Southend-on-Sea City Council (20 005 109)

Category : Adult care services > Assessment and care plan

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 28 Jul 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council failed to coordinate some aspects of Mr Y’s transition from education into adult services. There is evidence of delay, confusion, and poor communication in the assessment process. This caused Mr Y and his father avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains on behalf of his adult son. He says:
      1. the Council has not produced a Social Care Needs Assessment itself for his son, instead contracting this out to another body;
      2. the assessment was delayed;
      3. the Council failed to keep the family updated on the progress of the assessment process;
      4. the assessment produced was inadequate and not compliant with the Care Act 2014;
      5. the Council has failed to provide his son with adequate social care support.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have only investigated points b to e of the complaint. I explain why at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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

  1. I have:
  • considered the complaint and discussed it with Mr X;
  • considered the correspondence between Mr X and the Council, including the Council’s response to the complaint;
  • made enquiries of the Council and considered the responses;
  • considered relevant legislation;
  • offered Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document and considered the responses.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

Education

  1. A young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. An EHC Plan describes the young person's special educational needs and the provision required to meet them.
  2. The procedure for assessing a young person's special educational needs and issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan is set out in legislation and Government guidance. (The Children and Families Act 2014; The Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Regulations 2014; the Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years)
  3. An EHC Plan must be reviewed at least every 12 months. Regulations set out the procedure the Council must follow to review a Plan.
  4. From Year 9, the review must consider what provision is required to assist the young person in preparation for adulthood and independent living.
  5. The Council should ensure the transition to adult care and support is well planned and is integrated with the annual reviews of the EHC plan. Transition assessments for adult care and support must involve the young person and anyone else they want to involve in the assessment. They must also include the outcomes, views and wishes of the young person.
  6. Assessments for adult care or support must consider:
    • current needs for care and support
    • whether the young person is likely to have needs for care and support after they turn 18, and
    • if so, what those needs are likely to be and which are likely to be eligible needs.
  7. Having carried out a transition assessment, the Council must give an indication of which needs are likely to be regarded as eligible needs, so the young person understands the care and support they are likely to receive. Where a young person's needs are not eligible for adult services, councils must provide information and advice about how those needs may be met and the provision and support that young people can access in their local area. Councils should ensure this information is incorporated into their Local Offer.
  8. EHC plans must include provision to assist in preparing for adulthood from Year 9.

Adult social care

  1. Section 75 of the NHS Act 2006 allows NHS organisations and councils to arrange to delegate their functions to one another. These arrangements are known as Section 75 Agreements and under them, NHS organisations can take on the provision of social work services which are normally the responsibility of councils.
  2. The Care Act 2014 introduced a requirement that local authorities should promote ‘wellbeing’ and signifies a shift from existing duties on local authorities to provide particular services, to the concept of ‘meeting needs’. The concept of meeting needs recognises that everyone’s needs are different and personal to them. Local authorities must consider how to meet each person’s specific needs rather than simply considering what service they will fit into. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Ch1)
  3. A council must carry out an assessment of any adult who seems to need care and support. It must also involve the individual and where appropriate their carer or any other person they might want involved. (Care Act 2014, section 9). Having identified eligible needs through a needs assessment, the council has a duty to meet those needs. (Care Act 2014, section 18)
  4. If a council decides a person is eligible for care, it must prepare a care and support plan. This must set out the needs identified in the assessment. It must say whether and to what extent, the needs meet the eligibility criteria. It must specify the needs the council intends to meet and how it intends to meet them. (Care Act 2014, ss 24 and 25)
  5. The care and support plan must set out a personal budget 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, s 26)
  6. Where the council is meeting some needs, but not others, the care and support plan should clearly set out which needs it will meet and which ones it will not. It should explain this decision.
  7. A person with eligible care needs can have a council arrange their care or, if they wish, they can arrange their own care using a direct payment. (Care Act 2014

What happened

  1. Mr Y has autism. He attended mainstream school and had an EHCP; he did not receive services from children’s social services. He turned 18 in September 2019.
  2. Mr Y previously lived and went to school in a different Council area, that Council was responsible for ECHP. An EHCP was completed by that Council on 22 July 2015 and the records show Mr Y was provided with advice and guidance on 19 April 2016, when Mr Y was in school year 9.
  3. Mr Y and his family moved into this Council’s area in December 2016, and in June 2017 the maintenance and funding of the EHCP transferred from the previous Council.
  4. A review of Mr Y’s EHCP took place on 26 January 2018 and was attended by a Case Coordinator. The Care Coordinator arranged for Mr Y to have an appointment with Connexions on 8 January 2018 for advice and guidance on future education, employment, and training. At the time Mr Y was in his last year of statutory education.
  5. Mr X says there was no transition planning in place when Mr Y left school.
  6. The records show a review of Mr Y’s care, treatment and education was held on 8 July 2019. I have seen a copy of the review document. It outlines Mr Y’s transition plan into adult services with actions set for health and social care staff.
  7. Mr X says it was at Mr Y’s EHCP review meeting that the school advised him to contact the Council and ask for a Care Act assessment of Mr Y. I have seen a copy of the completed EHCP. It records Mr X to have concerns about Mr Y moving from child to adult mental health services, and that Mr X had been informed in July 2019, that a “Social Care assessment can be requested by parents to the Local Authority as part of the EHC care component review”, and that he was now awaiting an assessment. The review outcome recorded “Parents to let LA know if they require a higher level of mental health support outside of GP service. LA can help refer to community mental health team if parents request this. [Mr X] provided details of GP practice that [Mr Y] is registered with”.
  8. Mr X says he began asking for an assessment around October 2019 but was told in December 2019 he need to ask his GP for a referral to adult services. The Council acknowledges a Care Act assessment should have flowed from the ECHP, and a GP referral “…should not have been necessary and is indicative of the confusion concerning transition planning”.
  9. Mr Y’s GP made a referral to the First Response Team (EPUT) on 12 December 2019.This team carries out initial assessments for secondary mental health care and is commissioned by the NHS. Within the team, there are social workers employed by the Council who are seconded to EPUT via a section 75 agreement to carry out the delegated functions of the local authority’s Care Act 2014 responsibilities.
  10. Mr X says this was not explained to him, he was told by officers from the Council special educational needs team that Mr Y’s needs assessment would be completed by the Council. The Council acknowledged that officers from it special educational needs team gave Mr X incorrect information. It apologised to him and explained the action it had taken action to ensure officers are aware of the Council’s arrangement with EPUT.
  11. Mr X heard nothing from the Council so he contacted it in February 2020 to ask when Mr Y’s needs assessment would be completed. I have seen copies of the emails exchanged between Mr X and the Council.
  12. EPUT completed a Care Act assessment of Mr Y on 28 February 2020. I have seen a copy of this document. It records Mr Y to have a diagnosis of Asperger’s, that he attended college and had a support worker at college and was receiving 12 weeks additional support from a progressions team. The assessment concluded Mr Y had needs in key areas under the Care Act:
  • managing and maintaining nutrition
  • personal hygiene
  • being appropriately clothed
  • developing and maintaining family or personal other relationships
  • accessing or engaging in work or training
  • making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community – public transport ect
  1. The assessor recorded Mr Y’s comments, that he wanted two hours support a week to help work on independent living skills such as, budgeting, running a home and keeping himself safe. Mr Y said he hoped to go university. The initial agreed outcome of the assessment recorded that two-hours support a week would be sourced from an agency familiar with working with people who have Asperger’s.
  2. Mr X was unhappy that EPUT had completed the assessment, he did not consider it a Care Act assessment. He submitted a complaint to the Council, saying he believed the Council, not EPUT should have completed the assessment. I have seen no evidence which shows if and when, Mr X was provided with a copy of the assessment.
  3. Mr X sent an email to the Council in June 2020 to say he believed it, not EPUT was responsible for completing Mr Y’s needs assessment.
  4. The Council contacted EPUT on 1 July 2020 to log Mr X’s complaint. It also requested a copy of Mr Y’s needs assessment. The Council contacted EPUT a further three times in July 2020 chasing a copy of Mr Y’s assessment.
  5. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint on 17 July 2020 and explained it had raised a complaint with EPUT “…who are responsible for these matters. They are investigating the issues raised and will be in contact with you with the outcome”. Mr X responded to the Council the same day to say he was confused as to what the Council had referred to EPUT and said he did not wish the Council to be involved with his complaints with EPUT.
  6. On 27 July 2020 EPUT recorded Mr Y’s assessment onto the NHS database.
  7. Mr X sent a further email to the Council on 28 July 2020 reiterating his concerns about Mr Y’s assessment and expressed concern about the acknowledgement letter he received on 17 July 2020.
  8. The Council sent Mr X an acknowledgement email on 3 August 2020.
  9. On 14 August 2020, the Council sent Mr X an email clarifying its arrangement with EPUT and confirmed EPUT were responsible for completing Mr Y’s Care Act assessment. Mr X also complained about how the Council was dealing with his complaint about a matter relating to children’s services, and about a holding letter he received from the Council in July 2020 about matters related to this complaint. The Council logged both matters as a corporate complaint.
  10. The Council wrote to Mr X on 28 August 2020. It explained the basis on which it delegates responsibility for Care Act assessments to EPUT and said, “Whilst we have delegated responsibility for completing Social Care Assessments to EPUT, Southend Council remains ultimately responsible therefore as per the Care Act guidance 6.99 and chapter 18, your complaint has also been logged by Southend Council to ensure a response is received from EPUT”.
  11. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and contacted it on 1 September 2020 to ask that his complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
  12. The Council responded to Mr X in writing on 15 September 2020. The author of the letter, a senior officer, acknowledged Mr X had not been properly informed that EPUT would complete Mr Y’s needs assessment. The officer apologised and explained the steps the Council had taken to prevent a recurrence. The officer acknowledged there had been confusion and delay in the initial referral to EPUT, and that she had concerns that the assessment completed in February 2020 did not “strongly and vibrantly illustrate [Mr Y’s] abilities, strengths, wishes, aspirations and needs”, and that she had asked EPUT to complete a fresh assessment.
  13. The Council says Mr Y was provided with a copy of his support plan on 30 September 2020. Mr X disputes this, saying the Council only provided a copy of Mr Y’s assessment, not a care plan. The Council has not provided this office with a copy of Mr Y’s support plan, and I have seen no evidence which shows Mr Y received a care plan in September 2020.
  14. EPUT completed a second assessment of Mr Y’s needs on 9 October 2020. I have seen a copy of this document. There are some amendments to the narrative, and Mr Y’s diagnosis was explained in greater detail, but the outcome was the same as the previous assessment; that Mr Y needed two hours a week.
  15. The Council says that during the assessment Mr X told the social worker Mr Y’s GP details had changed and asked that the assessment be amended. It says Mr X did not provide the new GP details at that time, and it was agreed that he would do so before the social worker sent out a new assessment or support plan. The Council says Mr X did not provide the information, and the social worker failed to chase it up, and it has not been a factor in the delay as the original assessment and support plan were accurate and were used to progress the funding application.
  16. The assessment records Mr X’s partner to be an informal carer for Mr Y, and she was offered a carers assessment. This was completed on 2 November 2020.
  17. The Council says EPUT informed Mr X of the personal budget allocation in December 2020 and advised him how to access its nominated agency to source a personal assistant for Mr Y. EPUT has no record which shows how or when Mr X was informed but says it can confirm that when they spoke to him in January 2021 Mr X stated he had been looking for a personal assistant via the nominated agency for four weeks.
  18. An annual review of the EHCP was held on 30 November 2020. I have seen a copy of the review document. The Councils says Mr Y’s EHCP is still active, but it expects it will cease in 2021 as it is expected Mr Y will move onto higher education.
  19. In December 2020, Mr X attempted to source a personal assistant from the nominated agency. Initially he searched within within 5 miles of his home. He identified four potential personal assistants, but none were available.
  20. On 3 December 2020 Mr X sent an email to the social worker at EPUT to say he had contacted the nominated agency to “…discuss about support for [Mr Y]. I have registered with them to enable me to look at potential PA's/buddies that would possibly work with [Mr Y]. Myself and my partner haven't had time to review potential PA's/buddies that may be suitable for [Mr Y] but intend to do so as soon as possible”. The social worker replied to Mr X the same day to say she would contact him again in six weeks to check on progress.
  21. On 19 January 2021, the social worker from EPUT sent Mr X an email asking how his search for a personal assistant had progressed. Mr X said he had been unsuccessful and had widened his search field to 10 miles from home, leading to him identifying and contacting four others via the agency website. None of these individuals contacted him. The Council says Mr X told the social worker he had not contacted the Council or EPUT to say he was having difficulty finding a personal assistant because he wanted to see how long it took for someone to contact him. The social worker told Mr X she would “…look into this as there been a long delay”.
  22. The Council says the social worker heard no more from Mr X, so she sent him an email on 2 March 2021 to enquire about the progress of his search for a personal assistant. The information I have seen shows Mr X initiated email contact with the social worker on 2 March 2021 saying he had not heard for her since his last email sent on 19 January 2021.The social responded the same day to say she and the agency would contact him the following day.
  23. Following notification of Mr X’s complaint to this office, the Council contacted EPUT. EPUT responded in writing on16 March 2021. I have seen a copy of the letter. EPUT acknowledge there was some confusion in the initial referral process, and that because of this EPUT declined the referral. It apologised “…for the delay in accepting [Mr Y’s] referral from the GP for his initial adult mental health assessment and that this delay was due to FRT initially concluding that the [Mr Y] received referral should be handled through the transition protocols as a transfer of care”. It also acknowledged delay following the assessment completed in February 2020, saying “…circumstances around [officer’s] absence, as well as those impacting the team due to the national pandemic crisis may have, in part, contributed to this”. It also acknowledged a delay in completing a support plan, that this was not completed until November 2020.
  24. Mr X contacted the social worker again on 30 April 2021 to say he had not heard from her since 15 March 2021.  
  25. Mr X sent an email to the social worker an email on 28 May 2021 setting out his dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in securing a personal assistant, the Council’s failure to respond to his emails and his concern that Mr Y lacked skills in daily living that he would need if he were to take up a university placement. The social worker responded the same day. She apologised for the delay in contacting him, and said, “…I have been trying to set up a package for [Mr Y] which is directly provided by an agency rather than a direct payment. Ive been trying to identify an suitable agency, and this is proving difficult”.
  26. Mr X says he became increasingly frustrated with the delay and poor communication. He is concerned that the delay in providing support to Mr Y has impacted on his progress to increase his independence and that this may be detrimental should he choose to accept a university placement.
  27. The Council contacted this office on 18 June 2021 to say a support agency had been identified and a provisional start date of 29 June 2021 for a personal assistant had been agreed.

Analysis

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if a person has social care needs, or if they are entitled to receive services from the Council. The Ombudsman’s role is to establish if the Council assessed a person’s needs properly and acted in accordance with the law.
  2. In this case it appears the Council failed to do so.
  3. The Council failed to coordinate some aspects of Mr Y’s transition from education into adulthood. There is evidence of delay, confusion, and poor communication in the assessment process. This caused Mr Y and his father avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
  4. Mr Y is an adult with a history and a needs assessment under the Care Act should have flowed from his ECHP Instead, the Council instructed Mr X to approach the NHS to ask for a Care Act assessment of Mr Y. This resulted in a stand-alone Care Act assessment being completed. The Council should have ensured the transition to adult care and support was well planned and integrated with the annual reviews of his EHC plan. It failed to do so.
  5. Following Mr Y’s GP referral to adult social services, there is evidence of delay, confusion, and poor communication from the outset. The Council acknowledged Mr Y was not given accurate information about who would undertake Mr Y’s needs assessment. A council officer wrongly told Mr X that EPUT was responsible for dealing with his complaints about the assessment process when it is the Council’s responsibility. There was a delay in Mr X receiving copies of Mr Y’s assessments and support plans.
  6. The emails Mr X exchanged with the Council show his lack of understanding, frustration and that he felt unsupported. The lack of planning and coordination caused Mr X and Mr Y avoidable frustration. His lack of understanding about the relationship between the Council and EPUT resulted in further frustration and some further delay as Mr X wrongly believed the assessment by EPUT not to be Care Act complaint, which resulted in complaints to the Council over the course of several months. He also misunderstood the complaints process and was unhappy when the Council raised a complaint with EPUT, which was the correct course of action.
  7. Following the second needs assessment, Mr X struggled to find a personal assistant for Mr Y, this was not due to any fault by the Council. The Council also had difficulty finding an agency to provide commissioned support. I cannot criticise the Council here, the impact of the pandemic on the social care sector has been significant.
  8. The issues raised in this complaint could have been avoided with adequate transition planning. The lack of which caused Mr X and Mr Y avoidable frustration and uncertainty. Furthermore, Mr Y missed out on transitional support and may not have made the progress he could have expected.
  9. In response to the draft decision, the Council suggested Mr Y’s Care Co-ordinator from the Community Mental Health Team undertake a joint reassessment with the Recovery Wellbeing Team. Mr Y’s support will transfer to the latter team shortly. The assessment will look at Mr Y’s additional support needs surrounding his attendance at university.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. The Council will, within four weeks of the final decision:
  • provide Mr X with a written apology for the failings highlighted above and pay him £250 to acknowledge his time and trouble pursuing the complaint with the Council and this office
  • liaise with the Community Mental Health Team to arrange a joint reassessment with the Recovery Wellbeing Team. The assessment will look at Mr Y’s support needs surrounding his attendance at university.
  1. Within twelve weeks of my final decision, the Council will also:
  • Take action to improve its procedures around transition planning. The Council will remind its senior managers and officers of the requirements of the Care Act and the Special educational needs and disability code of practice. The Council could do so either through staff training or producing a clear process map/procedure for its officers to follow when planning for the transition of a service user with an EHC Plan into adult social care.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council failed to coordinate some aspects of Mr Y’s transition from education into adulthood. There is evidence of delay, confusion, and poor communication in the assessment process. This caused Mr Y and his father avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
  2. The above recommendations are a suitable way to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and Mr Y.
  3. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. Mr X believes the assessment of Mr Y’s needs should have been completed by the Council. I have explained to him that the law does allow the Council to contract out services, including Care Act assessments. Therefore, I will not investigate this aspect of the complaint.
  2. But the Council remains responsible for the quality of any service those contractors provide, and for addressing any complaints users of services may have. This accountability remains irrespective of whether the provider is a private company, a third sector organisation or another publicly funded body.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings