Summary: The Council acted with fault when it sent correspondence about Mr Y’s care and support in a format which was not suitable for his needs as a blind person. This caused Mr Y some time and trouble which the Council should apologise and pay £150 for. However, the fault did not mean that Mr Y was unaware of the requirement to pay towards his support because the records show he was informed about his responsibility to financially contribute to the cost of his care.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr V, complains on behalf of Mr Y that the Council failed to:
1. put in place a sufficient care package which fully meets Mr Y’s needs
2. provide Mr Y with copies of his needs assessment, financial assessment and care plan in a format which is accessible to him
3. ensure that Mr Y can independently understand correspondence sent to him
2. Mr V also complains the Council is unreasonably seeking to recover from Mr Y unpaid financial contributions for care received between 2017 and 2020.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. We have exercised discretion to investigate matters related to the invoice dated August 2015. We consider it appropriate to exercise discretion on this point because of Mr Y’s claim that the Council did not provide information about the care charges in an accessible format, therefore arguably he was unable to complain about these matters at the time.
4. We have also exercised discretion to investigate matters relating to the method of the Council’s communication with Mr Y since 2018. This is because any failure to communicate with Mr Y in an appropriate way would have likely prevented him from complaining sooner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. During my investigation I confirmed my understanding of Mr Y’s complaint with his representative, Mr V. I also made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided alongside the relevant law and guidance, which I have cited where relevant in this statement.
9. I issued my provisional findings in a draft decision and invited comments from Mr Y and the Council which I considered before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

10. 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 an individual has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and 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.
11. If the local authority considers the person has eligible needs, it must provide a care and support plan. The plan should consider what the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the local authority must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan may include a personal budget which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.
12. The local authority may charge the adult when it arranges care and support. The Care Act and supporting statutory guidance is intended to make charging fairer and more clearly understood by everyone. The overarching principle is that people should only be required to pay what they can afford. People will be entitled to financial support based on a means-test and some will be entitled to free care.
13. When communicating with a person about their care needs, and any financial contributions, the ‘Care and Support’ statutory guidance says:

“… local authorities should ensure there is sufficient information and advice available in a suitable format for the person’s needs, in line with the Equality Act 2010 (in particular for those with a sensory impairment, with learning disabilities or for whom English is not their first language), to ensure that they or their representative are able to understand any contributions they are asked to make. Local authorities should also make the person or their representative aware of the availability of independent financial information and advice”

14. The guidance also says, “The local authority should ensure that products and materials (in all formats) are as accessible as possible for all potential users. Websites should meet specific standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and guidance set out in the Government Digital Service’s (GDS) service manual, printed products should be produced to appropriate guidelines with important materials available in easy read, and telephone services should also be available to those with hearing impairments. Local authorities should particularly be aware of the needs of individuals with complex but relatively rare conditions, such as deaf-blindness”

“As required under the Equality Act 2010, reasonable adjustments should be made to ensure that disabled people have equal access to information and advice services. Reasonable adjustments could include the provision of information in accessible formats or with communication support”

“Advice and information content should, where possible, be provided in the manner preferred by the person and will therefore often need to be available in a number of different formats.”

What happened

Assessing and meeting Mr Y’s identified needs

15. Mr Y lives alone. He is registered blind and has other chronic health conditions. Mr Y received social care support, commissioned by the Council, at various points between 2014 and 2020. For the purposes of this part of the complaint, I am considering the actions around the support provided in 2020.
16. In September 2020 the Council assessed Mr Y after he requested a change in his care and support plan, which at the time required three calls per day and help with shopping and cleaning once a week. Prior to the assessment, the social worker emailed the assessor to say, “One of the things we discussed was support in reading his correspondence. Although he has previous help from the tenancy support office (which I understand has now ended), and also had informal mechanisms to support him, he feels it would be helpful if this could be made more formal, and time put aside in his support plan for carers to read his correspondence for him".
17. There is also an internal email from the tenancy support officer, “… at the moment there is no body to deal with his correspondence, [Mr Y] says that he has a pile of unopened letters”
18. Following the assessment, the Council decided Mr Y would benefit from help with reading post, preparing and washing clothes, cleaning the kitchen and bathroom areas and hoovering. The assessment also said Mr Y has an identified need for “making use of necessary facilities in the local community” however the Council decided that this need was already met by friends and family so did not propose any further support in this area.
19. In November 2020 Mr Y cancelled the provision commissioned by the Council. Since then, Mr Y has made an informal arrangement with a friend to provide support. Concerned about this potentially unwise decision, the Council assessed Mr Y’s mental capacity to make decisions about his care because of the frequency of Mr Y’s changing opinions on the matter and his “erratic consistency”. A social worker noted “these changes in his opinion have occurred as quickly as overnight and it has been difficult to establish with him which are expressed preferences as opposed to his identified needs”.
20. After assessing Mr Y’s capacity to make decisions about his provision, the Council decided that Mr Y had the necessary mental capacity to decide to cancel his support. The records show the Council also contacted Mr Y to check on his welfare following the cancellation, "I have spoken with [Mr Y] today to check on his welfare – how he is managing without formal support. Happily he informs me that things are going well for him"
21. The Council also noted its view that Mr Y’s ability to manage independently without formal support, and without experiencing deterioration in his physical and mental health, would indicate that he does not require formal support.
22. I have considered Mr V’s complaint that Mr Y’s personal budget did not include an allocation for accessing the community for recreational purposes such as assisted walks. Mr V estimates that Mr Y requires four hours of support each week to meet this need. I do not find fault on this point. The Council is obliged to meet ‘unmet’ eligible needs. After completing the assessment, the Council decided that Mr Y already had informal support in place which met this need. The Council was entitled to take into account any existing support which Mr Y received at the time. Furthermore, there is no injustice to Mr Y because he made an informed decision to cancel his package of support.

Issuing correspondence to Mr Y

23. The Council acknowledges that it has no records to show that it shared assessment documents and care plans with Mr Y in an appropriate format prior to December 2020. This is fault. However, the Council says it has offered support to help Mr Y read correspondence using a reader on his mobile phone and has assessed Mr Y as being able to call upon assistance from other agencies using telephone contact to help him read correspondence.
24. An assessment completed by the Council in June 2018, in conjunction with a specialist deafblind assessor, found that Mr Y had equipment in the home including a specialist audio player. The assessment also noted “[Mr Y] is unable to read his post as a result of his sight loss and is dependent on friends to read post to him”. It went on to say:

“[Mr Y] has all of the equipment he requires and is able to use it independently. However [Mr Y] requires support to address his alcohol dependency in order to make effective use of ROVI [Rehabilitation Officer for Visually Impaired] and sighted guide support to enable greater independent, confidence in accessing the community… sensory officer is proposing ROVI joint works with drug and alcohol team support to achieve this, and a review of his care package to consider 8hrs a week sighted guide support. However [Mr Y’s] motivation to give up alcohol is a deciding factor as without doing so the support would be ineffective”

25. The Council has also provided three separate case recordings from late 2020 and early 2021 to show that officers have spoken to Mr Y to see how he is managing written correspondence. On every occasion Mr Y has not expressed any problems and explained that he calls upon friends and family to help read letters when necessary. The Council has also, on occasion, read letters aloud to Mr Y over the phone.
26. Although there is fault in the Council’s method of communication, I do not consider the fault caused the injustice claimed by Mr V and Mr Y. They say that, due to the Council’s failure to provide information in a way which is accessible for Mr Y, he was not aware of the requirement to pay contributions towards the cost of his support, and he was not aware a debt was accruing. Therefore, in their opinion, it would follow that the Council should not pursue the debt.
27. The information I have seen suggests that Mr Y was aware of the requirement to make payments towards his care, which he had been doing until he cancelled the direct debit. I cannot therefore say the fault I have identified meant the Council has wrongfully pursued a charge against Mr Y. However, the failure to provide correspondence in an appropriate format likely meant that Mr Y had to call upon his support network more than was necessary causing him some frustration, time and trouble.

Financial contributions

28. The Council is seeking payment of invoices dating back to August 2015 for Mr Y’s contributions to his cost of care. All disputed invoices have been issued by the Council since the introduction of the Care Act in April 2015.
29. The Council wrote to Mr Y in December 2020 asking him to begin repayments to clear the outstanding balance. Mr Y agreed to repay the debt and set up a standing order for £100 per month from 1 January 2021.
30. Mr V says that Mr Y was not made aware of the requirement to pay contributions towards the cost of his care because the Council did not communicate this information in a way which Mr Y could access and understand. Mr V also says that, due to the lack of information and the subsequent misunderstanding, Mr Y gave cash directly to care staff in the belief that these were payments towards his assessed contributions. Those payments were not passed to the Council and have not been recovered. The Council’s safeguarding team considered this allegation, but the case did not progress due to the passage of time and the lack of information provided by Mr Y.
31. Although I have found fault with the way in which the Council has sometimes communicated with Mr Y about his care and support needs, this fault does not automatically mean that Mr Y is not obliged to pay his contributions. This is because, in addition to the written financial assessments issued by the Council, there are other ways in which the Council explained to Mr Y the requirement to pay towards his care.
32. The records show that have met with Mr Y to help him complete financial assessment forms. On each occasion, the officers have explained the process to Mr Y. The most recent financial assessment form completed in July 2019 was signed on Mr Y’s behalf, by his sister, who also supported him during the assessment. Mr Y signed a declaration of understanding and at no point did he suggest that he was unable to make any financial contributions towards his care
33. Mr V also challenges the Council’s legal basis to recover invoices which are more than six years old. This is because Section 69 of the Care Act places a limitation period on recovery action. This is explained within Annex D of the Care Act Statutory Guidance, which says:

“For any new debts that occur after the commencement of the Care Act 2014, the time period to recover debts has been extended to 6 years from the date when the sum became due to the local authority. Where a debt is taking some time to be recovered, provided legal proceedings have issued within the limitation period, enforcement can continue. If it has not, the debt must be written off”

34. In response to our enquiries the Council has explained that Mr Y began making repayments in March 2021 and within the six-year limitation period. Therefore, Mr Y has acknowledged the debt within six years and ‘reset’ the period of limitation.
35. In my view, Mr Y’s debts are not statute barred and the Council is entitled to seek repayment. This is because the disputed invoices have been issued within the last six years, or Mr Y has acknowledged the debt therefore resetting the period as per Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1980. I do not find any fault in the Council’s recovery of the debt.

Assistive technology

36. Mr V complains the Council has failed to provide Mr Y with the necessary technology to assist him with the reading of written correspondence. In response to our enquiries the Council said that equipment is provided based on the person’s identified needs and those needs should be met in the most cost-effective way. Following an assessment, the Council says it identified that Mr Y needed help with reading communication and the Council recommended assistive applications on his mobile phone, in the first instance. The application recommended by the Council uses the phone’s camera to identify text, objects and people and audibly relays these to the user.
37. The records show that Mr Y downloaded the application on 1 October 2020 but declined four offers of support from the Council’s ‘Rehabilitation Officer for Visual Impairment’ to help use the application. The ROVI also suggested that Mr Y could apply for a grant to obtain a specialist text-to-speech reader and offered to support him making an application on five separate occasions.
38. Mr V says the Council has a duty to provide equipment up to the cost of £1,000. He relies upon section 2(1) of the Care Act which requires councils to provide “preventative services” to delay the development of long-term needs. Mr V also refers to regulation 4 of the Care and Support (Preventing Needs for Care and Support) which says that minor adaptations costing £1,000 or less must be provided free of charge.
39. It is not fault for the Council to explore the most cost-effective options first. Mr V is correct to point out that Mr Y may be eligible for equipment costing ‘up to’ £1000 and I consider the Council has met this requirement in providing the application referred to. If the application is unsuitable for Mr Y’s needs, then the Council should explore other options. However, there is no evidence to show that the technology offered is not suitable for Mr Y. Instead, the records show that Mr Y may not be using the application to its full potential because he often chooses not to engage with ROVIs who have tried to assist him.
40. However, if Mr Y remains of the view that he needs additional help in this area, I would suggest that with the assistance of Mr V or others he contacts the Council to arrange some support with using the application. After a period of initial support and use, if Mr Y is unable to use the application, the Council may wish to discuss alternative options with him.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council should apologise for its previous failure to send correspondence to Mr Y about his care and support in an accessible format, and pay £150 for the frustration, time and trouble this caused.
42. Within six weeks of our final decision, the Council should provide information to the Ombudsman to explain what measures it now has in place to ensure it meets the legal requirement to provide information to its service users in a format suitable for their needs.

Back to top

Final decision

43. Subject to further comments received from Mr Y and the Council, I intend to complete my investigation with a finding of fault causing some injustice for the reasons explained in this statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman