Summary: Mr X complained the Council is not providing his brother with adequate transport to the day centre and enough care on weekday afternoons and evenings. He said the Council presented documents that were fraudulently signed. The Council is at fault for not properly considering the reasons Mr X provided about the unsuitability of the care package.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council is not paying for his brother’s, Mr B’s, transport to the day centre and is not providing enough care in the afternoon and evening. He is also concerned the Council presented documents that were fraudulently signed. Family members must provide care and transport for Mr B which means they cannot work, causing financial loss. Mr X would like the Council to provide the costs of the transport and additional care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Care Act 2014 and The Care and Support statutory guidance.
5. Mr X 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

What should have happened

Assessment

6. 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.
7. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.

Care Plan

8. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). 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.

Reviews

9. 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.

The Council’s customer service commitments

10. The Council’s website publishes its customer service commitments. It says when a customer contacts the Council by email or online form, the customer will receive an automated reply to confirm receipt of the query. It aims to respond to email or online form within five working days. It may take longer to resolve, if so, the Council will keep the customer updated.

Transport policy

11. The Council does not have a specific policy to support decision making when it plans transport routes to and from the day centre.
12. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained there is one bus assigned to provide transport to the day centre. The journeys are planned around location using specific routes within the neighbourhood.
13. The Council said it must balance social care and transport budgets and provide the most cost-effective way of meeting a person’s assessed eligible needs.

What happened

14. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
15. Mr B lives with his family. He is an adult male who has a learning disability. His brother, Mr X brought this complaint on his behalf.
16. In mid-January 2023, the Council held a review meeting to discuss Mr B’s Care and Support Plan (the Plan). Mr X attended the meeting, he said the family were happy with Mr B’s current support provision.
17. The Plan noted Mr B enjoys attending the day care centre and had recently increased from mornings to full days. Mr B’s family had been transporting him to and from the day centre which the Council had funded by direct payment equivalent to a taxi fare as an interim measure. The family requested council transport instead. The Council offered transport starting from late January.
18. To meet Mr B’s needs at home, the Council provided 15 hours of extra support during weekday evenings (three hours per day for one person) and an extra 32 hours at weekend (eight hours per day for two people per day) via personal budgets. The Plan notes Mr X said this enabled the family to take Mr B to activities with the family such as cinema, gym, walks, shopping and meals out.
19. At the beginning of April, Mr X emailed the Council and said the current Plan does not meet with Mr B’s needs. He said the support on weekdays was not enough, Council transport was not working and he asked if the Council could fund the transport costs for a private morning drop off. Mr X emailed again the next day and followed this up a few working days later.
20. Within eight working days the social worker responded to Mr X’s email. They explained the family had requested transport to the day centre which was now being provided with a pickup time of 10am. It invited Mr X to explain why this was not suitable for Mr B. It also offered an ‘extra 2 hours of support’ from two commissioned carers to support Mr B with activities on weekday afternoons / evenings.
21. Mr X emailed the Council and said the transport timings meant Mr B was left ‘loitering for an hour in the morning, it could be the difference to him going and not going to the day centre on a daily basis’. In response to my enquiries, the Council considered its transport offer met Mr B’s needs and said it expected the family to show flexibility with the arrangements. Alternatively, they could make their own transport arrangements at their own cost. In the same correspondence to the Ombudsman, the Council noted it might be possible to offer a pickup time of between 9.15am and 9.30am instead of 9.45am if this is helpful for the family.
22. In an email to the Council in April, Mr X said the plan for two agency workers to provide support in the evenings for Mr B would ‘not work’ as he refused to go with the staff and expected his family to be at home. Mr X was also concerned to keep the day centre separate to home life for Mr B.
23. The Council emailed Mr X in May and said it was continuing to make direct payments of 15 hours for weekday evenings and 32 hours at the weekend which it considered proportionate to the support provided. It references the family’s desire to continue caring for Mr B in the family and considered this provided flexibility and continuity of care so they could arrange support as they wished.

Complaint to the Council

24. Mr X complained to the Council at the beginning of June. He said he sought changes to his brothers Plan as his needs change regularly and the Council delayed in responding and then stopped communicating. Mr X said the direct payments to cover the care on weekdays is not enough, leaving family to care for Mr B and unable to work.
25. The Council responded at the end of June. It did not uphold the complaint about delay in communication and gave examples of timely communication. In response to the request for extra care on weekdays, the Council said it had already reviewed the Plan and offered extra commissioned care on weekdays by an agency for two hours for two workers. It said ‘This would be in addition to the three hours already provided by a direct payment.' It did not uphold this element of the complaint and asked the family to confirm if it wished to accept the offer.
26. Mr X asked for a review of the complaint in mid-July. He said the Council failed to respond to emails and complained that a social worker added his name to a signature section of a document which he had not given permission to sign, he said this showed the Council were acting outside their powers. Mr X said the Plan was not reasonable and proportionate with the level of care provided on weekday afternoons and evenings and the timing of the Council transport was inadequate.
27. The Council sent its stage two complaint response in early August. It explained the social worker had discussed the plan with Mr X before adding his name to the document which Mr X later signed.
28. The Council explained the direct payment for weekdays was granted to allow flexibility to accommodate Mr B’s need to have a rest when he returned from the day centre before going out for a planned activity. It said the payments were provided in good faith to support activities commensurate with the non-restrictive principle. The Council explained that now transport was in place there was an expectation the family would support Mr B to use it. If the family wished to transport Mr B themselves, the Council would not pay for this.

Complaint to the Ombudsman

29. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in September. He said care the Council offered between 2:30pm and 8pm is not satisfactory, the Council failed to pay for transport to the day centre and presented documents supposedly signed by Mr X without him consenting.
30. In conversation with me, Mr X said the family is happy for Mr B to travel by Council transport to and from the day centre but the timings do not work for the family. He said if Mr B is collected by Council transport at 10am as per the plan, he has been awake two hours, during which time the family has to provide care and manage Mr B’s behaviour. It is therefore preferable for the family to transport Mr B themselves at a better time around Mr B and their own commitments. Mr B’s brother is unable to work as he must be at home to support Mr B when needed.
31. Mr X said the care at weekends works as this is for two people to provide seven hours of care. The direct payments for weekday afternoons and evenings is only for one person for three hours. He said it does not make sense that the Council is providing one to one support on a weekday afternoon and evening but is providing two people to support Mr B at a weekend and at the day centre. Mr X said Mr B always needs two to one care. Mr X explained the Council’s offer of two agency care workers for two hours in the afternoon would not work as his brother would expect his family to also be in the home.
32. In October, the Council responded to our enquiries and said its stage one response addressed to Mr X was incorrect. It meant to offer two agency care workers for two hours on a weekday instead of the three hours provided by direct payment; and not in addition. It said it explained this to Mr X in mid-April.
33. In response to my enquires, the Council said it was to review the Plan in early January 2024. The family told the Council they were on holiday with Mr B at this time and requested the meeting was postponed. The Council agreed to this and asked Mr X to provide availability. The Council said it has not received a response and proposed an alternative date for late February.

Analysis

The insertion of Mr X’s name on a form and communication

34. Mr X complained the Council inserted his name on a form without his consent. The Council said the social worker had discussed the document with Mr X who agreed to it before the social worker added his name to it. Mr X later signed the document. While I understand Mr X’s concern the social worker had added his name to a document, this was done after the matter had been discussed, and was something he agreed with. There is limited injustice caused to Mr X and Mr B. I do not consider it proportionate to continue this part of the investigation.
35. The Council’s customer service commitment is to send an automated acknowledgment to emails and respond fully to emails within five working days. From the email correspondence I have seen between Mr X and the social worker in April 2023, the Council did not send an acknowledgement email and was slightly over the timescale before sending a substantive response. The social worker did not acknowledge Mr X’s emails or explain they were looking into the matter before sending a full response. While this does not meet the Council’s service commitment, I do not consider it significant enough to be fault.

Review of the Plan and changing the support for Mr B

36. The Council should conduct a light touch review six to eight weeks after the Plan was drafted and upon request. I have not seen evidence the Council completed a light touch review, but it did review the Plan upon receiving emails in April from Mr X requesting one. The social worker reviewed the Plan and offered to amend the package which it reiterated in its complaint response. The Council is not at fault.
37. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council said there was a mistake in the offer made to Mr X in the original email from the social worker in April and in the complaint response. The offer for weekday afternoons and evenings was for two hours with two carers in addition to the direct payments. The Council said this was incorrect, it should have said this was instead of the original offer. The Council said it explained this to Mr X but I have not seen evidence of this in the correspondence presented by the Council. The Council’s communication about changing the Plan is poor, confusing and misleading. The Council is at fault.
38. The Council has explained to Mr X in response to the complaint, and to me in response to my enquiries, why it considers the offer of care for weekday afternoons and evenings are suitable. Mr X explained why he does not consider either offer is suitable. I have not seen evidence the Council considered the reasons Mr X provided. It has not shown it has considered Mr B’s reluctance to engage with agency workers on a weekday afternoon and evening as he expects his family to also be present in the home. Neither has it explained why it considers one to one support is enough for Mr B on a weekday afternoon and evening whereas it considers Mr B requires two to one support at weekends and in the day centre. The Council is at fault for not properly considering the reasons given by Mr X, and whether an alternative can be provided.

Transport to the day centre

39. The Council provided transport for Mr B following a request made by the family. The social worker agreed to pay the family to transport Mr B in the interim while this transport was put in place. Once the Council arranged transport, there was an expectation Mr B would use it. If the family wish to transport Mr B themselves, this is their decision, and they must pay for it. The Council is not at fault for not paying for Mr B’s family to transport him to the day centre once it had arranged bus transport for him.
40. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained the transport service is arranged via planned specific routes within the local neighbourhood so that it is economical and good value. Mr B’s pick-up time is arranged as part of this transport route planning. The Council said it understood family members were at home and could support Mr B at this time. The Council is not at fault for arranging transport for Mr B in accordance with its planned routes and its understanding of the family situation at the time.
41. In the email correspondence from April when Mr X expressed the timings were not suitable, the social worker asked him to explain why and give reasons, which he did as set out above. I have not seen evidence the Council considered these reasons in detail at the time. As the social worker asked Mr X to give reasons, I would expect them to consider these. It is right the Council works out a transport route based on the routes and best value as this is its procedure. The Council is at fault for asking Mr X to give reasons why the plan was not suitable and then not considering these when provided.

Fault causing injustice

42. The Council is at fault for failing to communicate clearly and effectively and explain if the offers of support on weekday afternoons and evenings were in addition or in the alternative. From my conversation with Mr X, it is clear he understood the package the Council intended to offer as he explained to me why it was not suitable. The Council’s fault has therefore not caused an injustice.
43. The Council is at fault for not properly considering the reasons provided by Mr X regarding why the weekday afternoon / evening care package for Mr B was unsuitable. This has caused Mr X frustration at the situation and uncertainty around what the care package might otherwise look like.
44. The Council is at fault for not considering the reasons why the transport pick-up time was not suitable for Mr B and his family when the social worker specifically asked for this detail. This caused raised expectations for the family that an alternative pick-up time might be offered. The Council has since said an earlier pick-up time might be available which may improve the situation for the family.

Remedies

45. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it could consider if an earlier pick-up time might be available for Mr B if the family are still interested in this. It is right the Council does this and it will limit any further injustice. The Council should take into account the reasons given by the family for requesting an earlier pick-up time when it considers this further.
46. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had arranged to review the care plan in January but this has been postponed by Mr X as the family were on holiday. It is right the Council conducts a review as this will give all the parties opportunity to consider the Plan, what is working and not working and how this can be improved if required. This will limit any further injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. In addition to the above action, within four weeks of my final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise in writing and pay Mr X £300 for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s failure to consider the reasons he provided explaining why he considered the transport pick-up time and the weekday afternoon / evening care package unsuitable. This is based on the period of uncertainty and raised expectations which affected Mr X, Mr B and their family.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. The Council is at fault for not properly considering the reasons Mr X provided about the unsuitability of the care package.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman