Surrey County Council (23 006 631)
Category : Adult care services > Assessment and care plan
Decision : Upheld
Decision date : 28 Mar 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s handling of his care and support, record keeping and how it communicated with him since Summer 2021. He said as a result he experienced distress and did not receive the care and support he needed. We found some fault by the Council, however had the fault not occurred, the outcome was likely to have been the same. Its apology was therefore enough to remedy the injustice it caused Mr C.
The complaint
- The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complained about how the Council dealt with his care and support since Summer 2021. He said it:
- failed to put in place the care provision he was entitled to since 2021, where a previous Ombudsman decision found the Council at fault;
- held inaccurate or poor records and caused delays in correcting these;
- communicated poorly with him and showed a lack of understanding of his communication needs; and
- caused delays in assessing his care needs, which resulted in further loss of care provision. Including a recent care and support needs assessment by an independent social worker.
- Mr C said, as a result, he experienced distress and spent a significant amount of time without his care and support needs being met. He also said he had time and trouble to correct inaccurate records.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
- If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
- 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)
- 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)
What I have and have not investigated
- I have investigated Mr C’s concerns about the Council’s:
- handling of his care and support arrangements since Summer 2021 until Summer 2023 when the Council provided its final complaint response and agreed for an independent social worker to carry out a further care and support needs assessment for Mr C;
- handling of his care and support needs assessments since August 2022 and how it communicated with him. I have not investigated how the Council dealt with earlier assessments and how it communicated with him before August 2022. This is because this has been considered in a previous Ombudsman investigation and was brought to our attention late; and
- handling of his concerns about its record keeping since August 2022. I have not considered how the Council dealt with his concerns about its records keeping prior to this as this has either been considered in a previous investigation or was brought to our attention late.
How I considered this complaint
- As part of my investigation, I have:
- considered Mr C’s complaints and the Council’s responses;
- discussed the complaint with Mr C and considered the information he provided;
- considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
- had regard to the law, guidance and policy relevant to the complaint.
- Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance
- 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)
- 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)
- The Care Act spells out the duty to meet eligible needs (needs which meet the eligibility criteria). (Care Act 2014, section 18)
- 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)
- 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)
- A direct payment is money a council gives to an adult who has eligible care and support needs. Direct payments let people arrange and pay for their own care and support, as set out in their care and support plan.
- A council may discontinue a direct payment if a person fails to comply with a condition or if some reason, a direct payment is no longer appropriate. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014, Paragraph 12.75)
- Statutory Guidance explains a council should review a care and support plan at least every year, on request or in response to a change in circumstances. The purpose of a review is to see how a care and support plan has been working and to decide if any revisions need to be made to it. The council should act promptly after receiving a request for a review. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Paragraphs 13.19-21 and 13.32)
- Think Autism is the government’s strategy for raising awareness of autism. It sets out 15 statements including ‘I want people to recognise my autism and adapt the support they give me if I have additional needs………….or if I sometimes communicate through behaviours which others may find challenging.’
- Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice is guidance we expect councils to consider and we use it as a benchmark for the standards we expect when we investigate a complaint. We expect councils to be open and accountable. This includes keeping proper and appropriate records.
- The UK General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’) sets out the principles, rights and obligations for processing of personal data. Article 5 says personal data should be accurate. Under Article 16, people have the right to have inaccurate personal data rectified.
- Personal data is inaccurate if it is incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact. (Data Protection Act 2018, section 205)
The Equality Act 2010
- The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
- The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
- The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:
- age;
- disability;
- gender reassignment;
- marriage and civil partnership;
- pregnancy and maternity;
- race;
- religion or belief;
- sex; and
- sexual orientation.
- We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
- Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
What happened
- This is not a complete summary of everything which has happened, but a brief summary of the event which occurred which relates to Mr C’s complaint.
- Mr C has been assessed by the Council to have needs for care and support. He also has a condition which impacts how he feels able to communicate with others. His care and support needs and communication preferences are set out in his care records and care assessments. He had a further diagnosis in 2023 which confirmed his condition.
- Mr C complained to us previously about the Council’s social care assessments, care planning, care funding, and about incorrect information about him in its records. We upheld some of those complaints and made recommendations to remedy the injustice he experienced. Mr C finds it stressful and anxiety-provoking to accept inaccuracies and errors in information held by the Council. He is already distrustful of the Council based on its previous performance.
- Following our decision in Summer 2021, the Council worked with Mr C to arrange the care and support he needed. It proposed a care agency, which Mr C declined as he felt it could not meet his needs. It was agreed Mr C would receive a direct payment as to enable him to find a personal assistant. The Council made a referral to a contractor which would help him advertise for the support and manage the direct payment. Mr C disagrees he refused to work with all the care providers the Council offered.
- During the following nine months, Mr C was unsuccessful in finding any personal assistants to support him. He contacted the Council and raised his concerns during this time. The Council explained it was not actively sourcing care support for him as he had elected to do so himself. However, it offered reablement support, re-referred to the contractor so adverts for a personal assistant could continue, and contacted a care agency it believed could provide support. Due to Mr C’s preferences, it asked the agency to contact him directly.
- The Council also discussed Mr C’s lack of care and support with a Multi-Agency team, which was satisfied he had capacity and was a low risk to himself.
- In May 2022 Mr C had sought legal support. Mr C’s legal adviser sent the Council a letter before action regarding the failure to provide him with the care and support services he needed and a contingency plan.
- The Council told Mr C’s legal adviser about the steps it had taken to support him. Including its assessments and contingency planning it had attempted to put in place.
- In Summer 2022 Mr C’s legal adviser requested the Council carried out a new care assessment for him, which the Council agreed to do.
- The Council contacted Mr C’s sister, who was supporting Mr C, to arrange the assessment. It provided a blank assessment form to allow a fresh view of his needs and for his views to be expressed in manageable chunks. It also suggested how it could support in the process.
- By Autumn 2022 the Council and Mr C’s sister remained in communication and discussed the comments it had received on its draft assessment, which set out his care and support needs. A legal advisor for Mr C also provided comments. The Council agreed to some amendments.
- By late 2022 Mr C’s care and support was still not in place. This was still intended to be through a direct payment. However, the Council said no providers or personal assistants had come forward as able to provide his identified care and support. It told Mr C he could have support from either a care provider or a personal assistant. It could follow its normal process for sourcing this in collaboration with Mr C, but it would require the costings and hours of care.
- Mr C told the Council it had misunderstood. This included his ability to work with care providers, a direct payment agreement was already in place which he had signed, and due to past issues he wanted to share information with care providers or personal assistants. He shared information about a care provider which had said it could meet his needs. He also said a personal assistant had applied to his advert, but this could not progress as the Council’s assessment was not yet completed.
- Mr C also told the Council about incorrect information in a risk assessment.
- The Council contacted the care provider Mr C said could meet his needs, but it turned out the provider did not cover the Council’s area. Mr C disagrees as said it does, but it refused to work with him.
- In December 2022 Mr C’s solicitor asked the Council to remove his sister from his care assessment as she was no longer able to support him.
- In January 2023 the Council referred Mr C again to is contractor to help find him a personal assistant. This was following consent from his sister. She said Mr C had not yet agreed to the care and support assessment but required a personal assistant, and he wanted to share his own information with any provider.
- The contractor told the Council Mr C had previously said he did not want its services but had placed an advert for a personal assistant on its website.
- Mr C made a subject access request to the Council. The Council provided some information, but Mr C contested this was everything it should have provided. The Council subsequently provided further information.
- In spring 2023 Mr C told the Council he believed a significant amount of the data it held about him was incorrect, including data about risk. He asked for it not to make automated decisions or use AI tools in communication related to his social care. He wanted the Council to restrict the processing of his data and require new data when needed. He explained an instance of poor or incorrect handling of his data.
- The Council told Mr C it did not make automated decisions or use AI tools. It reviewed the information he had given and agreed to make a correction to his record to make a statement clearer. It could not rectify any other data until it received specific information about the concern. It explained some information held was professional opinion, but it would record Mr C’s views and points he disagrees with in his records. It also informed Mr C he could ask the Information Commissioner (ICO) to consider his concerns.
- On Mr C’s behalf, his legal representative told the Council not to call or meet with Mr C in person, but only use email as a reasonable adjustment. The advocate believed Mr C was banned from emailing the Council. The Council acknowledged this and explained his previous preference had been calls, but he was not banned from emailing.
- In April 2023 Mr C’s advert for a personal assistant ended, he did not renew the advert. Instead, he told the Council about a change in his circumstances and asked for a new Care Act assessment. The change related to a diagnosis which affects the way he can communicate. He also asked the Council to make reasonable adjustments when it communicates with him, which included giving him time, using a specific tone and for relevant staff to understand his condition.
Mr C’s complaint
- Mr C complained to the Council in April 2023 about how it dealt with his care and support since Summer 2021. He said it:
- failed to put in place the care provision he was entitled to since 2021, where a previous Ombudsman decision found the Council at fault. Including in late 2022 when it told him it was seeking support for him;
- held inaccurate or poor records and caused delays in correcting these. Mr C said he believed this caused delays in him receiving the support he was entitled to and would have impacted the safety of any support he would have received;
- communicated poorly with him and showed a lack of understanding of his communication needs; and
- caused delays in assessing his care needs, which resulted in further loss of care provision. Including a recent care and support needs assessment by an independent social worker. He also said it had failed to carry forward information and asked him repeat questions which went against his diagnosis.
- A few weeks later Mr C shared a communications strategy he wanted the Council to follow. This included he did not want communication in writing, and he could not always answer his phone. It was therefore best for in person meetings or that he initiated calls, but voicemails could be left for him. He said he was still using emails and the social worker could still email him regarding his recent emails.
- In May 2023 the Council told Mr C and his sister its intensions to arrange a new care assessment. It explained it had approved funding for a personal assistant for 10 hours per week in lieu of the new assessment being completed. This was to avoid any further delay in Mr C receiving the care and support he was entitled to.
- Mr C told the Council not to contact him until his solicitor had advised him. He did not wish to accept or refuse the 10 hours direct payment until then. He also gave consent for his sister to speak with the Council on his behalf regarding his new needs assessment. He said this was because he felt it had misunderstood his communications strategy. This included care assessment questions should be by email, but the Council had called him, and he had not said his preference was for his solicitor to deal with each of his issues, as he wanted to deal with his complaint and data request himself.
- In Summer 2023 Mr C’s sister asked the Council what the next steps were to plan and arrange Mr C’s care and support. The Council said a new social worker was being allocated and would progress the case. However, it had attempted to discuss next steps with Mr C, but he had said he wanted it to communicate with his solicitors. As Mr C’s sister was now involved it would speak with her, and Mr C’s ongoing concerns could be dealt with through his solicitors.
- The Council considered Mr C’s complaint. It found:
- (Care and support) there had been a continued delay in arranging support which met Mr C’s identified needs. It apologised and explained this was partly due to his requests for updates or reassessments, his disagreements around the accuracy of information, and its difficulties finding an appropriate person or service with the availability and experience to support Mr C. It said it would arrange a direct payment of 10 hours per week at its personal assistant rate in lieu of the new care assessment being completed;
- (Communication) there had been delays in contact and updates when the caseworker allocated to his case was absent and it was unable to assign another caseworker. The allocated caseworker has since her return asked not to work on Mr C’s case for her own wellbeing. It would allocate a new worker, but explained the delay was partly due to workers finding Mr C difficult to work with;
- (Care assessment) a new Care Act assessment would further delay the process of Mr C receiving the support he was entitled to. It had therefore proposed the direct payment of 10 hours per week in lieu of the assessment being completed. It said it was open to how the new assessment could be completed which could be a completely new assessment, add changes or updates but keep previous information, or go through Mr C’s current assessment and agree amendments based on the details that had changed; and
- (Reasonable adjustments) it had acknowledged Mr C’s reasonable adjustments requests. As a result, it had kept its responses to him brief and concise. It explained Mr C had asked it to communicate through his solicitor but had emailed the Council directly which caused confusion. It suggested all contact should go through his solicitor.
- Mr C told the Council he had provided his change of needs in April 2023 and his solicitor had recently provided a diagnostic report by a service which was happy to discuss the findings with the Council. His solicitors would continue to support him and should be included in all communication regarding assessment and contents of his care package.
- Mr C asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.
- Following information from the Council and Mr C, I understand his new Care Act assessment is yet to be completed. The Council and Mr C’s solicitors has continued to be in communication. It was agreed the assessment should be completed by an independent social worker funded by the Council. Mr C disagrees the Council had agreed to fund this at the time. However, Mr C is yet to receive any care and support from a personal assistant or a service provider.
- Also, Mr C raised further concerns to the Council in Autumn 2023 regarding the accuracy of the records the Council hold of him. He said the Council had handled his data incorrectly and unlawfully under the Data Protection Act 2018. This included his communication preferences, incorrect information, and how it handled his data request.
Analysis and findings
Care assessments and support for Mr C from Summer 2021 to August 2022
- Mr C has not received the eligible care and support set out in his needs assessments since our previous decision in Summer 2021. I have considered whether the lack of support was due to fault or a service failure by the Council.
- It is for the Council to assess Mr C’s needs and decide whether he is eligible for social care support. We previously considered a complaint by Mr C in 2022 regarding the Council’s Care Act assessments for Mr C in 2021 and 2022. I cannot therefore consider his disagreement about those assessments.
- We also considered a complaint from Mr C in 2021 which found the Council had failed to provide the care and support Mr C was entitled to at the time. Since our decision in Summer 2021, the Council offered Mr C support from a care service provider which it found could meet his needs. Mr C declined the offer as he disagreed it could meet his needs. He said this has been evidenced in his 2023 diagnosis.
- I have not found the Council at fault for the actions it took between Summer 2021 to April 2022. In reaching my view I acknowledge:
- Mr C obtained a diagnosis in 2023 which he says shows the support would not have been appropriate. However, this was not available at the time. The Council had assessed Mr C’s needs and provided an offer of support from providers which could meet the needs it had identified;
- when Mr C refused the Council’s offers of commissioned care providers, it agreed to put in place a direct payment. Mr C was referred to the Council’s contractor for help with the direct payment and sourcing a personal assistant. This was in line with his wishes to find a personal assistant who he believed could meet his needs. It told Mr C it was therefore not actively sourcing a care provider at the time;
- the Council offered a reablement service, which Mr C declined. While this may not have been the support Mr C needed, it shows the Council considered alternative or interim support until he found a personal assistant or care provider, he was happy with; and
- the Council referred concerns about Mr C’s lack of care support to a Multi-Agency team for its consideration. It found Mr C was not considered a safeguarding concern or a risk to himself.
- In May 2022 Mr C’s solicitor told the Council it was in breach of its duty to provide Mr C with the care and support he was entitled to. The Council explained the steps it had taken to support Mr C and the offers it had made, but he had continued to dispute the needs and support it had found he was entitled to. It explained he had since elected to find a personal assistant or care service through a direct payment. The solicitor subsequently requested for a new Care Act assessment to be completed.
- I accept the request for a new Care Act assessment may have caused further delay in progressing Mr C’s care and support arrangements. However, I found this was not due to fault by the Council as it acted on Mr C’s solicitors request and started the reassessment process.
- It is clear Mr C therefore still had no care support in place. However, without Mr C’s agreement to work with the providers the Council had offered or Mr C finding a suitable personal assistant or provider himself, the Council could not progress the care planning further.
Care assessments and support for Mr C from August 2022 to July 2023
- The Council worked with Mr C’s sister to complete a reassessment of Mr C’s care needs from August 2022. Due to Mr C’s disagreement about the accuracy of its past assessments, it suggested a blank assessment form could be used. Mr C’s sister agreed this was appropriate.
- The Council was required to complete the Care Act assessment within a reasonable timescale taking into account the urgency of Mr C’s needs. The evidence shows there were delays in completing his assessment. This was primarily after August 2022 when the Council had shared its draft assessment. The evidence shows:
- Mr C’s sister made comments, which the Council agreed to amend;
- it took Mr C’s solicitors two months to make comments on the assessment;
- it took the Council four weeks to consider the solicitor’s amendments and agree to some changes;
- Mrs C’s sister and the solicitors informed the Council she should be removed from the assessment as she could no longer support Mr C, the Council agreed to remove her;
- the Council also offered Mr C a visit to discuss its assessment with him to clarify any further concerns, which he declined; and
- Mr C disputed the accuracy of some information in the assessment, which he wanted removed or reworded;
- the Council sought Mr C’s view as to whether a personal assistant or a care provider would be preferred. It explained both were an option, but costing and hours would need to be discussed. The Council could progress this, or Mr C could self-fund which was not recommended;
- Mr C found a care provider which said it could meet his needs, but when the Council approached the provider it became clear it did not cover the Council’s area; and
- the Council had sought care providers for Mr C but none had come forward with availability or willing to accept the package of care.
- I found no evidence of fault in how the Council’s handled the assessment process for Mr C. Nor, that it was a fault for the delays in completing the assessment. This is because the above evidence shows the Council attempted to agree an assessment which was acceptable to Mr C and the delays were largely outside its control.
- However, the Council was again involved with finding care providers or a personal assistant for Mr C to meet his eligible unmet care needs. I found the Council at fault. This was from November 2022 when it had assessed his needs, and comments from Mr C, his sister and his solicitors had been received. This is because:
- although the Council attempted to find care providers which could meet with Mr C to put his care and support in place, I have seen no evidence Mr C was offered to work with any providers at the time, nor was he offered any Council commissioned service;
- the social worker allocated to Mr C’s case was absent and it could not allocate a replacement. When the allocated worker returned, she asked to be removed from the case and there were delays in assigning a new social worker; and
- the Council should have had a contingency plan in place in circumstances where no outreach provider or personal assistants are available. This could have been a Council commissioned care and support service.
- As a result, Mr C was not offered any care and support to meet his unmet needs. Although the Council did explore a further referral to its contractor for help with finding Mr C a personal assistant, and received confirmation he already had an advert for this support on its website.
- I found the Council continued to be at fault until May 2023 when it offered Mr C a direct payment in lieu of a further Care Act assessment for Mr C. This was when Mr C asked for a new assessment.
- I have considered whether the Council’s fault caused Mr C an injustice. Based on his disagreements with the Council’s assessment and past refusals of some support from care providers the Council offered, I cannot say whether Mr C would have agreed to a service the Council arranged, nor is there any evidence to suggest the temporary lack of a social worker meant Mr C lost out on opportunities to find a care provider.
- I have found the Council’s fault is unlikely to have led to a different outcome. Its apology was therefore enough to remedy the injustice it caused Mr C. In reaching my view I acknowledge Mr C remained in dispute with the Council over its assessed needs, and the Council could not put in place commissioned care for Mr C without his agreement as he wanted to be part of this process.
- I understand Mr C is unhappy about the Council’s handling of a further re-assessment of his needs since July 2023. This was agreed to be completed by an independent social worker and funded by the Council. I have not considered this part of Mr C’s complaint as this was not part of his original complaint to the Council.
Council’s communication with Mr C and reasonable adjustments
- Mr C complained about how the Council communicated with him and adhered to his reasonable adjustment requests.
- The Council agreed it had not communicated and provided updates to Mr C when its social worker was absent in early 2023 and due to its delays in allocating a new social worker to his case. This was fault. I am satisfied this caused Mr C some uncertainty and lack of trust in the Council’s ability to support him.
- The Council did not agree it had communicated poorly with Mr C at other times, although it acknowledged it had at times communicated with him in ways he had asked it not to do. It apologised and explained it had found it challenging and confusing to follow his communication preferences due to the number of times he had changed his presences.
- I would expect the Council to have considered Mr C communication preferences and reasonable adjustment request. It should also have regard for its duties under the Equality Act 2010 as Mr C’s adjustments relates to his disabilities.
- I found the Council has had regard to Mr C’s communication preferences and reasonable adjustment requests. The evidence shows Mr C has made several requests for how the Council should communicate with him between 2021 to Summer 2023. This included:
- only communicate in writing with Mr C,
- only to communicate by phone or leave voicemails for Mr C to return calls, unless it related to a recent email correspondence;
- only communicate with Mr C’s sister;
- communicate with his solicitors; and
- who it should communicate with depended on the matter it was addressing.
- The Council set out Mr C’s communication preferences and reasonable adjustment request on his case record. However, it is clear there were instances where his preferences were not adhered to. While this may be fault, I acknowledge the difficulties the Council faced to get this right and the efforts it made to accommodate his request. I am therefore satisfied its apology about its communication was sufficient to remedy the injustice this caused.
- I found the Council had regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. If Mr C believes the Council has breached its duties, he has the right to pursue to matter further through the courts.
Accuracy of data and Mr C’s data requests.
- Mr C has for several years disagreed with the accuracy of the information the Council holds about him. This includes further information which he first became aware of after he submitted data requests to the Council.
- I have considered the information Mr C told the Council he found to be inaccurate or should be reworded in his documents. The evidence shows on most occasions the Council considered Mr C’s view. It then:
- agreed to make the amendments or rewording and shared this with Mr C; or
- explained it was satisfied the information was correct or professional opinion, but it would note Mr C disagreed and record his view; or
- told Mr C he needed to share the specific information which he believed was incorrect, it would then be able to consider if any corrections or amendments were necessary.
- However, in late 2022 Mr C told the Council about incorrect information about him in a risk assessment in its records. I have seen no evidence the Council considered Mr C’s concerns and responded to him at the time. This was fault. I am satisfied this caused Mr C some uncertainty.
- The Council later told Mr C, as part of his subject access request, it did not hold a separate risk assessment for him, and any risks were set out in its care assessment and care plans. The evidence shows a care provider drafted a risk assessment for him with input from the Council in 2021, but this was not a Council document. I am therefore not satisfied there is any evidence this impacted Mr C's ability to obtain the care and support he was entitled to. This is because the Council did not hold or share the risk assessments about Mr C with care providers.
- I understand Mr C continues to believe the Council holds incorrect or inaccurate information about him and it did not deal with his subject access request properly. If Mr C wishes to pursue these matters, he should bring his concerns to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is best placed to consider such issues.
Final decision
- I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council. However, but for its fault, the outcome was likely to have been the same. Its apology was therefore enough to remedy the injustice it caused Mr C.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman