Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it provided care and support to Mr Y and communicated with her about Mr Y’s care causing distress. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed and supported Mr Y’s care and support needs and communicated with Ms X. We found fault by the Council as it delayed carrying out a review of Mr Y’s care and support plan. But this did not cause a significant injustice to Mr Y who was continuing to receive care and support from the Council. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains for her partner Mr Y there were failings in the way the Council has provided care and support to Mr Y leaving him unwell and unsafe. In particular Ms X says:
• Mr Y’s social worker had little contact with Mr Y and failed to provide him with appropriate support.
• The Council did not carry out a social care assessment on Mr Y or provide him with a care and support plan.
• The Council did not provide Mr Y with an independent advocate to support him making decisions and did not allow Ms X attend meetings to support Mr Y.
2. Ms X says the situation has caused them both distress and impacted onto Mr Y’s health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. I have read the documents submitted by Ms X and spoken to her about the complaint. I considered information from the Council and the supporting documents it provided.
6. Ms X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key events leading to the complaint

7. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
8. Mr Y is alcohol dependent and diagnosed with some health conditions. Mr Y lives in a hostel for homeless people with complex needs where he has a key worker. The key worker provides onsite advice and support around accommodation, addictions, health, and life skills. The hostel provides 24-hour support and can help Mr Y access support within the community.
9. Following a stay in hospital Mr Y went to live at a specialist centre for alcohol dependent adults. The Council’s Adult Social Care (ASC) duty team assessed Mr Y. The team arranged a package of care from a care provider to support Mr Y. This included help with laundry and collecting medication The Council later increased Mr Y’s care to support the provision being made by the care provider.
10. The Council transferred Mr Y’s case to a different ASC team in July 2022 to review Mr Y’s care and support needs. It aims to allocate cases to a social care practitioner within 28 days to carry out an assessment or review of needs. But accepts a delay in allocating Mr Y’s case to a social care practitioner between July and November 2022. This was due to waiting list times and need for ASC to triage and allocate cases depending on a level of risk to the person.
11. But while Mr Y was waiting allocation the Council confirms the ASC duty team remained in contact with him and his care provider who could provide support as needed. Once there were concerns raised in November 2022 about the decline in Mr Y’s engagement with support services the Council gave Mr Y’s review a higher priority. Mr Y was allocated a social worker I will refer to as Officer B in December 2022 to review his care needs.
12. Officer B arranged to hold the review at the centre and spoke to Ms X who raised concerns about Mr Y’s health and living conditions. Ms X wanted to attend the review meeting but could not as the centre did not allow non-residents into the building. Officer B agreed to update Ms X after the meeting.
13. Officer B reviewed the care plan with Mr Y, his key worker from the hostel and centre staff. Those attending considered Mr Y’s care package sufficient, but problems arose when Mr Y was intoxicated and did not allow carers to provide support. The plan required Mr Y to engage with the provision which he did not always do. The group discussed actions for those involved in supporting Mr Y to take. Officer B updated Ms X after the meeting.
14. In January 2023 Mr X left the centre. Records show Officer B was in contact with Mr Y to provide support, accommodation, help with a housing register application and referrals for specialist help. Mr Y returned to the hostel and Officer B completed the review of Mr Y’s care and support plan. The plan recommended a package of care for Mr Y starting in March 2023 with a new care provider.
15. Ms X raised concerns about Mr Y’s health and safety due to his condition. Case notes show Officer B contacted the hostel about Mr Y’s care. The hostel considered Mr Y’s care package was working well, he had the support needed and attending the support services arranged for him.
16. Mr Y started drinking alcohol again in May 2023 and was admitted to hospital. Mr Y returned to the hostel. ASC held a meeting to discuss Mr Y and agreed actions to try and support him. It arranged a package of care for Mr Y from a new care provider.
17. Ms X complained to the Council that Officer B failed to communicate with her and Mr Y or send her information. Ms X said she had not been allowed to attend a review meeting at the centre to support Mr Y. Ms X asked for a new social worker for Mr Y as she felt Officer B was not supporting Mr Y.
18. The Council responded it recognised Ms X’s wish to make an input into Mr Y’s care. But Mr Y withdrew consent for her to act on his behalf on occasions. Officer B had sent Mr Y a consent form to complete to share information with Ms X, but Mr Y had not returned it. So, the Council could not always include Ms X in meetings or provide updates on Mr Y’s care. The Council says Mr Y has capacity to make decisions. So, it is for Mr Y to decide whom he wishes to share information with and include in meetings about his care.
19. The Council confirms Officer B explored the option of an advocate with Mr Y who was unsure whether he wanted to use the support. Officers later made a referral for advocacy due to Ms X’s concerns Mr Y’s needs were not being fully met and to have someone to support him. But again, Mr Y did not want to use the service and the Council closed the referral. The Council will pursue a further referral if Mr Y wishes to use the service.
20. The Council held further meetings about Mr Y during 2023. It has allocated Mr Y’s case to a new social worker to carry out an annual review. The social worker spoke to Mr Y during the review and discussed a plan of support for him including residential rehabilitation. Council records show it continues to provide a package of care for Mr Y and has support available to him.

My assessment

21. Ms X complains the Council has failed to carry out a social care assessment on Mr Y or to provide him with a care and support plan. However, the documents provided show the Council has assessed Mr Y for his care and support needs on several occasions. This has led to Mr Y being provided with a care and support plan and package of care while he has lived at the hostel and specialist rehabilitation centre. The Council increased the level of care and support to Mr Y when necessary. So, there is no evidence to show the Council has failed to make provision for Mr Y’s care and support needs.
22. The Council accepts a delay in allocating to a social care practitioner to review Mr Y’s care and support plan between July and November 2022. The delay to allocate the case within its usual 28-day timescale is fault by the Council. But I do not consider the fault has caused Mr Y a significant injustice to warrant us pursuing the matter further. This is because the Council assessed any risks to Mr Y, and he was living at the specialist rehabilitation centre during this time. Mr Y also had access to the Council’s duty social work team and received support and a package of care from the Council.
23. Ms X complained about Officer B’s lack of support to Mr Y, lack of contact and the officer did not share information about Mr Y with her. The documents show that Officer B was in regular contact with Mr Y when allocated to his case. The officer carried out the review of Mr Y’s care and support plan and made appropriate referrals for support for Mr Y. There is no evidence Officer B failed to support Mr Y.
24. The Council confirmed Ms X was not able to attend professionals meeting held by the Council which is usual practice. Ms X was also unable to attend a meeting at the centre because it was not admitting non-residents into the building. I appreciate Ms X’s disappointment she could not attend but documents show she received appropriate updates from Officer B when possible.
25. The Council confirmed Mr Y has not always given his written or verbal consent to share information with Ms X or to involve her in his care plans. So, this has limited the information the Council has been able to give to Ms X about Mr Y. The Council considered Mr Y has capacity to make decisions about whom he wishes to share information with. There is no evidence of fault by the Council as it can only share information when it has consent to do so which has not always been forthcoming from Mr Y.
26. The Council has acknowledged Ms X’s concerns Mr Y should have an independent supporter to help him. It has discussed this with Mr Y and made a referral to an independent advocacy service for him. This is appropriate action for the Council to take. But Mr Y has chosen not to use the service although this option is still available to him should he wish to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has assessed and supported Mr Y’s care and support needs and communicated with Ms X. There is fault by the Council as it delayed carrying out a review of Mr Y’s care and support plan. But this did not cause a significant injustice to Mr Y who was continuing to receive care and support from the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman