Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided what support Miss X needed after an assessment of care support and needs. It considered relevant information and there is no obvious flaw in how it decided. There was some fault in how it recorded its rationale for that decision and that fault caused Miss X an injustice. The Council have already taken action which is sufficient to remedy Miss X’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X said following an annual review of her care and support needs, the Council were wrong to remove some support it was providing to her, specifically relating to helping her with meal preparation in the evenings.
2. Miss X said she had to pay for care support by herself to make up for this shortfall and it adversely impacted on her mental wellbeing. She wants the Council to reinstate this support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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)
5. We also consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)
6. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information Miss X provided.
8. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
9. I considered the relevant legislation relating to this complaint.
10. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Assessment

11. 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.
12. 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

13. 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.

What happened

14. Miss X told us she is living with a degenerative medical condition and has a dependent child. Prior to this review, she had support from a care worker as follows:
• A morning visit carried out each day for 30 minutes duration, which included help with meal preparation, and;
• an evening visit carried out each day for one hour duration, to be used flexibly for her needs.
15. In July 2023, the Council reviewed Miss X’s care and support needs. The assessment, completed by a social worker, said Miss X was able to eat and drink independently. However, it said Miss X had said her condition was worsening and she needed support to provide personal care for her and her son. The social worker recorded Miss X had said she was unable to prepare and cook meals for herself.
16. The review also noted the social worker had discussed Miss X’s care needs with her care provider. According to the information they gave, it said care workers were being asked to carry out practical tasks that were not stipulated on Miss X’s care plan.
17. Following the assessment, the social worker decided the evening visit, which it noted was being used to support Miss X’s child, could no longer be provided for by the adult social care team. The social worker recorded that they asked Miss X to contact the Children Social Care to arrange for an assessment on her child’s needs.
18. In addition, the social worker removed the daily task of assisting Miss X with meal preparation from the new care and support plan.
19. Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council. The Council replied and said because the evening visit was being used to support her child, it was not able to carry on providing this service. It said this was because it wanted to ensure Miss X’s child’s needs were being properly safeguarded by the appropriate service.
20. Miss X complained to us and highlighted she also still needed support with preparing evening meals. We asked the Council how it had given this aspect consideration, because Miss X had identified this as a need, and the Council had removed this from the reviewed care and support plan.
21. In its reply to us the Council said the social worker had identified during the assessment process, firstly that Miss X was not using the evening visit to support her with meal preparation, and secondly said she was meeting her nutrition needs independently.
22. The Council accepted this second factor was not recorded on the care assessment.

My findings

23. It was appropriate for the Council to consider Miss X’s care and support needs and where it needs to, to take information from others. In this case it identified the evening visit was not being used to support Miss X’s identified needs and therefore there is no fault it decided to remove this visit.
24. Neither was there any fault in its substantive decision to remove support to Miss X for meal preparation. In line with our powers highlighted in paragraph five, we would not criticise a decision the Council took where it appears it has given proper consideration of all the information. Nor can we criticise a decision just because someone disagrees with it, we are not an appeal body. On balance, and based upon the evidence, it had information Miss X was meeting this need independently.
25. However, there was a fault in communication and record keeping, that it did not fully record its rationale for why this identified need did not need additional support on the recorded assessment.
26. That fault caused Miss X an injustice because of avoidable uncertainty about its decision making, and she then had to raise a complaint about the Council’s rationale. It is likely that had it been properly recorded and communicated at the time, she may not have complained.
27. During our enquiries the Council acknowledged this fault and said it had reinstated the evening visit for support around meal preparation. It also said it would complete another review of Miss X’s care and support needs within three months. I find this is a sufficient remedy for any injustice to Miss X and therefore do not need to make any further recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I am ending my investigation with a finding of fault causing an injustice, but the Council has already remedied any remaining injustice during our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman