Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to carry out an assessment of her son Mr C’s needs or provide support to enable him to access the community. We found the Council delayed for six months in carrying out a care needs assessment for Mr C and a carer’s assessment for Mrs B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay her £300, complete the assessments and improve its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that the London Borough of Sutton (the Council) failed to carry out an adequate assessment of her son’s (Mr C) care needs or provide support for him to access the community. He has not received any help transitioning to adult services since the Council cancelled his Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan when he left school. This has caused Mrs B and Mr C significant distress and he now rarely leaves the house.

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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have not investigated the actions of the Council in respect of the EHC Plan as this ended in 2016 and is too old to investigate now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mrs B and the organisation 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

7. Mr C has health conditions which affect his daily life. He is in receipt of disability benefits and lives at home with Mrs B and her husband. They have never asked for support from the Council. Mr C had a Blue Badge for several years which allowed him to park near to his destination, so he could go out into the community and see his grandparents, without needing someone with him. He could not park in the non-disabled spaces as he would have had to walk for 20 minutes in a busy area to reach his destination and this was too overwhelming for him.
8. In August 2023 the Council did not renew his Blue Badge. Mrs B contacted the Council towards the end of September 2023 to request help in appealing the decision not to award Mr C a Blue Badge. She said he was now spending all his time at home and believed his mental health was deteriorating due to lack of support and isolation. She asked for a carer’s assessment for herself and a referral for Mr C to the Learning Disability team for an assessment. She said no-one had called her back. She also submitted a complaint.
9. The Council took some time to decide which team should deal with the case as there was no presented evidence that Mr C had a diagnosed learning disability. The Council’s duty team spoke to Mrs B by telephone and said someone would be in contact.
10. At the beginning of October, the Council provided a person to support Mrs B in appealing the Blue Badge decision. Mrs B again requested a care act assessment to identify Mr C’s care and support needs. The Council referred Mr C’s case for an assessment but said evidence of a diagnosed learning disability was required before that could take place. The Council directed the case to the Post-25 team and asked Mrs B to provide medical evidence of Mr C’s diagnoses.
11. The duty team telephoned Mrs B to clarify the reason for an assessment. The notes say that Mrs B wanted support with the Blue Badge but did not want any other support such as day services or a youth club because the family had a routine in place which worked.
12. In early November the concessionary travel team confirmed it could not assess the Blue Badge application due to a lack of medical evidence, but the case had been escalated to management. In mid-November the Council said the case would be allocated in the post-25 Learning Disability Team for an assessment.
13. On 20 November 2023 the Council responded to Mrs B’s complaint. It said it had not progressed the case with either the Blue Badge or the assessments. It apologised for the failure and upheld the complaint. It said a duty worker would arrange to visit them and formulate a plan to ensure the correct services were put in place.
14. The Council arranged a home visit to discuss the Blue Badge and Mr C’s eligibility for an assessment for 5 December 2023. At the visit Mrs B and Mr C explained how significant the loss of the badge had been to Mr C’s wellbeing and daily life. She did not mention a need for any further support. They both said they were happy to have care act and carer’s assessments. The officer said this may not be with the Learning Disability Team as he did not appear to have a diagnosis of a learning disability, but they would discuss the case with their manager and get back to Mrs B. They felt a psychological assessment may be helpful.
15. Mrs B complained to us about the failure to contact them or carry out an assessment.
16. On 19 December 2023 a manager from the Learning Disabilities Team contacted the Blue Badge team. They said it was clear from the visit that Mr C will have eligible needs for a service from adult social care, but his needs arose more from autism rather than a learning disability. They said the loss of the Blue Badge was really affecting his wellbeing and they felt he fitted the criteria.
17. The Council once again debated which team should deal with Mr C’s case and confirmed the visit had not been for a care act assessment, but primarily to discuss the need for a Blue Badge. On 20 December 2023 it confirmed it would reissue a Blue Badge to Mr C and the local adult social care team would carry out the assessment. Mr C’s case was transferred to that team on 18 January 2024.
18. By the time I made enquiries in March 2024 Mr C’s case had not progressed at all with the new team. An assessment visit was then booked for 18 April 2024.

Analysis

19. The Council has delayed excessively in carrying out an assessment of Mr C’s care needs and a carer’s assessment of Mrs B. Mrs B first contacted the Council for support in late September 2023 the Council has only just booked an assessment visit, over six months’ later.
20. I appreciate that Mrs B’s main focus was on getting Mr C’s Blue Badge reinstated and the Council assisted her in doing so within two months. However, she repeatedly requested a care act assessment and carer’s assessment. The Council spent many weeks debating which team Mr C’s case fell within rather than organising a visit. Even after the Council had upheld Mrs B’s complaint in November and decided which team should deal with the case it failed to take any action to progress the case until the Council received my enquiries in March 2024.
21. It is unclear whether Mr C has missed out on any services, but he and Mrs B have been caused uncertainty and frustration by the delay, along with Mrs B’s time and trouble in pursuing the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mrs B and Mr C I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision:
• apologises to Mrs B and pays her £300; and
• completes the care needs and carer’s assessments for Mrs B and Mr C.
23. Within three months:
• considers introducing some form of systemised monitoring to ensure that when requests for an assessment are made, the Council makes a timely decision (ideally within four weeks) as to whether it will carry out an assessment, who will do it and the timeframe for doing it. The monitoring should continue to ensure the assessment is then completed in a timely manner.
24. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mrs B and Mr C and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman