Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council has supported her. We find the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council has supported her. She said:
1. The Council refused to provide her with an advocate.
2. The Council did not investigate various complaints she made to it because it said her complaints were too old or were about other organisations.
3. Adult social care would not engage with her.
4. The Council had restricted her contact with it.
5. Social Workers at the Council had refused to provide her with their surnames.

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. 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

4. I read our case records from Mrs X’s contact with the Ombudsman to understand her complaints.
5. I asked the Council questions about its involvement with Mrs x and considered its response.
6. Mrs X 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

Adult social care

7. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to assess, and if required, provide a care and support plan for adults with eligible care and support needs. It also sets out the Council’s safeguarding duty to adults.
8. The Council must provide an advocate when assessing a person in relation to their care and support needs or during a safeguarding enquiry, where the person has substantial difficulty in participating in the process.

The Council’s policy on managing unreasonable behaviour

9. Where the Council decides that a person’s behaviour has been unreasonable, persistent or abusive it may place restrictions on the person’s contact with it, for example only communicating through a named single point of contact.
10. Where the Council decides to restrict contact, the Council tells the person what action it is taking and when it will review that decision. Depending on the behaviour, the Council reviews any access restriction decisions every two, three or six months.

Mrs X’s earlier complaints to the Council

11. Mrs X asked her MP to complain to the Council on her behalf in 2016 because:
• of the lack of support she received from adult social care;
• she did not have a social worker; and
• she was unhappy some social workers would not provide their social work registration numbers to her.
12. The Officer completing the Council’s complaint response explained to the MP that they had been Mrs X’s single point of contact for several years and that they had regular contact with her. They said the Council had met with Mrs X, but she had turned down support from adult social care for her care needs.
13. It said Mrs X wanted support to complain about external agencies including an advocacy agency, the Police and her GP practice. They explained that was outside of the Council’s role. They said the Council was happy to provide support to Mrs X with her adult social care needs.
14. The Council said it got Mrs X an advocate to help with her complaints with external agencies. However, after one meeting, Mrs X refused further support from the advocate.

What happened and my findings

The Council refused to provide Mrs X an advocate

15. The Council’s records indicate Mrs X has previously been supported by two different advocacy services. The complaint correspondence from 2016 indicates that Mrs X chose not to work with an advocate the Council had arranged.
16. When she telephoned the Ombudsman, she also told us about a different advocacy service she had contacted.
17. Despite Mrs X not accepting support from the Council, its case records show that a Council Officer has been in regular contact and working to support Mrs X in accessing health care.
18. My findings – As Mrs X is not wanting an assessment or adult social care support, the Council does not have a duty to provide an advocate. Throughout 2020, the Council has taken the role of advocate for Mrs X and tried to help her access health services. I am satisfied the Council has done all it can to support Mrs X. The Council is not at fault.

The Council had restricted her contact with it

19. The Council wrote to Mrs X in 2016, 2017 and 2018 about its decision to restrict its contact with her. The Council explained it was restricting contact because:
• Mrs X’s phone calls to the Council had placed excessive demands on staff time.
• She was contacting the Council with repeated complaints about the same matter after the Council had already investigated.
• She was refusing to accept a decision the Council had made on her complaint.
20. The Council has said it kept the restricted access under regular review, however since 2018 has not sent further letters to avoid distressing Mrs X.
21. My findings – The Council has explained its reasons for placing restrictions on Mrs X’s contact and it has done that in line with its policy. It has confirmed it has kept that decision under review. The Council does have regular contact with Mrs X therefore I am satisfied she is not prevented from accessing its services. The Council is not at fault.

The Council did not investigate various complaints she made to it because it said her complaints were too old or were about other organisations

22. The evidence the Council has provided dates from 2016 and refers to Mrs X complaining about historical matters and different agencies. When Mrs X contacted the Ombudsman, she made complaints dating back to 2002. She did not have a recent complaint with the Council but told us she was unhappy about the Council’s contact with her. We told the Council about her current concerns so it could provide a complaint response.
23. My findings- The Council can only investigate complaints for services that it is responsible for. The Council is not at fault for not considering complaints about other agencies.
24. We would only expect the Council to investigate complaints coming to Mrs X’s attention in the past twelve months unless it exercises its discretion to investigate older complaints. We would not expect the Council to investigate historical matters. The Council has responded to her most recent complaint. The Council is not at fault.

Adult social care would not engage with her

25. Mrs X does not currently receive services from adult social care. The case records show the Council last tried to complete an assessment in 2018, but Mrs X did not want support. Despite that, the Council’s case records show the Council does have regular contact with Mrs X.
26. My findings- I have seen no evidence the Council will not engage with Mrs X. she has the contact details of a named officer who speaks to her on a regular basis. The Council is not at fault.

Social Worker’s at the Council had refused to provide her with their surnames.

27. In its complaint response the Council said that staff members should be willing to provide Mrs X with their names and apologised if that had not happened. It said that if she had a complaint to make about a social worker or another member of staff to contact the complaints team.
28. My findings- I cannot see any evidence in the case records that staff have refused to provide Mrs X their surnames. It is not clear when this took place or who it was in relation to. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

29. The Council was not at fault in how it supported Mrs X. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman