Summary: We will not investigate Miss Q’s complaint about the Council’s Adult Social Care team’s failure to offer support or a Care Act 2014 assessment following an accident. Nor will we investigate Miss Q’s complaint that the Council was limiting her contact. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I have called Miss Q, complained about Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council’s Adult Social Care team. She said it failed to offer her support after a car crashed into her while she was out on her mobility scooter, and refused to do an assessment under the Care Act 2014 because of Covid-19. Miss Q also complained that the Council was now limiting her contact with it.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Miss Q provided. I considered the information the Council provided. I discussed the complaint with Miss Q. And I considered Miss Q’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. The Care Act 2014 requires councils to do an assessment for any adult who appears to need care and support.

What happened following Miss Q’s accident

5. In October 2020, a car crashed into Miss Q while she was out on her mobility scooter.
6. Between 9 October and 14 October 2020, Miss Q contacted the Council asking for help to get groceries as her scooter was badly damaged following the crash. The Council offered Miss Q various options including online shopping, and home delivery from a supermarket and a food bank. She declined all these options as she preferred to get her groceries from a particular supermarket. The Council also asked Miss Q if she had any care and support needs and whether she needed to be assessed under the Care Act 2014. Miss Q said she did not want an assessment or any carers coming in to support her.

The Council’s decision to restrict Miss Q’s contact

7. The Council wrote to Miss Q in October 2020 telling her it was restricting her contact. It explained why it had decided to do this, including the high volume of her calls to officers and her inappropriate behaviour during the calls. The Council gave details of how and when Miss Q could contact it, including what she could do in an emergency and if she had any new adult social care issues. The Council said it would review these arrangements at least every six months.

Assessment

8. I recognise Miss Q is unhappy with the Council’s actions. However, for the following reasons, it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council in the way it dealt with her.
9. The available evidence shows the Council offered Miss Q various options to have groceries delivered to her home. So the Council did support her following her accident. It was Miss Q’s decision to decline the support offered by the Council.
10. Similarly, the Council offered to assess Miss Q under the Care Act 2014. I have seen no evidence showing the Council refused to assess Miss Q because of Covid-19. It was Miss Q’s decision to decline the Council’s offer of a Care Act assessment.
11. The Council properly explained to Miss Q why it decided to restrict her contact. However, it also told her how and when she could contact it should she need to, including in emergencies and when she had new adult social care issues. It also said when it would review the restrictions.
12. So, in summary, we will not investigate Miss Q’s complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss Q’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman