Summary: There was fault in the way the Council responded to a request to assess and support Mr C. There were delays in the Council’s response, a failure to cooperate between the Council’s different departments and a lack of proactive action from the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic financial remedy, re-assess Mr C, hold a multi-disciplinary meeting and carry out a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains on behalf of her nephew Mr C. Mrs B says Mr C has a learning disability and is unable to live independently without support. She says she has repeatedly asked for support from the Council and says the Council has delayed carrying out assessments and that its assessments do not take account of the support that she and the family provide to Mr C. She says the Council is still not providing the support that Mr C needs.

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. 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)
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 discussed the complaint with Mrs B. I have considered the evidence that she and the Council have sent, the relevant law, guidance and policies and both sides’ comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Care Act 2014 and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014 set out the Council’s duties towards adults who require care and support.
7. 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. The threshold for eligibility is based on identifying how a person’s needs affect their ability to achieve relevant outcomes, and how this impacts on their wellbeing. Council must consider whether:
• The adult’s needs arise from a physical or mental impairment or illness.
• As a result of the adult’s needs the adult is unable to achieve 2 or more of the specified outcomes. The Guidance says that this includes cases where a person may be physically able to do so something (for example wash themselves) but needs prompting.
• As a consequence of being unable to achieve these outcomes there is a significant impact on the adult’s wellbeing.
8. Local authorities must consider whether the person has a condition as a result of either physical, mental, sensory, learning or cognitive disabilities or illnesses, substance misuse or brain injury. The authority should base their judgment on the assessment of the adult and a formal diagnosis of the condition should not be required.
9. The outcomes are:
• Managing and maintaining nutrition
• Maintaining personal hygiene
• Managing toilet needs
• Being appropriately clothed
• Being able to make use of the home safely
• Maintaining a habitable home environment
• Developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships
• Accessing and engaging in work, training, education or
• Making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community
• Carrying out caring responsibilities for a child.

Needs met by a carer

10. Local authorities must consider all of the adult’s care and support needs, regardless of any support being provided by a carer. The local authority is not required to meet any needs which are being met by a carer who is willing and able to do so, but it should record where that is the case. This ensures that the entirety of the adult’s needs are identified and the local authority can respond appropriately if the carer feels unable or unwilling to carry out the care they were previously providing.

Safeguarding

11. Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 says the local authority should start a safeguarding enquiry if an adult in its area:
• has needs for care and support;
• is experiencing, or at risk of, abuse or neglect and
• as a result of those care and support needs is unable to protect themselves from either the risk of, or the experience of abuse or neglect.

Multi-disciplinary co-operation

12. The CASS Guidance sets out what councils should do to facilitate the transition from support by children services to adult services. The CASS Guidance says:
• ‘Local authorities fulfil a range of different functions that have an impact on the health and wellbeing of individuals, in addition to their care and support responsibilities…It is therefore important that, in addition to ensuring co-operation between the local authority and its external partners, there is internal co-operation between the different local authority officers and professionals who provide these services.
• ‘Local authorities must make arrangements to ensure co-operation between its officers responsible for adult care and support, housing, public health and children’s services, and should also consider how such arrangements may also be applied to other relevant local authority responsibilities, such as education, planning and transport. Arrangements that local authorities could make to ensure co-operation between officers include … establishing systems for information sharing or multi-disciplinary teams.’
• ‘For example, … the transition from children’s social care to adult care and support will require local authority officers in the respective departments to co-operate to share information, prepare for transition, and ensure the young person’s needs are met on reaching the age of 18. 
• People with complex needs for care and support may have several professionals involved in their lives, and numerous assessments from multiple organisations.
• Local authorities must cooperate with relevant partners, and this duty is reciprocal … This includes an explicit requirement which states that children and adult services must cooperate for the purposes of transition to adult care and support.
• Agencies should agree how to organise processes so that all the relevant professionals are able to contribute. For example, this might involve arranging a multi-disciplinary team meeting with the young person or carer.
• The local authority may also combine a transition assessment with any other assessment it is carrying out or it may carry out assessments jointly with, or on behalf of, another body.

Use of language

13. The language around people with learning difficulties and/of disabilities changes frequently and the terms are often used interchangeably.
14. This is my understanding of the current language in the UK.
15. In the adult social care sector, the following terminology is used:
• ‘A learning disability’ is defined as ‘a significantly reduced ability to understand new or complex information, to learn new skills (impaired intelligence), with a reduced ability to cope independently (impaired social functioning), which started before adulthood.’ It can be classified as mild, moderate or severe.
• ‘A learning difficulty’ is a reduced intellectual ability for a specific form of learning and includes conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia and ADHD.
16. In children with special educational needs the terminology is different. The Special Educational Needs Code of Practice 2015 refers to ‘learning difficulties’ and states:
• Learning difficulties (LD) refers to children who learn at a slower pace than their peers. It covers a wide range of needs and includes MLD – moderate learning difficulties, SLD – severe learning difficulties and PMLD – profound multiple learning difficulties.
• Specific learning difficulties (SpLD) relates to difficulties which affect one or more specific aspects of learning. This encompasses conditions such as dyslexia, dyscalculia and dyspraxia.

What happened

17. Mr C is an adult man who was diagnosed as a child with a medical disorder and associated learning difficulties and mental health issues.
18. Mr C had a statement of special educational needs (SEN) and then later an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) throughout his childhood into adulthood. He also received support from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS).
19. In 2009 a psychologist assessed Mr C using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children. Mr C obtained a full-scale score of 62 which was at the 1st centile of the population and within the ‘extremely low’ range. Mr C’s EHCPs noted that he had MLD (moderate learning difficulty).
20. Mr C had been placed with his grandparents, following involvement from children services. He was 18 in 2017 but continued to have an EHCP and received support from agency 1 in the following years.
21. Mr C’s grandfather died in May 2021 and Mr C was now living alone in the house (his grandmother had previously died).
22. In July 2021 the Council received a referral for Mr C from an NHS occupational therapist (OT) who said Mr C’s needs for support had changed because of the death of his grandfather. She said M C’s aunts were temporarily providing the support the grandfather used to provide but they could not do so indefinitely. In addition, Mr C’s support from agency 1 was due to end.
23. The Council checked whether the Community Mental Health Team could support Mr C, but were informed that they could not.
24. The Council officer contacted Mr C and asked whether he needed support. Mr C said he did not need support as he was still receiving support from agency 1 so the officer advised Mr C to contact the Community Learning Disability Team (CLDT) if he needed support in the future.
25. Agency 1’s support worker rang the Council as she had spoken to Mr C about this telephone call. Mr C had told her that he was not sure who rang him, or what it related to so he had told the caller he was fine and did not need more support. Agency 1 told the Council that Mr C still needed and wanted the assessment. They were advised to ring a different number to request the assessment as Mr C lived in a different part of the borough.
26. Mr C’s EHCP dated 1 September 2021 said he continued to be entitled to education support from agency 1. However, the support ended in December 2021. In November 2022 the Council wrote to Mr C and said it would be ending the EHCP but he should get in touch with them if he wanted to challenge that decision. The Council did not receive a reply to the letter and closed the EHCP.
27. The police became involved with Mr C in January 2023 and asked the Council to carry out a mental capacity assessment of Mr C.
28. Mrs B rang the Council on 30 January 2023. Mrs B said Mr C was at risk of self-neglect. Mr C had a learning disability, mental health diagnosis and alcohol misuse issues. He was living on his own in the grandparents’ rented house. He had been served notice and was facing homelessness. She said Mr C was unable to do most things and could not live by himself. She and her sister had been providing all the support but could not continue to do so. Mr C was had been drinking for days, was losing weight and was self-harming. He needed an urgent assessment.
29. The Council forwarded the referral to the Council’s Community Learning Disability Team (CLDT) and the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT). Mrs B chased the Council on 6 February 2023, 15 and 17 February 2023.
30. On 17 February 2023 the Council said there was no evidence on the Council’s system that Mr C had a learning disability so the Council could not help him. The Council said Mr C was still waiting for allocation by the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) who may be able to support him. Mrs B said that Mr C had been waiting for 3 weeks and nothing had happened. Mr C needed urgent support and she was going to complain.
31. Mrs B complained to the Council about the delay on 20 February 2023.
32. On 14 March 2023 the CLDT was informed that the CMHT had decided Mr C did not meet their threshold for allocation. CLDT agreed to carry out an assessment of Mr C.
33. The Council replied to Mrs B’s complaint on 16 March 2023 and partially upheld her complaint. The Council said:
• ‘There should have been much more effective checking on [Mr C’s] health history which would have prevented the unnecessary delay in conveying the correct information to you.’
• There should have been better communication by duty officers in updating Mrs B on their actions.

Assessment – March 2023

34. The social worker assessed Mr C in March 2023 and noted the following.
• Mrs B said Mr C had a learning disability, mental health issues, issues with alcohol and was facing homelessness. Mrs B had been providing support as much as she could. Mr C was at risk of self-neglect. Mr C was unable to do most things, without support or prompting and she could not continue to provide the support that she had been providing.
• The social worker said Mr C was born with a medical syndrome and had difficulties learning at school.
• The social worker had not found evidence of Mr C’s learning disability in the records she had seen.
• Mr C struggled with his mental health and with alcohol misuse. He was not engaging with mental health services.
• Personal care. Mr C was able to manage his personal hygiene but needed to be prompted as he lacked motivation. The family offered prompts now and then.
• Being safe. Mr C was unable to manage his finances. He was unable to pay bills and had no idea about money. Mrs B managed his finances but said she could not continue to do so and wanted the Council to take over this role.
• Maintaining a habitable environment. Mr C could not clean his own home as it would not occur to him to clean. The family cleaned when they could and also provided a cleaner.
• Eating and drinking. Mr C was able to prepare simple food and the family offered support when needed.
• Access to the community. His aunts attended all appointments with him.
• Mr C had a problem with short-term memory. He could forget he had been asked to do something and needed reminding. He was easily distracted from a task and could forget to finish tasks.
• Mr C may be vulnerable to coercion or manipulation as he would make friends with anyone.
• Mr C had not engaged with an OT assessment. The OT assessment could have provided information of what Mr C’s independent living skills were. This would also include a Health eligibility assessment.
• Mr C’s primary needs were more related to his mental health issues and his lifestyle choices. He was drinking a lot and occasionally taking drugs.
• The social worker said Mr C had no unmet care needs but would benefit from support to look for suitable accommodation and support to access activities which would give him routine and structure. This could be achieved by signposting and support from the family.
35. The social worker noted: ‘Since I visited I do not (note: I think this is a typo) suspect that [Mr C] does have some form of LD. However, I feel that he does not meet our threshold for specialist LD services. [Mr C’s] primary needs are that he is struggling with alcohol and mental health issues.’

Mrs B’s complaint -

36. Mrs B disagreed with the assessment and complained to the Council. She said Mr C had had an EHCP (or the equivalent) since early youth and all the other agencies like the Department for Work and Pensions and Council Tax and professionals involved with Mr C like the GP had accepted that Mr C had a learning disability and was unable to work or live independently without support.
37. Mrs B said:
• Nutrition. Mr C was unable to shop for food, meal plan or cook and needed support in this area. He was unable to follow ‘use by’ dates or understand safe storage of food.
• Personal hygiene. Mr C did not routinely wash or shower himself and needed prompting.
• Being appropriately clothed. Mr C did not change his clothes and needed prompting. Mr C had the physical ability to dress himself but needed support to ensure the clothing was appropriate for the weather. He was not able to shop for clothes.
• Mr C was not able to launder bedding or towels and needed support in this area.
• Maintaining a habitable home. Mr C could not clean or maintain his home. He could not carry out repairs or hire someone to do so.
• He could not manage his finances, manage a bank account or pay bills.
• Developing personal relationships. Mr C had no social life and was unable to initiate social arrangements.
• Accessing work and education. Mr C was unable to access work.
• Accessing the community. Mr C needed support in accessing the community. He was unable to travel to new places unless he had travel training.
38. Mrs B also said:
• The Council had failed to take into consideration the support provided by the family or the family’s request that the Council provide the support instead of the family. The assessment had not been ‘carer-blind’.
• The social worker had said Mr C would not engage with mental health support. Mrs B pointed out that the mental health team had refused to offer Mr C any support as he did not meet their criteria.
• A lot of the assessment was copied and pasted from Mr C’s EHCP from 2015 and was either irrelevant or completely wrong. This included whole sections from the 2015 EHCP on the carers’ views, but Mrs B said these did not reflect her or the family’s current views or indeed Mr C’s responses.
39. The Council agreed to re-assess Mr C following Mrs B’s comments.

Further developments

40. Mrs B contacted the EHCP team on 5 April 2023 asking for help.
41. The EHCP team said it wrote to Mr C in November 2022. As they received no reply, the plan was ceased so Mr C no longer had an EHCP. The EHCP team agreed to refer Mr C for a review. The review took place in July 2023 and it was decided that Mr C needed 1:1 provision. He needed support around independence, route planning and decision making as well as support into work experience. The proposal was for agency 2 to provide the support and to reopen Mr C’s EHC plan.

Assessment – July 2023

42. CLDT re-assessed Mr C in July 2023. A lot of the assessment was unchanged from before, but the following was added:
• Contact was made with the EHCP team and they confirmed that Mr C’s EHCP ended in 2021. There was no mention of Mr C’s IQ within the assessment and no reference to a full-scale IQ assessment taking place.
• ‘Still following up on the information from family suggesting [Mr C’s] IQ range and diagnosis of moderate learning disability…’ On exploration of information provided by family no formal information can be found to support these statements, there is reference to learning difficulties…’
• A moderate learning disability meant an IQ of approximately 35 to 49 and no evidence could be found that Mr C’s IQ was within this range.
• ‘Mr C is aware of what is to be expected and required however it appears he may lack motivation.’
• ‘[Mr C’s] lack of motivation, lifestyle choices of staying up late some nights, sleeping patterns where he may sleep during the day, accompanied by the consumption of alcohol are contributing factors to [Mr C] not carrying out activities as frequently and at a higher ability than he is currently.’
• ‘The assessment carried out shows [Mr C] to have a lot of skills but does come across barriers of implementation and therefore a possible inability to independently meet needs without the support currently in place by aunties: a strong recommendation is for [Mr C] to receive an MDT (multi-disciplinary team) approach.’
43. The Council wrote to Mr C on 10 August 2023 and said he was not eligible for formal services from the Council’s CLDT. He may wish to explore support from the Council through a social work neighbourhood team.

Mrs B’s complaint – August 2023

44. Ms B emailed the Council immediately and said:
• The social worker had promised her, before he started the assessment, that he would discuss and agree the final assessment with her before sending it out. However, there had been no discussion and the Council simply wrote to Mr C to tell him he was not eligible for services.
• She strongly disagreed with the assessment and it was still full of inaccuracies.
• The assessment said Mr C did not have an EHCP, whereas his EHCP was now active again and she had told the social worker this during the assessment.
• The social worker appeared to suggest that Mr C’s failure to meet his own needs was a choice, whereas Mrs B was strongly of the view that the underlying problem was Mr C’s learning disability which meant he was unable to carry out daily tasks.

The Council’s response – 25 August 2023

45. The Council responded on 25 August 2023 and said:
• The social worker admitted that he had said that a draft assessment could be sent to her before finalising it. However, he finalised the assessment without doing so because ‘the lack of evidence of a learning disability or a defined IQ of [Mr C], due to this meaning Mr C is ineligible for services under the learning disability team…’
• Mr C’s EHCPs had the box ‘MLD’ ticked but he could not find a formal diagnosis or full-scale IQ assessment. Without the full-scale IQ, there was no evidence of a learning disability.
• He had signposted Mr C to the neighbourhood adult social care team.

Further information

46. CLDT contacted the EHCP team in August 2023 to ask whether Mr C had a learning disability and whether he had an active EHCP.
47. The EHCP officer told the CLDT that:
• Mr C did not have an active EHCP. However, agency 2 was due to visit Mr C and if Mr C engaged with some form of education, then the EHCP would be reopened.
• The team held a medical report for Mr C which noted Mr C’s learning difficulty. In addition, Mr C’s 2010 special educational needs statement referred to evidence from the school’s inclusion team and the paediatrician but unfortunately the EHCP did not hold that evidence from 2010.

Mrs B’s complaint – 29 August 2023

48. Mrs B escalated her complaint within the Council. She said she had contacted the adult social care neighbourhood team for a referral as advised and this referral had been automatically rejected.
49. The Council responded but its position remained unchanged. The Council said there was no evidence of Mr C’s IQ and therefore no evidence of his learning disability.
50. In September 2023, agency 2 started to provide support to Mr C three days a week as set out in his EHCP.

Further developments

51. Mrs B contacted the EHCP team in October 2023 as the CLDT had told her MLD on Mr C’s EHCP meant ‘mild learning difficulties’, but she did not know whether that was correct.
52. The EHCP team replied and said ‘MLD’ meant ‘moderate learning difficulties’.
53. Mrs B said:
• The CLDT had told her it would not help Mr C because he had a ‘learning difficulty’, but not a ‘learning disability’.
• Did the term ‘learning difficulty’ in education equate to ‘learning disability’ in other sectors?
54. The EHCP team said:
• ‘We have had this discussion with health. In education we use the term ‘learning difficulty’ and that is the term educational psychologists use.’
55. Mrs B asked the EHCP team to tell the CLDT that Mr C had an active EHCP as the CLDT had told her that the EHCP team had no record of an EHCP for Mr C.
56. There was then a further crisis in December 2023 when Mr C was at risk of self-harm and harm from others and the police made a referral to the Council. The Council agreed to carry out another assessment of Mr C.

Assessment – February 2024

57. The social worker assessed Mr C in February 2024 and noted the following:
• Maintaining nutrition. Mr C required support to prepare meals, to encourage him to eat, to shop for food, to remove out of date food and to clean the kitchen after food preparation.
• Personal hygiene. M C needed daily prompts to wash himself and to brush his teeth.
• Being appropriately clothed. Mr C needed support to ensure he was appropriately dressed. He needed support with laundry tasks and buying clothes when he needed them.
• Maintaining a habitable environment. Mr C needed a cleaner as he was unable to do the cleaning himself.
• Developing relationships. Mr C needed support to access activities in the community to enable him to form friendships. He attended agency 2 three times a week which helped.
• Accessing work and education. Mr C needed support in this area. Support was provided by the EHCP which meant that he attended agency 2 three times a week.
• Making use of the community. Mr C needed support in this are as he had difficulties travelling independently.
58. The social worker concluded:
• Mr C had complex needs as he had an underlying diagnosis with associated learning difficulties. He had mental health issues and self-harmed historically.
• Mr C received ‘significant support’ from his aunts to meet his needs. However, this level of support was not sustainable and therefore not a long-term solution.
59. The Council put in place a care plan for Mr C which included daily support.

Further information

60. The Council provided the following information in response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries.
61. In terms of the psychologist assessment of Mr C, the Council initially said:
• ‘[Mrs B] has on numerous occasions suggested that there was a psychologist assessment which indicated that [Mr C] has an IQ range below the threshold of a learning disability, however, she cannot provide a copy of this assessment and when the Service has approached [Mr C’s] GP and SEN Team, they have advised there is no record of the psychology assessment.
62. I then sent the psychologist’s assessment from 2009 to the Council and asked whether the Council now accepted that Mr C had a learning disability.
63. The Council responded and said Mr C had ‘learning difficulties’ and he may have a learning disability. The Council said that the 2009 assessment did not include an assessment of Mr C’s adaptive / social functioning and this was necessary to determine whether he had a learning disability. It also said that, as the assessment had been completed when Mr C was before the age of 16, this could affect the scoring and was not a definitive indicator of a learning disability.
64. I asked whether the Council would provide an up-to-date psychologist assessment of Mr C to determine whether he had a learning disability. The Council said it would not provide this as this was the GP’s role.
65. Mr C’s GP contacted the Ombudsman as he was very concerned about Mr C. I asked him whether he could refer Mr C to a psychologist, but he said he was not aware of this.
66. I asked Mrs B how she obtained the psychologist report of Mr C. She said that she made a subject access request for Mr C’s information to the Council. The Council initially said it did not have any information beyond 5 years. Mrs B threatened to appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Council then sent her the information.

Analysis

67. I have focussed my investigation on recent events covered by Mrs B’s complaint, after the EHCP was ended.
68. I note, first of all, that there were several positives in the Council’s actions. The EHCP team agreed to reengage with Mr C soon after Mrs B contacted them and reinstated the support from his EHCP.
69. Mrs B also said that the eviction process was halted and Mr C did not become homeless.
70. However, there were areas where the Council did not act in line with the statutory guidance.

Working together

71. Mr C had an EHCP so the Council had a duty to ensure that Mr C received an adult social care assessment and that there was a smooth transition of his support in the EHCP to support by the adult social care team.
72. Mr C was also a man whose needs were complex and fell under the remit of different Council departments and outside agencies. He had a medical syndrome, a learning disability, mental health concerns and alcohol misuse. The police, the Council’s housing department, children services, EHCP team, CAMHS, CLDT and adult social care team had all been involved with Mr C.
73. The Council therefore had a duty to proactively ensure there was internal cooperation between the different local authority departments and a duty to coordinate the involvement of different external agencies.
74. Instead, what happened was that Mrs B spent months approaching different Council departments and agencies asking for support for Mr C but was turned away because every department or agency said they were not responsible for Mr C. I could not see evidence of a coordinated approach within the Council to support Mr C or to ensure that all the departments worked together. I will discuss the actions of the Council in more detail below but to summarise the failure in terms of cooperation were:
• CLDT refused to assess Mr C between January and March 2023 because it could not find evidence of Mr C’s learning disability.
• CLDT refused to discuss the July 2023 assessment outcome with Mrs B as Mr C did not have a learning disability. It referred Mrs B to the adult social care team.
• The adult social care team refused to assess Mr C in July 2023 so Mrs B returned to the CLDT but CLDT said its position was unchanged.
• Poor communication between the EHCP team and CLDT about the transition and the underlying learning difficulty/disability of Mr C.
75. In the Care Act assessment dated July 2023 the Council made a ‘strong recommendation’ for a multi-disciplinary team approach but I saw no evidence that the Council progressed this in the following weeks and this was fault. A multi-disciplinary team meeting could have solved a lot of the problems which Mrs B encountered in trying to obtain support for Mr C.

Care Act assessments of Mr C

76. Mrs B contacted the Council in January 2023 as she was very concerned about Mr C. The Council had already previously received referrals from the OT and from agency 1 relating to Mr C in July 2021, but these had not been progressed to a referral. The Council therefore knew that Mr C’s Care Act assessment was overdue. In addition Mrs B had explained that there was a crisis as Mr C was drinking excessively, losing weight and at risk of self-neglect. The Council should have prioritised Mr C’s assessment.
77. Instead, the Council closed the referral because it said Mr C did not have a learning disability (see below). It only agreed to assess Mr C in March 2023 after Mrs B complained about the delay and after CAMHS had said it would not assess Mr C. This delay was fault.
78. There was also fault in the Council’s failure, in the first two assessments, to properly consider the support provided by Mr C’s aunts. The assessments were slightly contradictory as they said on the one hand that Mr C did not have support needs, but then on the other hand referred to all the support provided by Mr C’s aunts in the following areas:
• Maintaining nutrition.
• Maintaining personal hygiene.
• Being appropriately clothed.
• Managing finances.
• Maintaining a habitable environment.
• Accessing the community.
79. The Council said in its assessment of July 2023 that there was a ‘possible inability to independently meet needs without the support currently in place by aunties’. But Mrs B had clearly told the Council that she and her sister were no longer ‘willing or able’ to provide that level of support. The Council should have properly considered this in its assessment, but failed to do so and that was fault.
80. I note that the Council’s Care Act assessment from February 2024 finally acknowledged that Mr C had needs for care and support in all the areas that Mrs B had identified in her first complaint. It also fully acknowledged the level of support Mrs B and her sister had been providing and took this into consideration. I note that the Council put in a care plan which almost mirrored the support that Mrs B and her sister had been providing to Mr C.
81. However, it should not have taken almost a year and another crisis for this support to be put in place.

Consideration of evidence relating to Mr C’s learning disability

82. Generally speaking, it is the Council’s assessment of the person’s needs that determines the support they will receive. There is no requirement for a diagnosis so one could argue that it did not matter greatly what Mr C’s diagnosis was.
83. However, I have investigated Mrs B’s complaint because I am of the view that it mattered in Mr C’s case as the Council repeatedly referred to the lack of evidence of a learning disability as a reason for not assessing Mr C or offering support to Mr C.
84. In my view there were three faults in the way the Council considered this matter.
85. Firstly, the Council said there was no evidence that Mr C had ever been assessed by a psychologist, but it had a psychological assessment of Mr C from 2009. The Council should have had easy access to this report as it was carried out as part of its work with Mr C when he was a child. It should not have required a subject access request and a threat to appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office by Mrs B to obtain this information.
86. Secondly, there appeared to be a misunderstanding about the terminology of learning disability/difficulty between the EHCP team and CLDT and a lack of proper communication between the two departments. This was partly at the root of the Council’s refusal to accept that Mr C had a learning disability and may be entitled to support from the CLDT. It was left to Mrs B to communicate between the two departments to resolve the misunderstanding about the terminology. These two departments should have been working together to ensure a smooth transition.
87. After the Council was provided with evidence of the psychologist’s assessment and Mr C’s IQ score, the Council then said it would not accept that Mr C had a learning disability unless a fresh psychologist assessment was carried out. However, the Council did not offer to fund this assessment nor did it provide Mr C with any assistance in obtaining this assessment. This again showed the lack of a coordinated approach by the Council.

Injustice

88. Mr C has suffered an injustice of uncertainty as it is possible that, if the fault had not happened, he may have been entitled to support earlier. However, some of the injustice was mitigated by the fact that the Council started to provide some support in September 2023 by reinstating the EHCP.
89. Mrs B has also suffered an injustice as she had to provide the support to Mr C which the Council did not provide. In addition to supporting Mr C, Mrs B also spent the last year trying to obtain support from the different departments. Mrs B told me she had to become an expert in adult social care law, EHCPs and the roles of the different council departments and agencies because she felt that nobody wanted to help Mr C.
90. In cases such as this one, where there has not been a direct financial loss because of the fault, the Ombudsman can ask the Council to provide a symbolic sum to reflect the distress caused by the fault. I recommend the Council pays Mr C and Mrs B £500 each.
91. I asked Mrs B whether she felt that Mr C’s current package of support was appropriate.
92. Mrs B said the daily support provided in the care plan had made a big difference to Mr C. However, she said that, as the support was organised by the adult social care team, rather than the CLDT, it may not be entirely tailored to Mr C’s needs. She said the adult social care team did not have access to support agencies which specialised in supporting people with a learning disability and mental health issues.
93. Mrs B was also concerned that the three days’ support provided in the EHCP would end soon when Mr C turned 25. She was concerned as the Council had not put anything in place to replace this support.
94. As there were still concerns about Mr C’s current care package and the fact that the support in the EHCP will soon end, I also recommend the Council re-assesses Mr C and holds a multi-disciplinary meeting.

Back to top

Agreed action

95. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within 1 month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise to Mr C and Mrs B in writing for the fault that I have identified.
• Pay Mr C and Mrs B £500 each as a symbolic sum for the distress caused by the fault.
• Hold a multi-disciplinary meeting regarding Mr C. If it is the Council’s position that it needs a psychologist’s assessment of Mr C to support him better, then the Council should discuss at this meeting how the assessment will be obtained.
• Offer Mr C a re-assessment of his needs and revise his care plan accordingly.
• Remind all relevant officers of the importance to organise a smooth transition from support in the EHCP to adult social care support and the role of the Council in coordinating different departments and outside agencies.

Back to top

Final decision

96. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman