Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr X’s request for an urgent needs assessment for his father. There is evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the council failed to respond to his urgent request for a care assessment for his father, Mr Y.
2. He also complains about the way in which the Council dealt with his complaint about this.

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 can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered:

• the complaint and supporting information submitted by Mr X;
• records of all contact between Mr X and the Council;
• information relating to Mr Y;
• relevant legislation;
• offered Mr X and the Council and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document, and considered the comments made.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

6. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult who appears to need care and support. They must provide an assessment to all people regardless of their finances or whether the local authority thinks an individual 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.
7. The Council must carry out the assessment over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Local authorities should tell the individual when their assessment will take place and keep the person informed throughout the assessment.
8. There is no set definition of an assessment. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance (the CSSG) notes that: ‘The nature of the assessment will not always be the same for all people, and depending on the circumstances, it could range from an initial contact or triage process which helps a person with lower needs to access support in their local community, to a more intensive, ongoing process which requires the input of a number of professionals over a longer period of time’ (Section 6.4 of the CSSG).
9. The aim of the assessment is to identify what needs the person may have and what outcomes they are looking to achieve to maintain or improve their wellbeing. This should then inform the council’s response to any identified needs. The response ‘might range from offering guidance and information to arranging for services to meet those needs’ (Section 6.5 of the CSSG).

What happened

10. Mr X contacted the Council on 8 February 2022 to request a needs assessment for his father, Mr Y. Mr Y is in his early nineties and at the time he lived in his own home. His wife who had been his main carer had been admitted to hospital. Mr Y’s daughter was staying with him, but she needed to return home. The records show Mr X reported Mr Y had savings above the capital threshold and that any care would be funded privately.
11. The Council passed the referral to its social services duty team with a request that an officer contact Mr X the following day to discuss care options, signpost to care providers and provide Mr X with a copy the Council’s care directory.
12. Mr X received a telephone call the following day. He explained that Mr Y had dementia and could not be left alone. He said domiciliary care was not an option and he wanted the Council to assess Mr Y’s care needs so he could refer to it when contacting residential care homes. He said his intention was to secure respite care for Mr Y to enable assessment of his long-term needs. The officer told Mr X that she would seek advice from a senior officer and get back to him.
13. The officer contacted Mr X the following day to advise the Council would assess Mr Y’s needs, but it could not be done immediately. Mr X refutes this and says an assessment was not offered at this or any other point. The officer advised Mr X to complete an online referral form, and that on receipt of this Mr Y would be added to an allocation list. Mr X says he had already completed the referral form by this point. The officer advised Mr X that he could approach care homes directly and purchase care privately and said any care provider would complete its own assessment of Mr Y’s needs. Mr X was advised that a memory and cognition care home would be appropriate. The officer also advised that Mr Y see his GP with view to a referral to the memory clinic or that Mr X contact the memory clinic directly.
14. Records show an officer provided Mr X with the contact details of a care agency that could assess Mr Y quickly after Mr X requested details of a ‘market leader’. Mr X refutes asking for this information and says the information was only offered when the conversation was exhausted.
15. The records show further contact from Mr X expressing his concern for Mr Y and that he needed an urgent residential care placement. He said he had spoken with numerous officers to explain Mr Y’s circumstances and asked for assistance to place Mr Y in residential care.
16. The Council received a safeguarding referral from Mr Y’s GP reporting him to be a vulnerable adult at risk and that Mr X had reported social services were not providing any assistance. I have had sight of the notes of a telephone discussion between an officer from social services and Mr Y’s GP. The officer confirmed a referral for an assessment had been made but Mr Y’s family were seeking an urgent residential care placement. The officer explained this required a formal needs assessment and possibly a mental capacity assessment, which would take time. The officer said Mr Y had sufficient funds for the family to commission a placement privately, and that any care home would assess Mr Y’s care needs and develop a care plan.
17. The Council says Mr X told an officer from social services that it was likely Mr Y would want to remain his own home, but he believed Mr Y was unsafe and needed 24-hour care. Mr X says this information has been misrepresented and that he was explaining that Mr Y had expressed this view some years previously.
18. The records show the officer explained the principles of the Mental Capacity Act to Mr X and that the Council would consider the least restrictive option. Mr X refutes this and says the officer only emphasised issues relating to deprivation of liberty. The officer explained domiciliary care options and advised Mr X how to source this support. Mr X repeated his request that the Council assess Mr Y’s needs. The officer agreed but said it would not be done immediately.
19. Mr X was dissatisfied and submitted a complaint to the Council on 14 February 2022, which the Council acknowledged on 16 February 2022. In its acknowledgment the Council said it was trialling a new complaint system and said the complaint would be sent to a senior member of adult social services to investigate and respond to by 14 March 2022.
20. Mr X did not hear back by the deadline date, so he chased the Council on numerous occasions.
21. The records show an officer telephoned Mr X on 17 February 2022 and 3 March 2022. On both occasions the officer recorded the phone to be ’engaged’ and that a message could not be left. Mr X says he has a voicemail facility on his phone.
22. An officer telephoned Mr X on 29 March 2022 to apologise for the delay in contacting him. Mr X advised the officer he wanted the Council to explain ‘what it should have done, and what support Mr Y was entitled to. He also expressed his dissatisfaction that he had had no contact from the Council since submitting his complaint.
23. Mr X received a response on 5 April 2022. He was unhappy that the letter had been written by an officer involved in his complaint.

Analysis

24. There is no statutory timescale for assessments under the Care Act. The Ombudsman expects councils should complete assessments in a timescale that is proportionate to the complexity of the issues, and normally within 28 calendar days. Councils should tell the individual how long their assessment will take and keep them informed throughout the process.
25. It is not the case here that the Council refused to assess Mr Y’s needs, it is more that it could not respond immediately. However, it could have clearer about Mr Y’s entitlement to an assessment, and the timescale from the outset. This would have better managed Mr X’s expectations.
26. Officers did advise Mr X how to purchase domiciliary care/residential care privately until an assessment could be completed. This was a reasonable suggestion and one which would have resolved the immediate difficulty. I cannot find fault with the Council here.
27. The Council is correct that any chosen care provider would have assessed Mr Y’s needs and provided a care plan. Mr Y did not need an assessment from the Council to purchase immediate care and support for Mr Y.
28. Councils do not have a statutory duty to meet a person’s needs where they are assessed as having eligible needs to be met by care in a care home and have capital above the upper financial limit. However, they have discretion to do so.
29. Councils’ responsibilities for handling complaints are set out in the Local Authority Social Services and NHS Complaints (England) Regulations 2009 (the Regulations). Section 3 states that each organisation must make arrangements to handle complaints in line with the Regulations. Section 14(1) details that organisations should investigate complaints ‘in a manner appropriate to resolve it speedily and efficiently’. This is not what happened here. The Council did not adhere to its own timescales and failed to keep Mr X updated. Mr X had to chase the Council for a response which caused him stress and frustration at a time he was dealing with difficult family matters.
30. The Council allocated Mr X’s complaint to an officer involved in the complaint. This was poor practice and did little to reassure Mr X that his complaint had been dealt with fairly.

Back to top

Agreed Action

31. The Council should, within four weeks of the decision:

• provide Mr X with a written apology for failing to deal with his complaint properly

Back to top

Final decision

32. There is no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr X’s request for an urgent needs assessment for his father. There is evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about this.
33. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman