Summary: The Council’s failure to keep accurate records delayed provision of a level access shower to a vulnerable adult for over a year. This is fault. The Council should apologise, make financial payments, and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council failed to keep accurate records of her grandmother’s personal information. As a result, Ms X says there was a delay in her grandmother getting the adaptations and support she needs to manage at home. This caused her grandmother and the family unnecessary distress and put them at risk of harm.
2. Ms X says she has had to go to extensive time and trouble to try and have her grandmother’s records corrected and get her the support she needs.

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. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Ms X about the complaint.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Ms 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

Background

10. In June 2018, Ms X contacted the Council to ask for an Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess her grandmother, whom I shall call Mrs Y.
11. In October, Ms X contacted the Council again to chase up the referral.
12. In November, an Occupational Therapist visited Mrs Y at home. The OT recorded that Mrs Y needed various aids and recommended the Council install a level access shower. Ms X’s mother, whom I shall call Mrs Z, is Mrs Y’s main carer. Mrs Z was struggling to help Mrs Y into and out of the bath.
13. The Council says it sent the family a financial assessment form to complete in November. Ms X says they did not receive it.
14. In January 2019, Ms X telephoned the Council to follow up about the level access shower. Ms X says in this call the Council:
• Did not ask her about the missing financial information.
• Said Mrs Y’s daughter, a person whom I shall call B, told the Council there was no need for a shower and therefore it had not progressed.
• Advised Ms X to wait for more information from the service.
15. Ms X says B is not a member of their family. Ms X says she told the Council this during this phone conversation.
16. In April, the Council’s records show it tried to contact Ms X by phone and email without success.
17. In May, Ms X responded to the email and invited the Council to make contact.
18. A week later, the Council’s records show the case as closed. The record says this is because there was no response to a no-contact letter.
19. Ms X contacted the Council at various times between May and July 2019. In August, the Council told Ms X that because the family did not complete the financial assessment form, Mrs Y needed a new referral for the shower.
20. In October, Ms X made the first of two complaints to the Council about errors in Mrs Y’s records. Ms X says the Council reassured her that the issue was resolved.
21. The Council carried out a new assessment in December 2019.
22. In May 2020, the adaptations team at the Council again contact B about Mrs Y’s shower. Ms X complained to the Council in June.
23. In its complaint response, the Council says that there is another person with the same name as Mrs Y. It said it had merged the two records in error. The letter says the Council had “untangled” the records and Mrs Y’s record was now correct. It apologised to Ms X for the confusion.
24. Later in June, Ms X telephoned the Council. The Officer gave Ms X address details and personal information for the person who shares Mrs Y’s name.

My findings

25. The Ombudsman does not usually investigate matters from more than 12 months ago unless there is good reason. The subject of this complaint arose in 2018, more than 12 months ago. However, I have exercised discretion to investigate. This is because although Ms X was aware of the issues more than 12 months ago, the Council reassured her the problem was resolved. She therefore had no reason to complain until events in May 2020 showed the issue was not resolved.
26. There are two people to whom the Council provides Adult Social Care services with Mrs Y’s name. At some point, the Council merged the two records. As a result, the Council’s record of Mrs Y’s date of birth and family contact information, and possibly other information, was incorrect.
27. The Council has a responsibility under data protection law to make sure the information it holds about people is accurate. The Council should have checked and confirmed Mrs Y’s details when it conducted the first assessment. Had it done so, it would have established that Mrs Y’s information wasn’t accurate in November 2018. Failure to do so is fault.
28. The Council has no record of the phone call Ms X made in January 2019. However, Ms X provided me a copy of her telephone bill which shows a nine-minute call to the Council’s number. In the absence of any records from the Council to the contrary and considering later similar events, I accept Ms X’s account of this call. This means I find the Council told Ms X that B had said there was no need for a shower.
29. Therefore, when Ms X spoke to the Council in January 2019 and told it the information was incorrect, the Council should have corrected the information.
30. The Council says the inaccurate records did not cause any delay. It says it did not progress the works for a shower because the family did not return the necessary financial assessment form. However, the Council’s correspondence with Ms X following the second assessment shows it established Mrs Y’s financial entitlement based on her welfare benefits, information the Council already held. Furthermore, in none of the correspondence or telephone calls with Ms X from January to July 2019 does the Council ask Ms X about the missing financial information.
31. I find it likely that from January to December 2019, the delay in providing Mrs Y with the shower she needs was at least in part a result of the Council’s conversation with B. The Council did not think Mrs Y still needed the shower. Therefore, the inaccurate records did contribute to the delay. This is fault.
32. The Council’s records say it closed Mrs Y’s referral in May 2019 because it had “no further contact with the client” and received no response to a “no-contact letter”. There is no evidence the Council sent any such letter. The Council did, however, email Ms X in April asking her to get in touch. Ms X replied in early May. The Council closed Mrs Y’s referral based on an inaccurate assertion that Ms X had made no contact. This is fault.
33. Ms X contacted the Council asking about the shower in late May and again in July. However, the Council did not tell Ms X the referral for the shower was closed until August. This is fault. It added another two months of unnecessary delay to Mrs Y’s wait for a shower.
34. As a result of the Council’s fault, Mrs Y and Mrs Z suffered injustice. Mrs Y had to struggle unnecessarily for over a year to be able to keep herself clean with dignity. Mrs Z had to continue to lift Mrs Y into and out of the bath. The OT recommended the level access shower to address the risk of harm to Mrs Y from using the bath. The delay by the Council meant this risk continued unnecessarily for over a year. Mrs Y does now have a level access shower.
35. There is also injustice to Ms X. She told the Council in January and October 2019 that Mrs Y’s records were inaccurate. In October she made a formal complaint to which she received no substantive response. The Council did, however, reassure her it had resolved the matter. When the Council contacted Ms X again in May 2020 with the same confusion, she was understandably frustrated.
36. The Council’s response to her complaint in June said that this time, it was sure the records were correct. Less than two weeks later, Ms X had another telephone call with the Council in which Mrs Y was conflated with the other person of that name. Ms X described to me the disbelief and defeat she felt having to repeat herself over and again. The Council has explained that the Officer involved used out of date handwritten notes during the call.
37. Ms X went to significant time and trouble to get the Council to correct Mrs Y’s records and get her the level access she needs. She experienced avoidable frustration.

Agreed action

38. To remedy the injustice from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X, Mrs Y and Mrs Z. Mrs Y and Mrs Z do not speak English. The Council should either issue a written apology in their native language or apologise verbally via an interpreter.
• Pay Mrs Y £500
• Pay Mrs Z £250
• Pay Ms X £200
39. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
40. The Council has agreed to take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind relevant staff to check and confirm service users’ personal details to ensure the Council maintains accurate records.
41. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation. There is fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman