Summary: The Council was at fault for the time taken to assess Mr X’s needs under the Care Act 2014. As a result, Mr X had to wait longer than he should have for a completed assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him for the distress he suffered.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains:
1. The Council failed to provide him with proper care and support in the late 1990’s and 2000’s. Mr X says if the Council had done this, he may not have become involved in the criminal justice system.
2. The Council has not properly assessed him for care needs. The Council also withdrew mental health support which he required for a police matter.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated complaint b) only. I have set out at the end of this statement why I have not investigated complaint a).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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. As part of this investigation, I considered the information provided by Mr X and the information provided by the Council.
7. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Assessments and care plans

8. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person 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.
9. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.
10. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support 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 council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must 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.

Background

11. Mr X suffers with Autism, Asperger’s syndrome, Pathological Demand Avoidance and a Personality Disorder.
12. In 2017, Mr X was placed under social services supervision by the Courts. This was following his involvement with the criminal justice system where he was found unfit to plead to offences. The Court, following the recommendations of medical professionals decided Mr X would be better placed under supervision from social services. Mr X was also placed under a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) for a period of five years.
13. The Council carried out an assessment of Mr X’s needs. This resulted in Mr X having meetings for support with a social care practitioner fortnightly and weekly meetings with another professional.
14. In April 2018, Mr X’s supervision with social services ended, however he continued to receive mental health support.
15. In September 2021, the Council started to assess Mr X’s care needs. During this assessment social workers held three meetings with Mr X. He was supported in two of these by an advocate. The Council decided Mr X had eligible care needs as he needed help developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships. In addition, the Council decided Mr X needed help with accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering. The Council decided these needs were largely being met from the support Mr X received from the service who provided his advocate and another organisation who were supporting him with job applications, interviews etc.
16. In January 2022, Mr X’s mental health support finished. This was on the basis he had made progress and no longer needed this.

Mr X’s complaint

17. Mr X complained to the Council in December 2021. Mr X raised a number of issues which included concerns about the recent Care Act assessment. Mr X said the assessment had not identified his needs correctly or the risks he faced. Mr X also raised issues about the support he had received from the mental health team. Mr X said he had not had support from a mental health social worker.
18. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in January. This was the Council’s final response under its adult social care complaints procedure. The Council said Mr X had a mental health social practitioner and had access to them during his Care Act assessment. However, the Council said Mr X’s support from the mental health team was due to end and this had been planned and agreed by him based on the significant progress he had made. The Council also agreed to look into Mr X’s concerns about his recent Care Act assessment as the assessment was still a draft and had not been finalised.
19. Following the conclusion of this complaint, Mr X complained to the Council again on 27 January 2022. Mr X asked the Council to re-open his mental health casefile so he could receive support when dealing with the police as his SHPO was due to be ended and he did not wish to attend the police station. Mr X also asked that a senior member of the Council intervene to persuade the police to not compel Mr X to attend the police station in person.
20. The Council responded to Mr X on 10 February 2022. The Council said Mr X’s social worker asked the police to consider his request not to attend the station. However, the Council said this was ultimately a decision for the police and would be up to them to decide what to do. The Council said this matter did not warrant the mental health team becoming involved again.
21. The Council also confirmed it could not ask a senior member to become involved with this matter as this was beyond the scope of the adult social care department.

After the complaints procedure

22. Following the end of the Council’s complaints procedure, the Council decided to carry out a new assessment of Mr X’s care needs under the Care Act. The Council said the social worker involved had left its service and Mr X had not been able to send in his comments on the previous draft assessment from the end of 2021.
23. The Council issued a new draft assessment in May 2022, which stated Mr X had additional eligible care needs as he needed help maintaining a habitable home environment. During the course of this assessment the Council and Mr X disagreed with the wording of the assessment, namely that social workers wanted to include references to Mr X’s convictions while the SHPO was in place.
24. The Council completed the assessment in August 2022, after the SHPO had expired. As a result, it did not included details about Mr X’s convictions.

Analysis

25. The Council was at fault for the time taken to carry out a Care Act assessment for Mr X. The Council started a Care Act assessment for Mr X in September 2021 and did not finish this until August 2022. The Council also issued a second draft assessment in May 2022, some eight months after starting the first assessment.
26. I recognise the Council said there were issues with Mr X being able to communicate his concerns about the first assessment to the Council, however I still consider the Council should have produced a finalised assessment and care plan sooner. In addition, following the conclusion of the complaints procedure the main disagreement between the Council and Mr X was whether to include details of his convictions in the assessment. The Council said social workers thought it was important to do so while the SHPO was in place, however the Council did not issue a final assessment. The Council should have issued a final assessment and decided whether to include details of the convictions even if Mr X disagreed with this. He would then have been able to challenge the assessment.
27. As a result, Mr X had to wait much longer than he should have to receive a completed Care Act assessment.
28. The Council was not at fault for withdrawing mental health support. Mr X’s mental health action plan stated the support would end in January 2022. This was due to the progress Mr X had made. I recognise Mr X’s view that he needed support to deal with a police matter related to his SHPO and wanted the Council to intervene. However, I am satisfied this was a matter for the police and the Council could not get involved in matters relating to his SHPO. If Mr X had concerns about how the SHPO he would need to approach the police or seek legal advice.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within one month of my final decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Apologise to Mr X for the time taken to carry out a Care Act Assessment.
• Pay Mr X £150 to recognise the distress caused by the delays in completing his Care Act assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault for the time taken to complete a Care Act assessment for Mr X. This caused him injustice. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

31. I have not considered complaint a). This is because the matters Mr X complains about happened over 12 months ago. Some of them are from over 20 years ago. I can see no reason why Mr X could not have complained to the Ombudsman sooner, particularly as he has complained before and also as in receipt of support from an advocate.
32. In addition, I am not satisfied that we could carry out an effective investigation of such matters at this stage, given the timeframes which have passed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman