuel)
• They were medical items and so should first be discussed with the GP with a view to the NHS funding them
• An equivalent item already agreed (a mobile phone with a big screen)
64. A case note in May 2020 suggests Mr F was going to have an assessment to diagnose autism, but this was delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Was there fault and if so, did this cause injustice?

Complaint a: The Council provided a direct payment/care package that was not enough to meet Mr F’s needs

65. Ms E raised three key issues in correspondence: the hours in Mr F care and support plan, the hourly rate the Council allowed for PAs, and the yearly payment sometimes referred to as a ‘respite’ or ‘holiday’ payment in Mr F’s records.

The allocated hours:

66. Ms E asked for more hours for Mr F, mainly to enable him to access the community for longer periods and on extra days. In response to the first complaint, the Council offered to carry out a social care assessment. The previous assessment was before 2015 and likely pre-dated the Care Act. So carrying out a new assessment was an appropriate response. However, the case notes indicate the assessment took over three months to finalise and be made available to Ms E and Mr F. Paragraph 6.24 of CSSG says a council should complete an assessment over a reasonable timescale and I consider three months was too long, was a delay of about two months and was therefore fault. I accept the case was complex and the period included some time when Mr F had a draft assessment for comments and that Ms E raised many issues in correspondence, but the Council should not have allowed this to distract it from completing and issuing the assessment within a reasonable timeframe. The failure to issue an assessment within a reasonable timeframe caused avoidable uncertainty about the Council’s eligibility decisions and its reasons.
67. Although the Council did not issue an assessment within a reasonable timeframe, it did issue a care and support plan in July 2019 which showed how the personal budget could meet Mr F’s eligible unmet needs. I accept this was not enough from Mr F’s perspective and he wanted additional funding in particular to access the community. However, the assessment of need and the decision on how to meet needs are decisions for the Council and not for the Ombudsman. Aside from the delay in assessing and reviewing described elsewhere in this section, I consider there was no fault because the Council acted in line with the Care Act framework by:
• Considering Mr F’s views and wishes
• Carrying out an assessment and determining Mr F’s eligibility
• Setting a personal budget
• Sharing care and support plans
• Deciding a direct payment amount
• Setting out in detail in the care and support plan how the allocated hours could be used to meet needs in each of the eligibility domains described in paragraph 10.

The hourly rate:

68. When Mr F’s deaf/signing PA left in August 2019, there should have been a prompt review of his care and support plan in line with paragraphs 13.19-21 and 13.32 of CSSG. This is because circumstances had changed. The failure to review the care and support plan in August was fault. The Council accepted in February 2020 that it needed to pay more for a specialist agency. A formal review in August is likely to have identified the need for additional funding much sooner. I accept the sensory worker and direct payments support team took action to help Mr F find a replacement PA and to investigate the costs of a specialist agency, however this process and the process of agreeing the agency’s fee and travel costs took far too long and meant Mr F was without the specialist signing support identified in his care and support plan for about six months. The records indicate frequent contact from Mr F to the case manager and sensory worker suggesting a high degree of continuing distress. In one email, Mr F said he felt suicidal. While many of Mr F’s needs were being met by his other PA, by the morning agency carers and by his parents, the evidence indicates he had a loss of a specialist communication support service that he was entitled to when accessing the community and which was beneficial to his well-being and independence.

The yearly payment:

69. The term ‘respite care’ does not feature in the Care Act, although in the social care world it is used to mean paid care which replaces the unpaid care provided by a relative or friend. Mr F’s care and support plan in 2015 did refer to respite care, although later plans did not. The Council explained the position in correspondence. I do not consider there was fault or injustice. The Council clarified the yearly payment could be used for Mr F’s care when he was away from home. The actual payment remained unchanged. I do not uphold this part of the complaint.

Complaint b: The Council did not meet Mr F’s communication needs or provide an advocate.

70. The records indicate officers used BSL interpreters when visiting Mr F, in line with his identified communication needs. Mr F’s family and his BSL PA were available for communication support until Mid-August 2019.
71. As set out in the last section, the Council should have reviewed the care and support plan when Mr F’s signing PA left and I have already identified this as a fault. The review would have included consideration of his communication needs. There was also a delay in seeking information to clarify whether Mr F was deafblind.
72. An advocate was appointed in December 2019 to support with a review of the care and support plan. This was an appropriate response. Ms E felt the Council should have provided a signing advocate, but, as the advocate visited with an interpreter, I do not regard this as fault.
73. Although there was communication and advocacy support set out above, the Council’s consideration of Mr F’s communication needs was incomplete and this was fault. In particular, there was a promise to arrange a joint visit with the autism team in the first complaint response, but no visit has yet taken place. And, the sensory worker identified a possibility that Mr F might be regarded as deafblind. The Council did not reach a view on this though and did not document whether it considered him either to meet or not meet the criteria for a deafblind person set out in CSSG. These failures were not in line with paragraphs 6.89 and 6.91 of CSSG and mean the Council’s assessment may not have captured all Mr F’s needs. An example of this in action is officers telling Mr F he could use the direct payment ‘flexibly’. Mr F made it clear that he did not grasp that concept because of his autism and Ms E also explained he needed specific direction about what he could and could not use the direct payment for. Therefore, the advice that the payment was flexible, while accurate, was not tailored to Mr F's communication needs.

Complaint c: the reduction of Mr F’s DRE

74. The Council already acknowledged it should not have reduced Mr F’s DRE without a financial assessment or a review of the financial assessment. This was fault and caused a financial loss and avoidable distress.
75. The Council took long to determine Mr F’s DRE. The process of lengthy meetings with professionals was not tailored to Mr F’s communication needs and would have been better dealt with by the Council in correspondence with Ms E by identifying items it approved and items it did not approve and explaining why. This was not done until extensive correspondence had been exchanged and two meetings had taken place.
76. The Council backdated DRE to April 2019 and so the financial loss to Mr F has been remedied. The Council also said it is willing to make a payment to reflect any loss of interest if Mr F can provide evidence of this. This remedies most of the injustice caused by the delay.

Agreed action

77. The Council was at fault because it:
• Took too long to complete an assessment and to review Mr F’s care and support plan
• Did not involve a specialist autism expert in the assessment or decide within an appropriate timescale whether Mr F was deafblind
• Took too long to assess Mr F’s DRE.
78. To remedy the injustice, the Council Has accepted my recommendation to, within one month:
• Apologise
• Pay Mr F £1000 to reflect:
1. his avoidable distress and loss of appropriate communication support to access the community for six months after his signing PA left and
2. the failure to seek specialist advice during the assessment
• Make an additional nominal payment of £25 to reflect a loss of interest in paying a higher care charge until the Council assessed and backdated his DRE.
79. In addition, the Council should, within three months:
• Seek appropriate advice and support from the autism team on Mr F’s social care assessment
• Decide whether Mr F is deafblind (if Mr F wishes to pursue this) and if so, seek appropriate advice and support from a deafblind expert where this is needed
• Review and revise Mr F’s care and support plan after seeking that expert advice.
80. I will require documentary evidence (copies of reports and of the review of the care and support plan and any revised care and support plan)

Back to top

Final decision

81. The Council was at fault because it delayed completing Mr F’s assessment and care and support plan and in reassessing his disability related expenditure. It also failed to involve expert advice in the assessment. The fault caused a loss of service and avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise, make payments, seek specialist advice and review Mr F’s care and support plan following that advice.
82. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman