Summary: Ms C complained the Council delayed providing a care plan for her brother, Mr D. She also says the Council arranged a placement for Mr D without reading the family history. We find the Council was at fault as it delayed authorising Mr D’s care plan and it did not consult with all family members when deciding on a placement for Mr D. It has also delayed reviewing Mr D’s care plan and placement. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Ms C complained the Council delayed providing a care plan for her brother (Mr D). She also says the Council arranged a placement for Mr D without reading the family history and it failed to adequately respond to her concerns about the placement.
2. Ms C says the matter is causing distress and Mr D’s health is deteriorating.

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 may investigate complaints from a person affected by the matter in the complaint, or from someone the person has authorised in writing to act for him or her. If the person has died or cannot authorise someone to act, we may investigate a complaint from a personal representative or from someone we consider suitable to represent the person affected. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
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 considered information Ms C submitted with her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
7. Ms C 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

Care planning under the Care Act 2014

8. Councils have a duty under the Care Act 2014 to provide a care and support plan for a person who has eligible social care needs. They must write a care and support plan that explains how to meet the person’s eligible care needs. The care and support plan may include a personal budget. This is the money a council says it will cost to cover the person’s eligible needs.
9. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 gives an expectation that local authorities should conduct a review of a care and support plan at least every 12 months. The authority should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreement and signing off the plan and personal budget. It should carry out the review as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. As well as the duty to keep plans under review generally, the Act puts a duty on the local authority to conduct a review if the adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf asks for one.

Mental Capacity Act 2005

10. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so themselves.
11. A key principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests.
12. Section 4 of the Act provides a checklist of steps that decision makers must follow to determine what is in a person’s best interests. The decision maker also has to consider if there is a less restrictive choice available that can achieve the same outcome.

What happened

13. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
14. Mr D has complex needs and lives in supported living accommodation. He has a care plan from the Council that sets out his eligible care needs.
15. The Council received a telephone call in June 2020 from the placement manager at the supported living accommodation (Provider A) that Mr D was living in. The manager said Mr D would need to leave the accommodation because of extensive repairs that needed to be carried out.
16. The Council assigned a new social worker (Social Worker A) to Mr D’s file. He agreed to review Mr D’s placement.
17. Social Worker A visited Mr D on 9 July. He assessed Mr D’s capacity to consent to a review of the placement and his capacity in relation to a change of accommodation. The outcome was that Mr D lacked capacity to make decisions about a change in his accommodation. Social Worker A agreed to consult with other members of staff and Mr D’s family to make a best interests decision to review his placement.
18. Social Worker A emailed Ms C on 18 August and introduced himself. He asked for her availability to have a meeting about Mr D’s placement. Ms C responded on 25 August and asked for an update on Mr D’s move. Social Worker A responded and said he had sent a change of accommodation request to the Council’s brokerage team. He said he wanted her involvement in the process and therefore asked for her availability.
19. Ms C responded on 3 September and said a meeting via video link was not necessary. She said she was available on the phone during the week. She also asked which placements had become available.
20. Social Worker A responded and said he would let her know as soon it had confirmed a placement. He asked for her availability the following week to discuss Mr D’s case.
21. Social Worker A assessed Mr D under the Care Act 2014 on 16 September. He drew up a draft care plan on 22 September.
22. The manager from Provider A contacted Social Worker A. He said Mr D and his father (Mr E) visited a new potential provider (Provider B) and both liked it.
23. The manager from Provider B contacted Social Worker A and said the accommodation was longer available because of unforeseen repair works.
24. Social Worker A contacted Provider A and other Council officers to find alternative accommodation for Mr D.
25. The Council found another provider (Provider C) for Mr D. The manager carried out a needs assessment for Mr D and said Provider C would be appropriate for his needs.
26. Mr D’s mother (Ms F) contacted the Council and expressed concerns about the location of Provider C.
27. Social Worker A contacted Ms F to discuss an early review of the placement and to consider alternative suitable accommodation for Mr D. Ms F said she would call Social Worker A back when she was available.
28. Mr D moved to Provider C in November.
29. Social Worker A emailed Ms C on 4 November and said to resolve the concerns he wanted to hold an early review of Mr D’s placement.
30. Ms C’s MP contacted the Council on her behalf and complained that Social Worker A was only liaising with Mr E and not involving other members of the family. He also said that Social Worker A had not read the family history, and this led to an unsuitable placement for Mr D.
31. The Council met with Ms C on 20 November. It said that although it had worked hard to find good replacement accommodation for Mr D, better effort could have been made to engage other family members in the process. It apologised for the distress caused. It agreed to contact Ms F to discuss her concerns about Mr D’s placement. It also agreed to involve an independent advocate and update Mr D’s file with details of family members who should be contacted about his support arrangements.
32. The Council contacted Mr E for his views on Mr D moving to different accommodation. Mr E said he wanted Mr D to have stability and therefore disagreed that he should move.
33. The Council made a referral for an independent advocate to be assigned to Mr D’s case. It said once an advocate had been appointed, it would facilitate a best interest meeting and review for Mr D.
34. Social Worker A contacted the advocate on 12 January 2021 to arrange a meeting to discuss Mr D’s case.
35. Social Worker A emailed Ms C on 14 January and asked to meet with the advocate to review Mr D’s accommodation. The Council chased for a response on 20 January.
36. The meeting took place on 22 January. Ms C said she was not aware the meeting was going to include a review. The Council agreed the meeting would focus on addressing other issues Ms C raised about Provider C. Social Worker A said he would contact the relevant people to schedule another time for the review.
37. Ms C said she was concerned about Mr D being supported by a member of staff that did not want to be tested for COVID-19. The manager from Provider C said the member of staff was no longer working with Mr D. The manager also agreed to send Ms C monthly updates of Mr D’s progress.
38. Ms C emailed the Council on 24 January and said Mr D did not have a care plan and it had not distributed the assessment papers. She also said the Council should have made it clear a review was meant to take place. Finally, she asked for the advocate’s contact details.
39. Ms C’s MP raised a further complaint to the Council on 11 February. He said the Council had failed to authorise a care plan for Mr D. He also said the Council had not organised a review of Mr D’s placement.
40. The Council emailed Ms C on 6 April and asked if she was free for the review meeting between 7 to 9 April. Ms C responded on 12 April and said it was short notice. She provided other available dates. The Council responded and said it would ask Social Worker A to check with other family members.
41. The Council responded to Ms C’s complaint. It accepted it had delayed arranging a review meeting. It agreed to arrange one urgently. It also said it completed a care plan and it was waiting for it to be authorised by a senior manager before it could be shared with Mr D. It also apologised to Ms C for its failings.
42. Ms C responded and said she was still waiting for a review to be arranged. She also said Mr D needed to be moved from the area, and if Social Worker A had read the file, he would not have only consulted with Mr E during the moving process. She also said she had not received the advocate’s contact details despite asking on 24 January. The Council responded on the same day and provided Ms C with the contact details. It asked if she was free during the week so it could hold the review.
43. The Council emailed Ms C on 28 April and asked if she was able to attend Mr D’s review meeting the next day. Ms C responded on 4 May and she needed more notice. She provided other dates for when she was available.
44. The Council apologised for the short notice and suggested another date to hold the meeting. Ms C responded and said she was available.
45. The Council authorised Mr D’s care plan on 4 May. It did not send a copy to Provider C or Ms C.
46. Ms C emailed the Council on 6 May and said as she did not receive a reply, she had made other arrangements. The Council responded and said Social Worker A needed to check whether the advocate was available. It also said it needed to put the review on hold because Social Worker A was leaving the team.
47. Ms C raised concerns that Mr D’s health had deteriorated since he moved to Provider C. The Council responded and said it would assign a social worker to define a care plan for Mr D.
48. The Council assigned a new Social Worker (Social Worker B) to Mr D’s file on 28 June. She contacted Ms C on 19 July and said she would arrange a meeting when the manager at Provider C returned from annual leave. Ms C responded and said she was happy to join a conference call for a meeting. She also reiterated Mr D had been without a care plan for a year.
49. Social Worker B emailed the manager at Provider C on 30 July and provided her with a copy of Mr D’s care plan.
50. Social Worker B contacted Mr D’s advocate and asked for her availability to attend a review. The advocate responded and said she was no longer involved in Mr D’s case. She said Social Worker B would need to make a new referral so she could be re-assigned to the case.
51. The advocate was re-assigned to Mr D’s case on 18 August. Social Worker B visited Mr D with his advocate on 22 September.
52. Social Worker B called Mr E and Ms F to arrange a meeting to review Mr D’s care plan but could not get through. Social Worker B emailed Ms C on 26 October and explained she was unsuccessful in contacting Mr E and Ms F. She asked Ms C if they were available for a meeting that week. Ms C said the Council needed to ensure it was consulting with all family members.
53. The Council emailed Ms C, Mr D’s advocate and Provider C and asked to review the placement in two days. Ms C responded and said such short notice was unacceptable. Social Worker B emailed Ms C and asked her to suggest a suitable time for the meeting.
54. Social Worker B discussed the matter with Mr E. He said he was happy with Mr D’s placement.
55. The Council contacted Ms C and she discussed her concerns with Mr D’s placement. Ms F contacted the Council and said she wanted Mr D to be moved from the area to due to historical incidents.
56. The Council emailed Ms C on 17 December. It said it had referred the matter to its learning disability health team and it was waiting for a response. It asked to book a meeting with Provider C in the New Year to discuss the care plan.

Back to top

Analysis

57. The Council significantly delayed issuing Mr D’s care plan. This is fault. Social Worker A assessed Mr D on 16 September 2020 and drew up a draft care plan on 22 September 2020. However, it did not authorise this until 4 May 2021. The Council also delayed sharing a copy of Mr D's care plan with Provider C for nearly three months. Provider C was using its own care plan and the previous care plan that Provider A had used. However, it was the Council’s responsibility to work with Provider C and ensure it issued Mr D with a new care plan when he moved there.
58. The Council’s delay in issuing Mr D’s care plan has caused Ms C frustration. In relation to the impact on Mr D’s health, I have compared the care plan the Council issued when he was living at Provider A (which is what Provider C used) compared to the care plan that it authorised on 4 May 2021. The two care plans are similar regarding Mr D’s support needs, and therefore I cannot conclusively say the delay in issuing the care plan has had a detrimental impact on Mr D’s health. Having said that, Ms C has raised concerns that Mr D’s health has deteriorated while he has been living at Provider C and that it has failed to follow his food plan. Therefore, it is unclear whether his care plan is suitable for his needs.
59. The Council also failed to send Ms C a copy of the care plan when it authorised it. This is fault, which has further caused frustration. The Council has now provided Ms C with a copy of the care plan during my investigation.
60. The Council accepts it should have involved the family more in the decision to move Mr D to Provider C. I agree this is fault which caused upset and frustration. I appreciate the Council had to act quickly when Mr D had to leave Provider A, but it should have made better efforts to consult with all of Mr D’s family.
61. Ms C says the Council did not read the family history and it has failed to adequately respond to the concerns she raised about the placement. The Council says it has reviewed the file and there is no evidence of anything in the risk assessment which needed to be considered as part of the placement move. While there does not appear to have been anything documented in the files, the Council could have avoided the subsequent concerns that have been raised by consulting with all family members.
62. With regards to how the Council responded to Ms C’s concerns, the Council apologised for the distress caused in November 2020 and agreed to review Mr D’s placement. This still has not happened. There was an initial delay because of the need to appoint an independent advocate. Once an advocate was appointed, a meeting was arranged to review the placement in January 2021, but this did not take place due to a misunderstanding. The Council said in the meeting it would rearrange another review. However, it failed to do this and only tried to do so when Ms C complained.
63. There have been subsequent delays with a meeting taking place because of various reasons, including the delay in appointing a new social worker and the need for the advocate to be re-assigned to Mr D’s case. These delays have only added to Ms C’s frustration. As I mentioned in paragraph 58, there is a concern that Provider C has not considered Mr D’s long term health issues and therefore his health has worsened. To address these concerns, the Council needs to arrange a meeting to review Mr D’s care plan and placement to ensure it is appropriately meeting his needs.

Back to top

Agreed action

64. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 22 February 2022 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr D and Ms C.
• Pay Ms C £200 for the frustration, upset and worry caused to her.
• Arrange a meeting with Mr D’s family, his advocate, and Provider C to review his care plan and the suitability of the placement.
• Issue written reminders to relevant staff they must:

1. Issue customer’s care plans without unnecessary delay.
2. Arrange reviews in a timely manner when concerns are raised a care plan is not meeting a customer’s needs.

Back to top

Final decision

65. I have found fault by the Council, which has caused an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman