Summary: Mr X on behalf of his daughter Ms Z, complained the Council failed to do what it agreed at a mediation meeting in 2019 causing anxiety and distress. The Council did not provide an updated care and support plan as required in October 2019 and this is fault. A suitable remedy for the injustice caused is agreed.

The complaint

1. Mr X, on behalf of his daughter Ms Z, complains the Council failed to do what it agreed at a mediation meeting in 2019, meaning she left college in 2021 without a care and support plan.
2. Mr X says Ms Z has suffered anxiety, distress and a downturn in her health and mental state.

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. 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 the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant’s representative;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant’s representative;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant’s representative and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms Z is a vulnerable adult with a diagnosis of Down Syndrome and learning difficulties. Ms Z has capacity and has asked her father, Mr X, to advocate for her in respect of her care and support plan and this complaint.
7. Ms Z had a care and support plan and received direct payments. Mr X says they stopped using the payments in March 2018 as the care specified in the plan was no longer suitable for Ms Z’s needs and he requested a new assessment so the direct payments could be used differently.
8. As part of a different complaint process in connection with Ms Z’s educational needs, a mediation meeting was held on 4 October 2019. At this meeting it was agreed Ms Z’s care and support plan would be updated as soon as possible so that a new plan could be drafted. It was stated this should happen by 25 October 2019 at the latest.
9. Mr X says he met with the Council on 16 October 2019 to have a conversation about the care and support plan but then heard nothing further. Mr X says he never received a copy of the updated care and support plan for Ms Z.
10. Ms Z returned to college in January 2020 after a successful appeal regarding her Education Health and Care Plan. She continued at college until July 2021.
11. Mr X continued to correspond with the Council about the care and support plan for Ms Z. It appears there were issues of disagreement between the Council and Mr X that prevented matters from progressing effectively.
12. The Council emailed a copy of a draft care and support plan to Mr X on 13 September 2021 saying it was happy to take amendments. Mr X replied on 12 October saying the plan was not fit for purpose. He said the mileage allowance was insufficient and that he would not accept a pre-payment card and wanted the direct payments paid into an account.
13. Correspondence continued between Mr X and the Council mainly focussed on the issues of the pre-payment card and the mileage allowance. The Council said it could look again at the mileage allowance and that Mr X would need to provide a rationale for why it should treat him as an exception to having a pre-payment card. The Council also offered to complete a carer’s assessment for Mr X as he had raised the issue of the impact on his health of providing transport for Ms Z.
14. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council in November 2021. The Council allocated the complaint to an external investigating officer who began his investigation in February 2022. The Investigating Officer produced his report in April 2022. He had investigated the following three issues:
• That neither a personal budget nor a support plan had been received;
• Not being allowed to utilise direct payments in contravention of the Care Act; and
• That it had taken from December 2021 to February 2022 to identify an allocated worker for Ms Z.
15. The Investigating Officer partially upheld the first issue, did not uphold the second issue and upheld the third issue. In respect of the first issue about the Council not providing a care and support plan, the Investigating Officer said there were two entirely contrasting interpretations of the communication and engagement between Mr X and Adult Social Care. He said it was impossible to establish the reality and concluded that meaningful, effective communication for the benefit of Ms Z had been frustrated. He felt the Council had attempted to provide a care and support plan but that there was no recorded evidence that an updated care and support plan had been provided following the mediation meeting in October 2019.
16. The second issue concerned how direct payments would be made. The Council has indicated it wants to make the payments using a pre-payment card but Mr X wants the cash to be paid into a direct payment bank account that he would manage. The Investigating Officer took the view that the pre-payment card provides the Council with a more robust audit trail of how the money is spent for the benefit of Ms Z. He found that no rationale had been provided by Mr X of why a pre-payment card would not be suitable.
17. The third issue related to delay in identifying a social worker for Ms Z. The Investigating Officer found the Council had delayed in identifying a new social worker who could have advanced the situation for the benefit of Ms Z.
18. After a new social worker was allocated in February 2022, matters began to progress. However, Ms Z became ill and was diagnosed with Addison’s Disease which amongst other symptoms caused severe fatigue. So Mr X asked for matters to be put on hold as Ms Z was not well enough to attend her normal activities.
19. In January 2023, the Council carried out a review of the decision to use a pre-payment card for the direct payments for Ms Z. This has resulted in the Council agreeing that a pre-payment card should not be used and that payments will be made into a bank account as requested by Mr X.
20. I have also been made aware that the Council made a payment of £3402.50 which is a backdated payment to cover the costs incurred by Mr X between 13 August 2021 to 1 April 2022 to meet her assessed eligible needs. While Mr X has indicated to me that he is satisfied this payment covers the costs he incurred, he could not afford to pay for the full cost of activities to meet Ms Z’s needs. As a result, she only attended activities on two rather than five days per week.
21. Ms Z is now in a position to begin attending activities. The Council has completed a financial assessment and the direct payments are now in payment.

Analysis

22. Mr X complains the Council failed to do what was agreed following a mediation meeting in October 2019. This issue was part of a formal complaint made to the Council and it was considered by an external investigating officer. I have seen a copy of the investigating officer’s report and consider it is a fair and thorough investigation. The Council has also taken this position as it accepted the recommendations made in that report.
23. On the point raised in this complaint, the investigating officer found no evidence that the Council sent Mr X an updated care and support plan for Ms Z in October 2019. Therefore I find fault on this point.
24. As I have found fault I have to consider the injustice caused to Ms Z. During a recent telephone conversation Mr X told me the outstanding issues had been resolved and support for Ms Z resumed on 14 February. This includes agreement on mileage allowance and that payments will be made into a bank account and not a pre-payment card. Ms Z’s health is slowly improving and so she is able to resume some activities. Mr X told me the issue is that it took from July 2021 to February 2022 to resolve the issues.
25. I note that recently the Council made a payment to Mr X to cover the costs incurred from August 2021 to April 2022 when there was no care and support plan in place. Mr X continued to pay for some activities for Ms Z during this period to meet her eligible care needs even though no care and support plan had been agreed and no direct payments were being made. However, he was unable to meet the full cost of Ms Z’s assessed eligible needs when direct payments were not being made. While some of Ms Z’s eligible care needs were met for the period July 2021 to February 2022, the delay in issuing the care and support plan meant her full needs were not met. This is fault.
26. The lack of an agreed care and support plan meant Ms Z missed out on care she should have received and so I consider a payment should be made to recognise this loss. Ms Z has also experienced distress and anxiety. Although Mr X is advocating for her, she does understand what is going on and the continued uncertainty has had an impact. I consider the Council should make a payment to Ms Z to recognise this.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. To remedy the injustice caused in this case the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:
• Apologise to Mr X and Ms Z;
• Make Ms Z a payment of £1000 to recognise that her full care needs were not being met; and
• Make Ms Z a symbolic payment of £200 to recognise the distress caused.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman