Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not assess his needs properly, and wrongly decided he was ineligible for care and support. We found there was no fault in the Council’s assessments of Mr X’s care needs. However, the Council was at fault for not properly considering Mr X’s request for a video call assessment. This caused Mr X frustration and distress. The Council agreed to apologise and reconsider his request.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not assess his needs properly, and wrongly decided he was ineligible for care and support. He also complained the Council failed to tell him when his social worker left, and wrongly accused him of refusing to take part in a new assessment. He said the Council showed a lack of understanding of his health condition and housing issues.
2. Mr X said the matter has caused him significant distress and he is not getting the help and support he needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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

What I have investigated

5. I have investigated the actions of Hampshire County Council’s adults social care services, in particular the way in which it assessed Mr X’s need for care and support under the Care Act 2014.
6. Mr X’s complaint also relates to his housing situation. However, housing is the responsibility of Fareham Borough Council (who I will refer to as the Borough Council) and this is not part of my investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
8. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
9. 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

The Care Act

10. 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 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.
11. Councils must have a written record of their decision about a person’s eligibility. Where a council decides a person has eligible needs it must produce a care and support plan setting out how it will meet those needs.
12. An adult’s needs are only eligible where they meet all three of these conditions:
• The adult’s needs arise from or are related to physical or mental impairment or illness.
• As a result of the adult’s needs the adult cannot achieve two or more specified outcomes.
• As a result, there is, or is likely to be, a significant impact on the adult’s well-being.
13. Specified outcomes for care and support planning include the following:
1. Managing and maintaining nutrition.
2. Managing personal hygiene.
3. Managing toileting needs.
4. Being appropriately clothed.
5. Being able to make use of the adult’s home safely.
6. Maintaining a habitable environment. 
7. Developing or maintaining family or other personal relationships.
8. Accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering.
9. Making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community including public Transport and recreational facilities.
10. Carrying out caring responsibilities for an adult or child.

The Equality Act

14. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all.
15. 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.
16. 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.
• Sexual orientation.
17. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
18. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
19. 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.

What happened

20. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
21. Mr X has a complex health condition affecting his immune system. Triggers such as chemicals, fragrances, foods, bacteria, and mould can cause a life-threatening allergic reaction and difficulty breathing.
22. Mr X has a flat from the Borough Council, who are the relevant local housing authority. However, the flat has damp, making Mr X unwell. He therefore stopped living in the flat and started sleeping in his van, or staying with friends and family. He asked the Borough Council for a move to another home.
23. Mr X also approached the Council’s adult social care team asking for help.
24. A caseworker completed a care needs assessment for Mr X by telephone in October 2021. I will refer to them as Caseworker One. Caseworker One considered Mr X was not eligible for support under the Care Act as he can manage his physical health conditions independently.
25. Caseworker One spoke with the Borough Council about the condition of Mr X’s flat. The Borough Council said Mr X was on the waiting list for a one-bedroom home, but was not a priority as he is not homeless.
26. A second caseworker, who I will call Caseworker Two, completed a care needs assessment for Mr X in May 2022. Again, this was by telephone.
27. Caseworker Two also concluded Mr X was not eligible for support under the Care Act due to his physical health conditions because he is able to manage them independently. Caseworker One also found Mr X met his social care needs independently.
28. Caseworker Two spoke with the Borough Council about Mr X’s housing situation. The Borough Council again said Mr X was on the waiting list for a one-bedroom home, but was not a priority as he is not homeless.
29. Caseworker Two gave Mr X advice to ask his doctor to write to the Borough Council about his housing situation and give evidence about his medical condition.
30. Caseworker Two contacted Citizens Advice on Mr X’s behalf in October 2022, asking them to discuss a housing plan for Mr X going forward.
31. Also in October 2022, Mr X asked Caseworker Two for help with a medical appointment. Caseworker Two signposted Mr X to some support agencies and advocacy services.
32. Mr X contacted the Council’s adult social care service again in July 2023 when he could not contact Caseworker Two. He asked for housing support. Mr X mentioned evidence from his health professionals about the need to be appropriately housed. The Council advised Mr X to use this evidence to ask the Borough Council to repair his home or rehouse him. The Council asked Mr X about his care and support needs. Mr X said he could not have random people in his home due to his condition. He could not confirm any care needs he had. He said he experiences good and bad days. The Council identified Mr X’s primary support need was housing.
33. Mr X told the Council he could not stay in his flat due to his health conditions. He requested a social worker. Mr X made a formal complaint when he did not receive a response.
34. The Council shared Mr X’s previous assessment with him in August 2023. It confirmed he was not eligible for support under the Care Act as he can manage his health conditions independently.
35. The Council sent its complaint response in September 2023. It apologised no one told Mr X when Caseworker Two left the Council. It said it reassessed Mr X’s needs following his complaint, and concluded he is not eligible for support under the Care Act. This is because it established Mr X can independently meet the needs arising from his health conditions. The Council repeated the advice Caseworker Two gave Mr X about seeing his doctor to discuss the impact his housing conditions had on his health, and about the doctor writing to the Borough Council housing service on his behalf.
36. Mr X said he did not accept the Council’s response. He accused the Council of discriminating against him by not speaking to him before assessing his needs. He said he was not living with family, he lived in his van and stayed with friends and family occasionally. He said his doctor already wrote letters of support for his housing application.
37. The Council allocated a senior social worker, who I will call Caseworker Three, to assess Mr X’s needs and establish his eligibility for services.
38. Caseworker Three telephoned Mr X in October 2023 to arrange an assessment. Mr X declined a home visit at his flat due to the impact on his health. He also declined a meeting at a family members’ home, or in his van. Mr X asked for a video call. Caseworker Three said they needed to complete a face-to-face assessment for their review, as the last assessments were by telephone.
39. Mr X said his housing situation remained the same and the Borough Council has not been helpful. Caseworker Three explained the Council’s adult social care service has no control over housing. Mr X wanted adult social care to contact the Borough Council’s housing service as it would listen to social workers more than him. Caseworker Three said they could send a letter of support, but only after an up-to-date assessment. Mr X advised he had received a new diagnosis since his last assessment affecting his ability to do things. He also said his abilities fluctuate. Caseworker Three offered to meet Mr X outdoors somewhere, but he declined and wanted a video call. Caseworker Three said they would discuss this with a manager.
40. After speaking with a manager, Caseworker Three offered Mr X a meeting at a library, Council building, or doctor’s surgery.
41. Mr X was not happy with any options offered. He said the Council had no understanding of his condition. He cannot go into the suggested environments due to chemicals which would cause him to go into shock. Caseworker Three offered to meet Mr X where he current was, but Mr X declined.
42. Caseworker Three had more discussions with a manager about communication with Mr X. They noted Mr X’s first two assessments were completed by telephone because the Council was not seeing people in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They decided it was best practice to hold a face-to-face meeting now there were no longer restrictions in place.
43. Caseworker Three asked Mr X where would be best to meet, offering a library, council building, health building, or outdoor space of Mr X’s choosing.
44. Caseworker Three chased Mr X for a response in November 2023. They asked if Mr X wanted the Council to make a homelessness referral to the Borough Council.
45. Mr X did not give the Council permission to share his information and was unhappy with the service he received. He felt the Council reassessed him without speaking to him. He also felt the Council did not understand his medical condition prevented him from meeting in public places.
46. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in December 2023. We asked the Council to send Mr X a final complaint response.
47. The Council sent its final response in January 2024. It said it completed a virtual assessment in May 2022 but concluded Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria for services under the Care Act. It then completed a telephone consultation with Mr X in August 2023, again concluding he was not eligible for support. Caseworkers gave Mr X advice on how to best progress his housing application.

My investigation

48. Mr X told me he was in correspondence with a social worker over a three-month period. Unbeknown to him, the social worker left the Council. Mr X’s calls and emails to them were going unanswered. When Mr X managed to get back in touch with the Council it agreed to do a third assessment but decided he was not eligible for support despite not completing the assessment.
49. Mr X said he wanted help finding suitable housing and that adult social care has a legal responsibility to help him with this. Mr X spoke to Shelter and Citizens Advice, but they were not helpful.
50. Mr X’s main complaint is that he had a social worker allocated to him, but the Council denies this. He also complains the Council said he failed every assessment, which Mr X said is not true. Mr X said he failed the first assessment but reapplied and passed the second assessment. The Council then assigned a social worker, but they left, and he was not told. When he complained the Council reassessed him and said he was not eligible for support.
51. The Council told me it carried out virtual assessments for Mr X in October 2021 and May 2022. It found Mr X was meeting his own needs so was not eligible for care and support. Caseworkers then signposted Mr X to the voluntary sector.
52. The Council also told me an officer who was not familiar with Mr X’s case wrote to him after he telephoned in. Their letter states there was a third virtual assessment in August 2023, which is not correct. The conversation Mr X had with the Council in August 2023 reconfirmed the assessment findings from May 2022. This was not a fresh assessment. The Council also repeated this inaccuracy to Mr X in a complaint response. The Council apologised for any confusion this error caused.
53. The Council said it offered to re-assess Mr X, but could not find a venue he approved of. It is prepared to assess Mr X again to see if his situation has changed. The Council recommends this should be face to face, as previous virtual assessments did not meet Mr X’s expectations. It said it will do its best to meet Mr X in surroundings he considers appropriate.

Analysis

54. Two separate assessments from different caseworkers concluded Mr X did not have eligible needs for support under the Care Act. I reviewed the assessments and found no evidence of fault in the way the caseworkers completed them. The decisions were the officer’s professional judgements, based on the information Mr X gave, and there is no basis on which I can question their decisions. It is not my role to decide whether Mr X has eligible needs for support, I can only consider whether there was fault in the assessment process, and I did not find there was any.
55. Both caseworks spoke to the Borough Council about Mr X’s housing situation, but they cannot influence housing decisions made by another authority. They also signposted Mr X to agencies in the community where he could get advice and support. I found no evidence of fault in the caseworker’s actions.
56. I appreciate Mr X believes he ‘passed’ the second assessment, but that was not the case. Caseworker Two did continue to offer Mr X support and advice on his housing situation after the second assessment, but the Council was not providing Mr X with any paid service and Mr X did not have a care and support plan.
57. However, Caseworker Two was offering Mr X support when he asked for it. They should therefore have told Mr X they were leaving so he would know who to contact. This resulted in confusion and frustration for Mr X when he tried to contact Caseworker Two and the Council told him he did not have a caseworker.
58. Unfortunately, the Council then caused Mr X more confusion and frustration by incorrectly telling him it carried out a third needs assessment and again finding him ineligible for support. This led Mr X to believe the Council re-assessed him without speaking to him. I found this was a genuine mistake which occurred as a result of the Council sending Mr X a further copy of his second needs assessment in August 2023. Officers who reviewed Mr X’s case later incorrectly thought this was a third assessment.
59. The Council apologised and offered to re-assess Mr X. I consider this is sufficient remedy for the injustice.
60. When the Council offered to re-assess Mr X, it wanted to do so face-to-face. Mr X did not agree to this due to his health condition. He wanted a video call assessment. When the Council considered this request, it noted it carried out the first two assessments when there were contact restrictions because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that was why they were by telephone rather than in person. The Council considered those restrictions were no longer in place and it needed to see Mr X in person to properly assess his needs.
61. While I can appreciate the Council’s reasoning, and the fact it offered to meet Mr X in a place of his choosing, I do not consider it properly took account of Mr X’s medical condition and the risks he described. Although not framed as such, his request for a video assessment was effectively a request for reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. Mr X has an enduring medical condition, which could be classed as a disability under the Equality Act. While I do not say the Council must agree to Mr X’s request, I found it was at fault for not properly considering Mr X’s medical condition, how it affects him when meeting people in different environments, and what duties it may owe him. The Council’s lack of consideration caused Mr X frustration and distress.

Back to top

Agreed action

62. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for not properly considering his medical condition and associated risks when he asked for a video call assessment.
• Consider whether it should agree to Mr X’s request for a video call as a reasonable adjustment, taking into account his medical condition and the Council’s duties under the Equality Act.
63. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

64. I completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s assessments of Mr X’s care needs. However, the Council was at fault for not properly considering Mr X’s request for a video call assessment.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman