Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of Mr Y. Mr Y complained the Council completed an assessment without him being involved in the process. Mr Y also complained the Council cancelled his support without discussing it with him. Mr Y says he is not supported by the service, and this has affected his mental health. There was fault in the way the Council recorded its communication about the assessment but this did not affect the outcome and did not cause a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained on behalf of Mr Y. Mr Y complained the Council completed an assessment without him being involved in the process. Mr Y also complained the Council cancelled his support without discussing it with him. Mr Y says he is not supported by the service, and this has affected his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’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)
4. 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)
5. I have exercised discretion to consider events in this case dating back to May 2020. I have referenced events since November 2019 in this document to provide context. I am satisfied Mr Y made attempts to engage advocacy services during the Covid19 lockdown, and his personal circumstances has meant he was unable to complain sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Mr Y’s complaint and spoke to Miss X about it on the phone.
7. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
8. Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

9. 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.
10. The Care Act 2014 gives Councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan. The care and support plan should consider what needs 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.
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.

What happened

12. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
13. Mr Y was referred to the Council from a mental health service provider in August 2014. The referral stated Mr Y required further support for his mental health from the Council. The Council assessed Mr Y over three visits and decided he was eligible for ongoing support. It stated the main areas of need were anxiety management and work to build his confidence and reduce anxiety.
14. The Council enablement worker, Mr B, visited once a week. He worked with Mr Y and the package mainly supported him to deal with correspondence, bills and benefits.
15. The Council stated, during several home visits in November 2019, a window was leaking at Mr Y’s property. Mr B offered support to contact someone to fix this, but Mr Y declined support and stated he would contact someone.
16. Mr B visited at the end of November. The issue with the window was not fixed and there were also issues with the front and back door, the toilet, the roof and the sink. Mr B again offered support, but Mr Y refused this.
17. Mr B visited Mr Y each week in December 2019 and discussed the issues. Mr Y stated he was able to contact people to fix the repairs himself. Mr Y asked why he did not have a social worker allocated at a visit in mid-December. The Council confirmed, Mr Y was due a review in January and a social worker would visit then.
18. In early January 2020 the Council recorded, Mr Y was not willing to engage with the long-term enablement service. He only allowed a worker to visit at a set time and day and he has refused support offered. It also noted Mr Y only allows workers who visit to stand on the mat inside his front door. The social worker stated the information she had received, led her to believe Mr Y doesn’t meet the eligibility criteria set out in the Care Act.
19. The Council continued to visit Mr Y every week and offered support to contact an internet provider and the Department for Work and Pensions, but Mr Y declined these offers. The social worker contacted Mr Y while Mr B was visiting in mid-January. The social worker explained if Mr Y did not engage, the Council would eventually remove the service.
20. The social worker recorded Mr Y stated his electrical fuse board was banging and smelling. He said it had been doing it for years. Mr B offered to contact electricians, but Mr Y said they had been out and said it was fine. The Council noted Mr Y owned his home, but it was concerned. It put a plan in place and agreed to contact the fire service, refer Mr Y to a mental health nurse and hold a risk management meeting.
21. Mr B visited Mr Y at the end of January and raised concerns about his continued refusal of support and issues with the home. Mr B again offered support with the electrical issue, but Mr Y said the fuse board was fine, so he did not need support.
22. The Council held a Vulnerable Adult Risk Management (VARM) meeting at the start of February. The meeting confirmed the mental health nurse and the fire service would visit Mr Y’s home.
23. Mr B visited Mr Y two days later. The fire service and the mental health nurse had visited and confirmed the risk was not significant.
24. Mr B visited Mr Y at the start of March with a welfare rights officer. The welfare rights officer stated Mr Y had been awarded personal independence payments (PIP), enhanced daily living and lower rate mobility. Mr Y had the payments backdated to the start of November 2019. The Council recorded Mr Y agreed to Mr B contacting an electrician to come and look at the fuse board.
25. The following day, Mr B telephoned Mr Y. He informed Mr Y of the cost of an electrician visiting. Mr Y declined the support as he was not aware he would have to pay for this and did not want anyone to come to his home as the fuse board was fine. Mr B asked him to confirm the electrician would check the fuse board within three days as the VARM meeting was scheduled four days later.
26. Mr B contacted Mr Y three days later. Mr Y confirmed the electrician was booked to visit at the end of the month. He said a roofer was at his home fixing the roof during the phone call.
27. At the end of March, Mr Y spoke to Mr B. He said he was worried about the Covid19 pandemic and concerned about the cost of food rising. He said he was cancelling the electrician and would sort the repairs after the Covid19 lockdown had finished. Three days later Mr Y confirmed he was concerned about anyone coming into his home because of Covid19. Mr B informed Mr Y the visits would stop while the country was in lockdown, but he would telephone every week.
28. At the start of April, Mr B explained to Mr Y, as he was on the enhanced PIP and had several thousand pounds in savings, he had to start contributing for his care.
29. At the end of May 2020, Mr Y contacted the Council as he had received two bills totalling £850 for his care. This bill was backdated to the start of November 2019 as this was when his benefits were backdated from. The social worker contacted Mr Y and said he could discuss this with the finance department, or he could stop his support if he wanted. Mr Y stated he did not want to pay for care. He felt he does not really need the support as he can manage most things on his own but does need help with letters and bills.
30. The social worker completed an assessment of needs and outcomes on the same day. The assessment confirmed Mr Y was not eligible for support as he had no eligible needs.
31. At the start of June Mr Y spoke to Mr B. He stated he had received the assessment, but the information was not correct. Mr Y said he wanted support once per month to help with letters. Mr B informed Mr Y he had a review on the phone with the social worker. Mr Y disputed this.
32. The social worker contacted Mr Y the following week. He challenged the assessment again. He was unable to specify what was incorrect other than reference to a door mat Mr Y said he does not own. The social worker offered to call again to go through the assessment in more detail.
33. The social worker telephoned Mr Y the same day and explained the eligibility criteria in the Care Act. She stated Mr Y needs low level support with his post and this could be met by a free service.
34. The Council completed a Covid19 care and support review in July 2020. The review confirmed Mr Y was no longer eligible for support under the Care Act, but as he is isolated, the Council agreed to continue weekly telephone calls until the end of the Covid19 crisis.
35. Mr B spoke to Mr Y after the review. Mr Y said he had not had a real assessment and was not happy with what had been stated in the assessment.
36. The service manager contacted Mr Y at the end of July 2020 and again offered to go through the assessment with him. Mr Y said he wanted to speak to his GP before anything else. The Council informed Mr Y the weekly calls would stop, and the case would be closed. The Council stated Mr Y, or his GP could re-refer to the service at any point if his needs changed.
37. Mr Y wanted to complain at this point but required the support of an advocate. There were problems arranging this due to lockdown. He was eventually able to access support through an advocate, Miss X, and complained to the Council in January 2022. He stated the assessment form was filled in without his knowledge and the Council did not complete an assessment. The Council acknowledged receipt of the complaint four days later.
38. Miss X chased the Council for a response in April 2022.
39. The Council provided its complaint response four days later. The Council explained it completed the assessment over the phone with Mr Y in May 2020. It said it made several attempts to go through the assessment, but Mr Y did not engage with this. It confirmed Mr Y can access other services for support with benefits. The Council offered a new assessment.
40. Mr Y was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr Y would like the Council to complete a full review and assessment. He stated he had missed out on a service and his mental health has deteriorated.
41. In response to my enquiries the Council acknowledged it did not clearly record it told Mr Y the contact from the social worker in May 2020 was to inform a review and assessment. It has offered an apology for this. It stated Mr Y was not eligible for support when the assessment was completed. The Council confirmed it would offer a further assessment by a different mental health team if Mr Y’s mental health had deteriorated.

My findings

42. Mr Y responded to my draft decision, and I have considered his response. He maintains no assessment or review was completed and stated some events did not happen. I am satisfied the Council has made its decisions in accordance with legislation.
43. The Council assessed Mr Y was not eligible for services. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has made this decision. The assessment confirms relevant factors were considered. Mr Y is disappointed support was ended and explained he believes most of the assessment is inaccurate.
44. The Council has not recorded it informed Mr Y it was completing an assessment. I am unable to confirm what was said because it is not recorded. It did however tell Mr Y services would be ending and gave him the opportunity to discuss the reasons for this and the assessment on two separate occasions. Not maintaining a full record of what was discussed is fault, but this does not cause me to question the decision. I have not identified any significant injustice from this fault.
45. The Council has apologised and offered to complete a new assessment for Mr Y. This response is appropriate, and I cannot add to this. It is open to Mr Y to request a new assessment if he wishes to proceed with this.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. To reduce the potential for the fault I have identified reoccurring and affecting others, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Remind staff of the importance of keeping accurate and complete records.
47. The Council should provide evidence of the actions taken to satisfy the recommendation.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, but this has not caused significant injustice to Mr Y.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman