Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in putting in place a package of care and for failing to consider whether Mr X had the appropriate support through the care assessment. This meant Mr X had to wait longer than necessary to receive a package of care and cannot be sure the Council adequately considered his needs. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to Mr X and review his care plan.

The complaint

1. Mr Z, a representative, complains on behalf of Mr X that the Council:
1. Delayed in completing an assessment of Mr X’s care needs and the financial assessment to accompany this.
2. Provided a direct payment package of care which was not enough to meet Mr X’s needs and did not provide Mr X with the appropriate support so he could properly communicate through the assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of this investigation, I considered the information provided by Mr Z. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information received in response.
6. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr Z and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

7. A council must carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the outcomes they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where appropriate their carer or any other person they might want involved. (Care Act 2014, section 9)
8. An assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale taking into account the urgency of needs. Councils should give the person an indicative timescale and keep them updated. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014, Paragraph 6.24)
9. The Care Act spells out the duty to meet eligible needs (needs which meet the eligibility criteria). (Care Act 2014, section 18)
10. An adult’s needs meet the eligibility criteria if they arise from or are related to a physical or mental impairment or illness and as a result the adult cannot achieve two or more of the following outcomes and as a result there is or is likely to be a significant impact on well-being:
• Managing and maintaining nutrition
• Maintaining personal hygiene
• Managing toilet needs
• Being appropriately clothed
• Making use of the home safely
• Maintaining a habitable home environment
• Accessing work, training, education
• Making use of facilities or services in the community
• Carrying out caring responsibilities.

(Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2014, Regulation 2)

11. If a council decides a person is eligible for care, it should prepare a care and support plan which specifies the needs identified in the assessment, says whether and to what extent the needs meet the eligibility criteria and specifies the needs the council is going to meet and how this will be done. The council should give a copy of the care and support plan to the person. (Care Act 2014, sections 24 and 25)
12. Where the assessment concerns a deafblind person, the assessment must take the initiative to establish maximum possible communication with the adult to ensure they are as fully engaged as possible and have the opportunity to express their wishes and desired outcomes. Whilst the person carrying out the assessment must have the suitable training and expertise, it may not be possible for them to carry out the assessment without an interpreter, for instance where the adult uses sign language. Therefore, where necessary a qualified interpreter with training appropriate for the deafblind adult’s communication should be used. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014, Paragraph 6.95 & 6.96)

What happened

13. Mr X is deafblind and also suffers with mental health conditions.
14. There has been extensive correspondence between Mr Z and Mr X and the Council 2020. In this section of the statement, I summarise key events but I do not refer to every single contact and communication.
15. Mr X previously lived in Croydon and received a care package with Direct Payments. This consisted of 24 hours of support per week. In early 2020, Mr X moved back to Croydon.
16. Mr X requested social care support from the Council in August 2020. He asked the Council to reinstate his previous direct payment care package.
17. In September 2020, the financial assessment team at the Council contacted Adult Support about Mr X’s request. The finance team asked whether any of the items of disability related expenditure Mr X listed were included in his support.
18. In February 2021, Mr X contacted the Council to chase up his request to have direct payments reinstated. The Council’s sensory impairment team responded to Mr X and said they were not responsible for financial assessments and Mr X did not have any direct payments in place as his case was closed when he previously moved out of Croydon. The Council asked Mr X if he wanted his needs assessed.
19. After further correspondence between Mr X and the Council, the Council allocated Mr X a social worker to complete a needs assessment. The Council told Mr X once it completed a needs assessment it would then carry out a financial assessment. However it said it had already carried out a financial assessment for Mr X but would just need to confirm this once the assessment and care plan have been completed.
20. In March 2021, the Council completed its assessment of Mr X. This decided Mr X had eligible care needs as he needed help accessing the community, employment, and education. The Council used a social worker who could communicate in British Sign Language (BSL). Around this time Mr X asked the Council for advocacy support. The Council said it put this request to its Challenge Panel in June 2021. The Panel decided Mr X could have one off advocacy support of 10 hours to help him with the care assessment.
21. In July 2021 and August 2021, Mr X contacted the Council asking for a copy of his assessment and care plan.
22. In September 2021 Mr Z started to assist Mr X as his advocate. The Council sent Mr X a copy of his care assessment in late September 2021. Mr X was not happy with the assessment and wanted to raise concerns about this. Mr X said the assessment was missing important information, had minimal information about his mental health needs and contained inaccurate information.
23. Mr X asked the Council to provide him with a BSL interpreter to assist him with this. In correspondence with the Council Mr X explained English is not his first language and it is more difficult for him to write in English than use BSL. He also wanted face to face meetings.
24. The Council responded to Mr X and said he could use his Personal Independence Payment to pay for an interpreter. The Council told Mr X he could make a video in BSL and this would be translated to writing.
25. In September 2021, someone from a charity supporting deaf people complained on Mr X’s behalf about how his care assessment had been handled and the level of support Mr X received throughout the process.
26. The Council responded to the complaint in October 2021. The Council said it had staff who could communicate with Mr X. The Council also said the 10 hours of advocacy support was considered enough to meet his needs. Following this in November 2021, Mr X told the Council he would like to focus on his housing.
27. The Council sent Mr X his support plan in January 2022, after Mr Z chased this up. This gave Mr X 10 hours of support per week and Mr X was to receive direct payments so he could employ a personal assistant himself. After receiving his support plan in January 2022, Mr X contacted the Council as he was not happy with it. Mr X said the hours of support were insufficient to meet his care needs, he disagreed with some of the comments in the care plan and asked why a mental health report he believed his social worker was organising was not included.
28. On 31 January 2022, Mr Z made a complaint on Mr X’s behalf. Mr Z complained about the ongoing delay in assessing Mr X’s care needs and the outcome of the care and support assessment. From the information seen, the Council did not provide a formal response to this.
29. In February 2022, the Council put Mr X’s case to its challenge panel. The panel approved the 10 hours of support in his care plan.
30. In February 2022 and March 2022, Mr Z chased up the outcome of the financial assessment for Mr X. The Council provided Mr X with the outcome of his financial assessment on 24 March 2022. The Council decided Mr X should contribute £235 per week to his care costs. Mr X asked for a review of this on 31 March 2022 and said he could not afford these costs.
31. After reviewing the matter, the Council decided Mr X should contribute £175 per week. The Council decided to include a list of disability related expenditure Mr X incurred.
32. On 10 May 2022, Mr X and Mr Z attended a meeting with the Council and a BSL interpreter to discuss the financial assessment. The Council recalculated the figures and decided Mr X should contribute £23 per week towards his care costs.

Back to top

Was there fault and if so, did this cause injustice?

Complaint a) The Council delayed in completing an assessment of Mr X’s care needs and the financial assessment to accompany this.

33. The Council was at fault for the time taken to complete Mr X’s care assessment. Mr X initially asked the Council for direct payments in August 2020 and to reinstate his care plan from when he previously lived in Croydon. An internal email from the financial team at the Council showed it followed this up with the adult social care department, however it appears nothing further happened. After Mr X chased up the Council in early 2021, it assigned him a social worker to carry out an assessment of his needs.
34. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says an assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale, considering the urgency of needs and considering any fluctuation in them. We expect councils to complete assessments in a timescale that is proportionate to the complexity of the issues, and normally within 28 calendar days. In this case the Council completed the assessment in March 2021, however this was not sent to Mr X and no support plan was put in place until January 2022, therefore Mr X did not know what support he was entitled to for a further 10 months. I recognise that Mr X asked to focus on his housing, in November 2021, however I do not consider this was the main reasons for the delays in completing and sending Mr X the assessment.
35. The Council was also at fault for the time taken to complete its financial assessment. The Council completed the assessment in March 2022, a year after completing the care assessment. In addition, Mr X disputed the costs he would have to pay. After revising the financial assessment two more times, the Council agreed, in May 2022, he would have to contribute £23 per week.
36. Had the Council provided the support plan after it had completed the care assessment and not delayed in completing the financial assessment, Mr X could have received care much sooner.

Complaint b) The Council provided a direct payment package of care which was not enough to meet Mr X’s needs and did not provide Mr X with the appropriate support so he could properly communicate throughout the assessment.

37. Mr X believes the care package of 10 hours of support per week is not enough. The assessment of need and the decision on how to meet needs are decisions for the Council and not for the Ombudsman, therefore I cannot decide how much care Mr X should receive. I can consider whether there has been any fault in how the assessment was carried out.
38. As Mr X is deafblind the assessment should have taken the initiative to establish the maximum possible communication with him to ensure he was as fully engaged as possible. This would give Mr X the opportunity to fully express his wishes and outcomes. While I accept the social worker carrying out the assessment could communicate using BSL, I cannot see that the Council effectively considered advocacy support for Mr X during the assessment. This is fault.
39. While the Council did provide Mr X with 10 hours of advocacy support, this was after it had completed the care assessment and at Mr X’s request. Furthermore, due to the delays in providing Mr X with a care plan and completing a financial assessment the 10 hours of support were used quickly and before Mr X received a copy of his care plan or financial assessment.
40. Throughout this process Mr X asked the Council for support in the form of advocacy and an interpreter. Correspondence showed Mr X told the Council he found it easier to communicate using BSL and not in written English and face to face. In addition to this Mr X raised many objections to the care assessment and support plan. I am therefore satisfied that the assessment did not adequately consider Mr X’s views and wishes. If the Council had provided Mr X with adequate advocacy/interpreting services it may have been able to address his concerns about the care plan and record his views in a way he agreed with. As a result, Mr X cannot be sure the support plan adequately meets his needs.

Complaint handling

41. The Council was at fault for how it dealt with Mr X’s complaints. In September 2021 the Council received a complaint on behalf of Mr X. The Council’s complaint policy says it will provide a response within 10 working days. The Council failed to do this.
42. Mr Z also made a formal complaint in January 2022. The Council has not provided evidence that it responded to this. This is also fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. 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 delays in carrying out his care assessment and financial assessment, and failures in complaint handling.
• Pay Mr X £800 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by:
1. The delays in completing the care assessment, support plan and financial assessment.
2. Not effectively considering advocacy support or an interpreter when carrying out the care assessment.
44. Within two months of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Review Mr X’s care plan to ensure he is receiving the correct amount of care.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault for delaying in putting in place a package of care and for failing to consider whether Mr X had the appropriate support through the care assessment. This meant Mr X had to wait longer than necessary to receive a package of care and cannot be sure the Council has adequately considered his needs. The Council agreed to carry out the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman