Summary: Ms C complains about the actions of a social worker and the Council support after her discharge from hospital. Ms C says she suffered unnecessary time, costs and upset during an already difficult time. We have found fault by the Council in how it responded to Ms C’s contact about a meals service and her subsequent complaint but consider the agreed actions of an apology, £200 and service improvements provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C, complains a social worker tried to detain her under the Mental Health Act 1983 after she cancelled her meals-on-wheels service because of a hospital stay, interfered with district nurses giving her injections to prevent blood clots and obtained information from her doctor without her consent. Ms C also complains the Council failed to provide help when she tried to restart her meals-on-wheels service after coming out of hospital and during a period when the service stopped without notice. Ms C also complains the Council provided no care or support after her discharge from hospital.
2. Ms C says because of the Council’s fault she suffered unnecessary time, costs and upset during an already difficult time and damage to her previously good relationship with her doctor.

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 read the papers provided by Ms C and discussed the complaint with her. I have considered the Council’s complaint correspondence with Ms C and its response to my enquiries. I have explained my draft decision to Ms C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Ms C has a longstanding arrangement to receive frozen meals which are funded under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
8. During a telephone call with Ms C in June 2020 her social worker expressed concerns about Ms C’s mental health and well-being and explained they would let her doctor know of these concerns. Ms C’s social worker contacted Ms C’s doctor to set out these concerns and it is made clear Ms C did not consent to this contact but the social worker considered Ms C to be at risk of potential harm.
9. The Council completed a reassessment of Ms C’s needs in July. This identified eligible needs and the Council proposed domiciliary care consisting of four care calls each day for Ms C. Ms C explained she would prefer any care to be delivered at a care home rather than by carers visiting her at home. The Council explained this would be difficult to arrange due to COVID 19 restrictions at the time. Ms C agreed to further consider domiciliary care. Ms C confirmed towards the end of August that she would like to start domiciliary care with just one visit in the morning at home each day initially. The Council agreed to arrange this and to review the care package after a few weeks with a view to gradually increasing the number of home visits to meet Ms C’s needs. A section 117 checklist was also completed at this time which confirmed Ms C remained entitled to section 117 aftercare.
10. Ms C contacted the Council in mid-September ahead of the first care visit to say she had plumbing issues that were being repaired and asked for no care visits until the repairs were finished. The Council contacted Ms C at the end of September and in mid-October to seek an update on when care visits could start but did not receive a reply.

Key events giving rise to Ms C’s complaint

11. The Council attempted further contact with Ms C in early December but was not able to reach her. The provider of frozen meals told the Council that Ms C had asked it to stop delivering her frozen meals at the beginning of December. The Council tried to contact Ms C about the cancelling of her meals service in mid-December but was unable to leave messages on Ms C’s telephone during this period.
12. As the Council had been unable to reach Ms C and was concerned she had stopped her meals service it contacted Ms C’s doctor’s surgery to see when they had last had contact from Ms C. The surgery confirmed it had not had any contact with Ms C since October. The Council contacted the health team and was told Ms C had been in hospital but was now at home and receiving injections from the district nursing team. The Council contacted the district nursing team to pass on a message to Ms C asking her to make contact.

13. The Council tried again to contact Ms C following the above information without success. It was at this stage that the Council spoke with Ms C’s doctor who provided their view that no action was required in terms of Ms C’s mental health at that time.
14. The Council was able to leave a message for Ms C on 18 December to say it was concerned she had stopped her meals service and provided a contact number if she required support or wanted to reinstate this service.
15. The Council tried to contact Ms C in January 2021 without success. The Council left a message for Ms C towards the end of January to say it had closed her case. Ms C responded to say she did not want her case closed. The Council contacted Ms C in early February but she remained uncertain about domiciliary care due to COVID concerns.
16. The Council contacted Ms C in March and she confirmed she may want domiciliary care to start from April after she had received her second COVID vaccination. Ms C repeated that she would like this to start with just one call each day with a gradual increase.
17. The Council contacted Ms C at the start of April and again in mid-April but she confirmed she had not received her vaccination. The Council left several messages for Ms C during April and May. The Council wrote to Ms C in June to make a telephone appointment.
18. The Council spoke to Ms C by telephone towards the end of June when she confirmed she had received her vaccination but had lots of hospital appointments making care visits difficult. Ms C agreed to provide an update in two weeks. The Council tried to call Ms C in July and sent a further telephone appointment letter towards the end of July.
19. Ms C contacted the Council on 13 August to say she had experienced issues with the delivery of her frozen meals for the last month. Ms C called the Council again on 18 August. There does not appear to be a reply to Ms C about this issue from the Council until the end of August or an attempt by it to contact the meal provider directly.
20. Ms C made a formal complaint to the Council in early September about events in December 2020 and the impact she considered this had had on her relationship with her doctor.
21. The Council left messages for Ms C during September and spoke with her in mid-October. The Council offered to arrange a different doctor for Ms C or help with registration at a new surgery. Ms C declined this offer.
22. Ms C contacted the Council several times for an update on her complaint. Ms C was sent a response to her complaint from Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MPFT), Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) on the Council’s behalf dated 9 November. There is no explanation or apology for the apparent delay in responding to Ms C’s complaint and the letter does not provide details of how Ms C could escalate her complaint if she remained unhappy with the outcome. Ms C says she did not receive this response. Ms C complained to the Ombudsman in December although this correspondence was not received until January 2022.

My consideration

23. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied there is no evidence the Council tried detain Ms C under the Mental Health Act 1983. There was no mental health assessment during the period relevant to this complaint and the section 117 checklist completed in July 2020 simply confirmed Ms C remained entitled to section 117 aftercare. There is also no evidence the Council interfered with district nurses giving Ms C injections to prevent blood clots. The Council merely wanted the district nurses to pass on a message to Ms C as it had been unable to contact her directly.
24. I am also satisfied the Council had arranged a package of domiciliary care for Ms C which for various reasons she declined to engage with. It was made clear to Ms C this care package remained available. The Council made several attempts to contact Ms C after her discharge from hospital and left a message with details of who to contact if she needed support or wanted to reinstate her meals service. I see no fault here.
25. However, there is no evidence the Council took action when Ms C contacted it in mid-August 2021 about problems with the reinstated meals service during the previous month. This is fault. I note Ms C did not raise this as an ongoing issue in her subsequent contact with the Council in September and it would appear the matter had been resolved.
26. There was also delay in the Council providing a response to Ms C’s complaint in September 2021 until November. I consider this to be an unreasonable delay and note the Council did not provide an explanation or apology. It also appears the Council did not provide details of its complaints procedure to Ms C. The complaint response sent on the Council’s behalf also does not provide details of how she could escalate the matter if she remained unhappy. This is fault. I note Ms C made several attempts to clarify the position with the Council during this period.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. The Council will take the following action to provide a suitable remedy to Ms C:
1. write to Ms C to apologise for not providing a timely response to her contact in August 2021 about problems with her frozen meals service and the fault identified above in its complaints procedure within one month of my final decision;
2. pay Ms C £200 in recognition of her upset and time and trouble within one month of my final decision;
3. ensure the Council has a protocol in place for ensuring any future issues with the frozen meal service are actioned including contact with the meal provider as necessary within six weeks of my final decision; and
4. review its complaints procedure to ensure details are provided to complainants at the outset of any complaint and complaint responses provide details of how to escalate the matter if the complainant remains dissatisfied including reference to the Ombudsman within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation as I have found evidence of fault by the Council but consider the agreed actions above provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman