Summary: Ms X complained the Council’s Adult and Children’s Services did not assist her between August and October 2019 despite her requests. Ms X says the Council did not check to see that her needs were being met. She says she had to pay privately to access services which should have been made available to her. We have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X in recognition of the injustice identified.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not provide assistance to her between August and October 2019. Ms X says she asked the Council’s Adult and Children’s Services for help but did not receive it. She also says the Council did not check to see her needs were being met.
2. Ms X says this resulted in her having to pay privately to access services which should have been made available to her. She would like the Council to pay the costs of these services.
3. Ms X also complained about a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference in October 2019 and about a Freedom of Information request made in February 2020.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated the complaint listed at paragraph one. The final section of this statement explains my reasons for not investigating the complaints listed at paragraph three.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. 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)
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
9. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

10. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
11. 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

12. I have discussed the complaint with Ms X’s advocate and considered the information they provided.
13. I have made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
14. Ms X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Assessment

15. 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 the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs, 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.
16. The Council must carry out the assessment over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Local authorities should tell the individual when their assessment will take place and keep the person informed throughout the assessment.

Background

17. Ms X separated from her husband following allegations of abuse and domestic violence by him. She lived with her children and was involved in a court case regarding her husband’s access to them. Ms X has a diagnosis of autism and was receiving support from the Council’s Autism Team. She says the court case greatly impacted her mental and physical wellbeing and that she was suffering from panic attacks.

What happened

18. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
19. On 29 July 2019, the Council’s Autism Team referred Ms X to the Early Interventions Team (EIT). The Autism Team said Ms X “struggles with day-to-day functioning” and on behalf of Ms X, asked for support with practical tasks such as managing appointments, finances and housing. It said Ms X “is not interested in what the autism service have to offer however has agreed to be referred to adult services”.
20. The next day, EIT contacted Ms X. Ms X said she was a victim of domestic violence and needed support with feeling safe. Ms X told EIT she had an appointment in August to meet with a third-party organisation (Organisation A) who specialises in helping victims of domestic violence but said she would like to bring her appointment forward. EIT contacted organisation A on behalf of Ms X. It said that waiting for an appointment was causing Ms X stress and this was impacting on her autism. Organisation A confirmed Ms X had an allocated worker and said it would contact her to discuss bringing her appointment forward. EIT recorded that all Ms X’s needs were to be met by Organisation A and no further action was required.
21. On 16 September 2019, Ms X contacted the Council. She said a “professional” had completed a domestic abuse, stalking and ‘honour’ based violence (DASH) assessment, but she was unsure if they had sent it to the Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC). The Council agreed to speak to Organisation A to find out if they had completed the DASH assessment. It said if it could not find out who had completed the assessment, it would carry out another and refer it to the MARAC. The Council also agreed to speak to Children’s Services and recorded that Ms X had no known care and support needs.
22. On 14 November 2019, another domestic violence support service, (Organisation B) contacted EIT about Ms X. It said it had been trying to contact Ms X’s support worker from the Autism Team.

Ms X’s complaint

23. On 18 November 2019, Ms X called the Council to make a complaint. She said she had not received the support she needed.
24. On 20 November 2019, the Council’s Quality Assurance and Improvement Team contacted EIT. It said it had tried to contact Ms X’s support worker from the Autism Team. EIT told the quality assurance team the support worker was away from work and agreed it would establish what support had been provided to Ms X by the Autism Team and Organisation B.
25. EIT called Ms X the following day. Ms X said she was unhappy with the outcome of the MARAC and said she had not received any support from Adult or Children’s Services. Ms X said she would like Adult Services to carry out a needs assessment to consider providing formal support to help with her daily routine and with caring for her children.
26. Ms X’s case was allocated to a social worker on 27 November 2019. On 29 November 2019, the Council made an appointment to visit Ms X on 4 February 2020.
27. In January 2020, Ms X told the Council she would like an advocate to help her to handle her complaint against the Council.
28. On 4 January 2020, a social worker carried out an assessment of Ms X’s needs. At about the same time, Children’s Services carried out an assessment to see if Ms X’s children required additional support. The Council decided there was no significant risk of harm, and no further action was required.
29. On 6 February 2020, Ms X emailed the Council and said it had not provided any confirmation it had received her complaint. She asked the Council to provide it with a copy of her complaint and for the information provided to the Quality Assurance team. Ms X also asked for a copy of the Council’s complaints handling policy.
30. The Council replied on 10 February 2020. It said Victim Support completed a DASH assessment in August 2019 and found Ms X to be under the threshold for being at ‘high risk’. It said as a result, Adult Services passed Ms X’s details to a social worker to meet with Organisation A. The Council said in September 2019, Adult Services confirmed Ms X’s situation had got worse. It said it carried out an assessment which confirmed the risk to Ms X had increased and was now over the threshold, and the matter was therefore passed to the MARAC.
31. The Council said Ms X raised concerns that she had not received any information about her referral to the MARAC, but said it could not investigate complaints about Organisations A and B.
32. The Council said it visited Ms X on 6 December 2019 and was satisfied that safeguarding measures were in place for Ms X’s children. It said a social worker also contacted Ms X to arrange a visit, and Ms X told them she wanted her Autism Team support worker to be present. The Council said the support worker could not attend as they were off work. Ms X agreed to meet with the social worker on 4 February 2020. The Council says the social worker completed an assessment on this date.
33. On 21 February 2020, Ms X asked the Council to clarify if it had completed its investigation of her complaint about events prior to 19 November 2019. Ms X also said she had asked her social worker to refer her to an advocacy agency to help with her complaint.
34. The Council replied on 24 February 2020 and said its response of 10 February 2020 was its response to the concerns raised by Ms X.
35. Ms X replied on the same day and asked for a formal letter confirming the Council had finished dealing with her complaint as she wanted to bring the matter to us.
36. The Council provided a letter setting out its response to Ms X’s complaint on 2 March 2020. Ms X replied on the same day and asked the Council to refer her to an advocacy agency to “help move this complaint on.” At about the same time, Ms X brought her complaint to us.
37. On 11 March 2020, the Council emailed Ms X to tell her it would reconsider Ms X’s complaint, at the request of the Ombudsman. This was because the Council had not concluded its own complaints procedure. The Council said it aimed to complete its investigation within 20 working days.
38. On 17 March 2020, the Council told Ms X the advocacy agency was unable to support her with her court case. Ms X replied on the same day and said her request for an advocate was to help with handling her complaint, not the court case.
39. On 23 March 2020, the Council told Ms X the Covid-19 pandemic had placed pressure on the authority and it was taking longer than normal to process complaints. On 3 April 2020, the Council emailed Ms X setting out what it understood to be her complaint.
40. On 7 April 2020, Ms X told the Council it had not understood her complaint. She also told the Council she was unable to respond any further at that time.
41. Ms X contacted the Council again on 27 August 2020 and asked if it could resume the complaint process. She clarified her complaint was about an inability to access support which she said was much needed at the time.
42. Ms X chased a response from the Council in September 2020. The Council replied on 24 September 2020 and told Ms X the advocacy organisation it had approached was not able to offer support.
43. On 1 October 2020, the Council told Ms X it had contacted another advocacy agency who had agreed to act on her behalf.
44. On 1 December 2020, the Council provided its final response. It apologised for the length of time it took to respond and said this was due to the pressures on the Council made by the pandemic. It addressed Ms X’s complaint that she had not received any services from Adult or Children’s Services between August and October 2019, and her complaint about the MARAC hearing.
45. The Council said it had no record Ms X had directly contacted Adult or Children’s Services between August and October 2019 but acknowledged the Autism Team had contacted the Safeguarding Team in September 2019. It said because no referral for support was made, it was not aware Ms X required any help from the Council until she contacted it in November 2019.
46. The Council said when a MARAC referral is made, an independent domestic violence advisor is allocated to the victim. It said it is the role of the independent advisor to contact and provide support to the victim. The Council said the MARAC meeting is held between various bodies, not solely by the Council. It said the independent advisor was not provided by the Council and it therefore could not investigate this aspect of Ms X’s complaint.
47. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to us.

Analysis

48. I have decided to exercise discretion in investigating this complaint back to July 2019. This is because Ms X was not able to pursue her complaint at the time because of her poor mental health.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council?

49. Ms X says the Council did not provide assistance to her between August and October 2019 and says it did not check to see her needs were being met.
50. The Council says it contacted Ms X in July 2019 when the Autism Team requested support for Ms X with practical tasks, and that it contacted Organisation A on her behalf. The Council says it then closed Ms X’s case because it had signposted her to an appropriate agency who advised it would contact Ms X to discuss and offer support. The Council says it agreed to contact Organisation A again on behalf of Ms X in October 2019. It says it also identified that support was in place through the MARAC. In its final response to Ms X, the Council says it was not aware Ms X required any help from the Council until November 2019.
51. I acknowledge the Council referred Ms X to Organisation A and that this was an appropriate agency to offer advice and support in respect of Ms X’s personal circumstances. I also acknowledge the Council was involved in the MARAC hearing.
52. However, I do not agree the Council was not aware Ms X required any help from the Council until November 2019. Its case notes from 29 July 2019 record that Ms X “struggles with day to day functioning” and had agreed to be referred to Adult Services. I consider this acknowledgement is evidence the Council was aware in July 2019 that Ms X may require support from Adult Services in her day-to-day life.
53. The Care Act 2014 says, “Where it appears to a local authority that an adult may have needs for care and support, the authority must assess –

1. whether the adult does have needs for care and support, and

(b) if the adult does, what those needs are”.

(Care Act 2014, section 9 (1))

54. The Act goes on to say, “A needs assessment must include an assessment of –

2. the outcomes that the adult wishes to achieve in day-to-day life”.

(Care Act 2014, section 9 (4))

55. Therefore, although the Council referred Ms X to Organisation A, it retained a duty to assess Ms X to identify any needs for care and support.
56. As stated at paragraph 16, councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale. The evidence shows the Council did not complete an assessment until 4 February 2020, six months after it recorded Ms X was struggling with day-to-day functioning. The length of time taken by the Council to carry out a needs assessment for Ms X (from July 2019 to February 2020) is evidence of delay by the Council, and I have found this delay to be fault.

The Council’s complaint handling

57. The Council’s complaints procedure says it will provide a response to the complainant within 20 working days at both stage 1 and stage 2.
58. Ms X made her stage 1 complaint on 18 November 2019. The Council responded on 10 February 2020 and clarified this as its stage 1 response on 2 March 2020. The Council’s stage 1 response therefore took longer than 20 working days to provide.
59. Ms X brought her complaint to us in March 2020, but we asked the Council to complete its own complaints procedure first. There was a pause in the complaints process from March to August 2020 because Ms X was unable to pursue the matter at that time.
60. The Council resumed its consideration of the complaint in August 2020 and Ms X was appointed an advocate on or about 1 October 2020. From this date, I consider the Council was able to appropriately engage with Ms X to address the points of complaint. The Council provided its final response on 1 December 2020. The Council’s stage 2 response therefore took longer than 20 working days to provide.
61. It is positive the Council apologised to Ms X about the longer response time at stage 2. It said this was caused by pressure from the Covid-19 pandemic. I acknowledge the Council’s explanation but have found the delay at both stage 1 (before the pandemic) and stage 2 to be fault.
62. Having identified fault, I must consider if this caused Ms X an injustice. Ms X says she did not receive the support she needed at the time and says this had a negative impact on her mental health. She says she paid privately for some services to help her, and this meant she suffered a financial loss.
63. Ms X’s advocate said Ms X accessed services privately after the Council completed its assessment in February 2020. As a result, Ms X did not access any services and incurred no personal financial cost during the period complained about. In addition, the services accessed by Ms X do not appear to reflect the eligible need identified by the assessment. As a result, the cost of Ms X’s privately sourced service provision cannot be attributed to the fault identified. I do not therefore recommend the Council re-imburses Ms X for the cost of the services she accessed.
64. Having reviewed the evidence, I have found the delay in providing the care assessment caused an injustice to Ms X. This is because the evidence shows Ms X was “struggling with day-to-day functioning” and was asking for support. It also shows Ms X was stressed because she had to wait for her appointment with Organisation A. The case notes record this had an impact on Ms X’s autism. I consider the impact of waiting for an assessment to identify Ms X’s needs following her request for support also caused stress to Ms X and I consider this to be injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

65. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:

• Apologise to Ms X for the delay in providing an assessment;
• Make a payment of £150 to recognise the stress caused, and
• Make a further payment of £100 for the time and trouble taken in pursuing the complaint. I have taken into consideration the Council did not initially complete all the stages of its complaints policy.

66. The above figures are in accordance with our guidance on remedies. The Council is required to provide evidence it has complied with the above recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

67. I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to resolve this complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

68. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint about a Multi Agency Risk Assessment hearing. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s previous investigation regarding this aspect of the complaint.
69. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint about a Freedom of Information request. This is because we consider it was reasonable to expect Ms X to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman