Summary: Ms B complains the Council did not ensure her son, Y, received adequate support. She says the Council initially refused a new support centre placement and did not carry out a proper transition to another placement. Ms B says this led to increased problems with Y’s behaviour and mental wellbeing. Ms B also says the Council failed to provide 17 hours of additional care by direct payments. We find fault in how the Council managed Ms B’s request for alternative provision and transport for Y.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, complains the Council delayed in agreeing to fund an alternative placement for Y, when he left his previous placement. Ms B says the Council did not agree an alternative and did not carry out a proper transition to another placement for Y. She says this caused significant distress and meant Y struggled to settle at his new placement. It led to increased problems with his behaviour and difficulties with his mental wellbeing.
2. Ms B says the Council also failed to provide additional care through direct payments. She says a panel agreed to 17 hours of additional support through direct payments, but the Council did not provide this. She asks the Council to backdate the missed payments, so she can put this towards future care.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. I considered the information Ms B provided and spoke to her about the complaint, then made enquiries of the Council. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms B and the Council for their comments, before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and Guidance

7. 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.
8. An example of an eligible need includes:
• Making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community including public transport and recreational facilities or services
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. Councils must to 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.  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.
11. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months. Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.
12. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for one to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. The council has a key role in ensuring people have relevant and timely information about direct payments so they can decide whether to request them. If they do so, the Council should support them to use and manage the payment properly.
13. Councils must tell people during the care planning stage which of their needs direct payments could meet. However, councils must consider requests for direct payments made at any time and have clear and swift procedures in place to respond to them. The council must decide whether to provide a direct payment. In all cases, the council should consider the request as quickly as possible.

Background

14. Y is a young adult and is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). Y can display challenging behaviour and receives treatment and support for his mental health.
15. In August 2020 the Council completed an assessment of Y’s needs. It put in place a support plan that included 30 hours of support, through direct payments. The direct payments covered support from personal assistants to attend activities and at home. Y also attended a day centre (“Centre 1”) two days a week. Y’s place at Centre 1 was due to end in around July 2021, although Centre 1 said it may be able to provide a place for some evening sessions going forward.
16. In November 2020 Ms B expressed concern about the provision at Centre 1 coming to an end the following year. She asked the Council to extend this for another year.
17. In the same month Ms B independently visited another day centre (“Centre 2”). The same day Centre 2 contacted the Council to say it had spaces and ask it to consider funding. The Council asked Centre 2 for information about its service and costs.
18. In mid-January 2021 Y attended a taster session at Centre 2. Ms B considered Centre 2 was a supportive environment for Y. The centre provided details of costs to the Council in late January 2021. It indicated it only had capacity for Y to attend one day per week at present but would update the Council when more days became available.
19. In late January 2021 the Council completed a carers assessment for Ms B. It said Ms B was currently looking for an alternative placement for Y to continue after Centre 1 came to an end.
20. Ms B emailed the Council in early February 2021 to say Y had attended three sessions at Centre 2 and she was confident it would be good for him. She asked for him to attend three days per week with transport. Ms B raised concerns about how she was struggling at that time and asked for confirmation of funding. Ms B said the issue now was to replace the provision from Centre 1 and said she had found an excellent alternative for three days a week.
21. In early March 2021, Ms B chased the Council for a decision on funding. She indicated Y was settling in well at Centre 2. The social worker responded to say they had discussed the request with senior managers and informed them of the existing 30 hours a week on top of two days at Centre 1. The social worker said the managers did not authorise the request for Centre 2.
22. Ms B responded to ask why the social worker had put a case before the panel that said Y would be attending both Centre 1 and Centre 2. She said this was not correct as Y would stop attending Centre 1 in the summer. Ms B raised concerns about how the Council had dealt with the request. In late March 2021 a team manager responded to say they would investigate the issues. Ms B said she wanted to make a complaint and asked for a new social worker.
23. Ms B chased the Council for a response to her complaint in late April 2021. The Council said the social worker would continue to work with Ms B.
24. In June 2021 the Council confirmed it had completed a draft weekly plan for Y, which included one day a week at Centre 2. It also included two days at other day centres, including Centre 3, and one evening a week at Centre 1. The Council presented the weekly plan to panel. The panel approved the plan in July 2021.
25. Shortly after the panel meeting, a manager from one of the other day centres contacted the Council to confirm the level of hours provided. The Council said panel had 17 hours to fund the overall package for three days of the week. This was separate to the 30 hours of direct payments available. The social worker said these 17 hours were for agency personal assistants to provide 1:1 support to Y while attending the day centres. The Council funded the agency personal assistants directly.
26. In August 2021 Ms B raised concerns she was not receiving the extra direct payments of 17 hours agreed by panel. Ms B also raised concerns about the agency personal assistants being late for shifts. The manager from the day centre then contacted the Council to ask if it could transfer the 17 hours to direct payments, so Ms B could arrange for personal assistants that she knew and understood Y. A manager from the Council responded that this was fine, and they would arrange for it to happen.
27. In October 2021 Ms B made a formal complaint to the Council. Later that month the Council held a multidisciplinary meeting to consider Ms B’s concerns. The Council sent a complaint response to Ms B in late November 2021.
28. In November 2021 the council reviewed Y’s support plan. It drafted an updated weekly plan for Y, which it presented to panel. It included one day a week at Centre 2. However, it did not agree to fund transport to the centre on the basis Y had access to the Motability scheme, so Ms B was able to transport Y by car. The Council finalised a new support plan for Y in March 2022.

Findings

29. I have separated my findings under the following parts of the complaint:
• Delay in arranging alternative placement
• Not providing transport to Centre 2
• Request for direct payments

Delay in arranging alternative placement

30. Ms B first asked the Council to consider a placement at Centre 2 in November 2020. The panel considered and agreed a new weekly plan with funding in July 2021, seven months later. Therefore, on the face of it, there were delays between the initial request and the decision.
31. It is clear were difficulties in communication between Ms B and the Council, which may have contributed to the delay. I have looked through the correspondence and case notes, which suggest at times, both sides may not have properly understood what the other was saying or were talking a cross purposes. I have included examples in the following paragraphs. However, on balance I find the Council was at fault in how it managed the request.
32. The assessment document for August 2020 does not include a clear support plan and I cannot see any separate support plan document. The assessment says Y will continue with the current direct payment support package (30 hours) and the Council will provide funding for Y to attend Centre 1. Y attended Centre 1 two days a week, so it was a significant part of his existing support plan and identified as something that was necessary to meet his needs.
33. The Council was aware that Y’s placement at Centre 1 was coming to an end in July 2021. The assessment in August 2020 did not address what would happen when it ended. It was therefore always going to be necessary to review Y’s support plan before July 2021, so earlier than the normal annual review, and decide if any alternative provision was needed to continue to meet Y’s needs.
34. I cannot see any evidence the Council completed a formal review of Y’s assessment or support plan until November 2021. It produced a changed weekly plan for Y and agreed funding for this in July 2021. However, it did so outside of any formal review of the support plan. A review of the support plan should have been the basis of any change to Y’s care provision, as it provided a formal framework for the Council to consider what new arrangements were needed to meet Y’s needs and take account of Ms B’s views.
35. Instead, the Council went about making those changes in what appears to be a relatively unstructured way, without clear timeframes involved and a lack of communication with Ms B about its progress. It was fault not to complete a review of Y’s needs.
36. In November 2020 Ms B requested an extra year at Centre 1 then asked the Council to consider Centre 2. Ms B suggested Centre 2 as an alternative to Centre 1, after it finished. But it is not clear the social worker understood that is what Ms B meant. There was a short delay until January 2021 in obtaining a formal costing from Centre 2. Then in March 2021 the social worker indicated that her managers were not inclined to approve Centre 2 as an addition to Centre 1.
37. I have looked through the correspondence and it is not entirely clear that Ms B explained she wanted Centre 2 was an alternative, to begin with. However, the carers assessment in January 2021 says clearly that she is looking for a replacement. Ms B also appears to refer to this in an email dated February 2021. Even if it was not clear to the social worker, I cannot see any evidence the social worker attempted to explore with Ms B why she wanted Y to attend Centre 2. For instance, whether she considered Y’s needs had changed and whether a review was necessary on that basis. Or whether it was because Centre 1 was due to end. Therefore, Ms B did not know there was a misunderstanding and did not have the opportunity to clarify this.
38. The Council indicated to Ms B that it had decided not to consider Centre 2, without having explored what the reason was for the request, whether Ms B felt Y’s needs had changed, or if it was because Centre 1 was coming to an end, and whether any review of the support plan was needed. The position was only clarified after March 2021, when Ms B complained. This likely led to a delay in the new plan being put forward for funding. And again, that happened outside the context of a formal review.
39. Ms B says the impact of the delay was that Y did not have time to receive a proper transition to his new services. She says he had a transition to Centre 2 as she funded days there through the direct payments, from January 2021 onwards. However, Y had no transition whatsoever to Centre 3.
40. Ms B says Y needs to be told there is a change coming and visit the provisions several times before the transition. She says he needs to meet staff in his existing setting and new setting. Ms B the distress the delay caused to her had an effect on Y as he picks up on these things. She says he struggled to settle at the new clubs and had increased behavioural issues. This impacted his mental wellbeing.
41. The new weekly plan was approved in July 2021, at around exactly the same time the Centre 1 provision was due to end. This means Y did not go without an available placement. However, there was no time to consider or put in place any extra support to aid his transition to Centre 3.
42. Y has complex needs. He has ASD and ADHD, in both of which cases it is well recognised that people are likely to struggle with changes to environment. Ms B has detailed clear and specific needs Y had as part of any transition. The Council should have considered these. Had it produced a new support plan earlier, within the framework of a formal review, it would have given Ms B the opportunity to raise her concerns about the transition, and for the Council to consider ways of supporting this.
43. I recommend the Council apologise to Y and Mrs B and pay them each £150 to recognise the significant distress caused.

Not providing transport to Centre 2

44. I find fault in the way the Council considered whether to fund transport for Y to Centre 2.
45. I can see the assessment of August 2020 found Y had difficulties with mobility and that one of his eligible needs was ‘making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community including public transport and recreational facilities or services’. It also is clear from the assessment that the Council provided funding for transport to Centre 1 two days a week. It says the only respite Ms B gets is when Y is at Centre 1 or out with his personal assistant.
46. Ms B requested transport as part of her original request for funding for Centre 2. However, this did not form part of the weekly plan considered by the panel. I can see in the case notes that the social worker indicated the Council would not provide funding for transport because Centre 2 was out of area. However, the Council did agree fund transport the two other day centres, both of which were within the Council’s area.
47. The Council’s responsibility is to ensure provision is in place to meet Y’s eligible needs. Part of that is to consider whether Y can access services that are identified as necessary to meet those needs. The Council has accepted that Centre 2 meets those needs. I cannot see that it instead recommended other services within its own area. I cannot see anything in its procedures on care assessments or support plans that sets out any circumstances in which it will or will not provide transport.
48. The Council needed to be satisfied Y could access Centre 2, just as it did the other centres. Or it needed to clearly set out alternative services within its area that could meet Y’s needs instead of Centre 2, give Ms B the opportunity to challenge this, and if she did, make a clear decision on whether the local service was suitable. If the Council made a clear decision that local services could meet Y’s needs, and Ms B decided she wanted Y to attend Centre 2 anyway, the Council could understandably require that she arrange travel privately.
49. There is no evidence the Council considered or made any decisions on the above basis when it made its decision on funding in July 2021. Therefore, I fault in it not considering Ms B’s request for funding for transport.
50. The panel did consider transport following its review in November 2021. At that point the social worker recommended that if Y attended Centre 2 Ms B would need to take Y as she had access to a car through the Motability scheme. The Council therefore identified that Y could access Centre 2 without Council funding for transport and the panel declined to fund this. The Council was entitled to make this decision.
51. My concern here is that there is no evidence the Council considered the following factors when making its decision:
• The Council had previously funded Y’s transport to Centre 1
• The carer’s assessment in January 2021 identified that Ms B’s only respite was when Y attended day centre
• Ms B told the Council that due to the distance to Centre 2, she was having to travel a long way and wait around in that area until Y finished. This meant it potentially impacted on her time for respite
52. The panel’s outcome form is very brief with no explanation for the rationale behind its decision. And there is nothing in the application form that sets out the views Ms B had given on why she wanted transport to be funded. I therefore find fault in how the Council considered the request of funding.
53. I recommend the Council review its carer’s assessment for Ms B. The Council should then consider again, taking into account the findings of the carers assessment, whether it is necessary for the Council to fund transport to Centre 2, in order to meet Y’s needs and those of Ms B as his main carer.

Request for direct payments

54. This is another area in which there appears to be some misunderstanding. It is clear the relationship between Ms B and the social worker had broken down by the time of the panel meeting in July 2021 and Ms B asked not to have contact with the social worker. Some of the communication appears to have therefore gone through managers of the services Y attended.
55. There is no indication the panel agreed to 17 hours of further direct payments in July 2021. It agreed to fund Y attending the day centres. It also agreed to fund personal assistants to provide 1:1 support when attending the centres. The arrangement was that the Council would fund those personal assistants directly for 17 hours, not through direct payments.
56. This is not set out clearly in any revised support plan, which adds to the fault I have already found. However, the social worker explained this to one of the service managers. At some point it seems to have then been relayed to Ms B, or Ms B misunderstood, that the panel agreed 17 hours of further direct payments. This is not the case.
57. In August 2020 the service manager asked the Council to switch the 17 hours to direct payments. The social care team leader agreed to this. There is no indication in the case notes or any other documents as to why this was not actioned. On this basis I find fault in the delay in the Council properly considering the request for direct payments. Councils must consider any request and should do so in a timely way, particularly where officers have already indicated they agree with the request. However, I do not consider this caused a significant injustice.
58. The 17 hours of funding were for a specific purpose. Ms B did not utilise all those personal assistant hours for various reasons, including Y attending the day centres for shorter periods while he transitioned and settled. However, the funding was available for that purpose and was not intended to provide generally available funds to be used in other ways if necessary. Therefore, I cannot recommend the Council reimburse Ms B for any loss of those hours.
59. The Council put in place a new support package in March 2022, which Ms B is satisfied meets Y’s needs.

Back to top

Agreed action

60. The Council, has agreed to, within a month of this decision:
• Apologise to Ms B for the fault identified
• Pay Ms B £150 to recognise the distress caused
• Pay Y £150 to recognise the distress caused
61. The Council has also agreed to, within three months of this decision:
• Arrange a review of Ms B’s carer’s assessment. The review should consider any need Ms B has for respite and whether transporting Y to Centre 2 impacts on this
• Following the carer’s assessment, review its decision on whether to fund transport for Y to attend Centre 2

Back to top

Final decision

62. The Council is at fault in how it managed Ms B’s request for alternative provision and transport for Y.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman